Looks like someone, (John the De-Baptist?) could make a killing here. 10,000 debaptism certificates and x dollars a piece? Who says capitalism is dead?

sad.

This is terrific. It only gives credibility to Baptism.

I thought atheists were supposed to be smart.

Wonder if it could be tweaked so those that get deprogrammed from The Global Church of Climate Scientology want proof they are no longer Believers.

I don't know if it's a mass attack of mental illness, or just sheer stupidity!

De-baptism! Now I MUST have heard everything, until the next lunatic action!

As an affirmed atheist, I would NEVER ask to be de-baptized. I mean, suppose I'm WRONG! ;-)

Being a conservative, I never felt the need to ask the government for a form to renounce the baptism.

Just went right ahead and ignored the whole process.

Hula hoops were big when I was a kid.

Christ Almighty!

where do I apply to get de-circumcised?

Shouldn't that be a Form 27B-stroke-6?

Bad news sabre0...........

These nutbars are becoming as big a pain in the ass as the intrusive idiots who take every opportunity to inject their religious beliefs into any conversation. All they are managing to do is demonstrate their lack of conviction in their beliefs (non-beliefs?). Any time someone has to make a spectacle of themselves (look at me! look at me! I'm different!)in order to get their views recognized it is a sure sign of their lack of a core belief in the views they espouse so loudly.

*
"The fact that people are willing to pay for the parchments
shows how seriously they are taking them."

or, more to the point... how gullible they are. what's it
good for anyway... besides pissing off granny.

this is the "pet rock" of 2009.

*

"where do I apply to get de-circumcised?"

lol

man o' man but i HATE "athiests".

I think if they truly want to be de-baptized they should be dipped in mud then placed in a coffin.

Baptism means leaving a sinful state of death behind and embarking on a clean life. One is baptized from death to life and is cleansed by the finished work of Jesus Christ on the Cross and his resurrection.

Yawn

This serves to show how utterly childish and hate-filled some people can be. Are there any adults left in Great Britain?

I'd pay at least 25 cents for a parchment stating that I renounce Gaia. OTOH, I could just run something up on Photoshop and print it on my computer for about the same price, though I have no idea how I could persuade anyone to look at it. I wonder if Chapters sells blank parchment.
There must be a market for 'I renounce -----' bumper stickers. I hope some entrepreneur looks into it.

These people are putting themselves in great peril. Once de-baptised, they will revert to having the "original sin" back on their souls. You know, the one that the skank Eve committed by cozying up to the snake and eating an apple. And 'skank' is not too harsh a word since it is she who had us all tossed our of the garden of eden ... remember that???

That means that when they die, they will have spend all eternity in a place called Limbo. Although, if they die with a lot of other sins on their soul, the Limbo reservation will be down graded to Hell.

I suppose it might said that and apple a day keeps heaven away.

At least that's how this catholic atheist understands it.

Lastly, there are almost no atheists in any prisons in the USA. They aren't stupid enough for that.

A few upsides to being atheist.

1. You get to sleep in on Sunday
2. You get to live a relatively guilt free life
3. You save 10% of you dough
4. You get to read a variety of books
5. You get to be more realistic about how we all got here
6. You don't have live in fear of spending all eternity in hell burning

Please list the upsides of believing that there is a magical mystical almighty being who created the entire universe as a back-drop for ..... us!

And what the hell has he got against Africa?

All that aside, I do believe in Christian values but only because they make sense. You know ... be nice, don't kill, don't steal etc ... but only IF you can leave out the supernatural stuff.

:0)

i refute the Pelagian heresy and i feel the symbolism of a baptism is a harmless endearing highly stylized cult ritual...

OK. Here we go.

From this misinformed article:

"De-baptism organisers say the initiative is a response to what they see as increasing stridency from churches -- the latest last week when Pope Benedict XVI stirred global controversy on a trip to AIDS-ravaged Africa by saying condom use could further spread of the disease."

The Pope's actually correct. In areas hard hit by AIDS the spread of condoms promotes promiscuity because many people believe that using them makes everything safe. Condoms distributed in Africa, especially in rural areas, are often unreliable.

A condom in New York, for instance, is not the same thing as a condom twenty kilometres inside the African bush. Some of them sit in containers in a port, under the sun, for two or three months. By the time they're brought out on bicycles and passed out in the bush, many are no longer effective because latex is heat-sensitive. The people wearing them, however, are told, "Put these on, and you’ll be safe."

Promoting more responsible sexual behavior is the most effective anti-AIDS strategy, and it's been proven in Uganda where the ABC program has been in effect for some time: Abstinence, Be faithful, use Condoms.

In 1991, Uganda's HIV prevalence peaked at about 15% (30% among pregnant women in urban areas). After the ABC program was introduced, its prevalence turned sharply downward and reached 5% (14% for pregnant urban women) by 2001.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/5/gr060501.html

It IS possible for people to change their mentality and their behaviours when the facts are put before them. Anyone who thinks that condoms (which have a failure rate of 20% for pregnancy when used "properly" -- and a much greater failure rate for S*xually Transmitted Diseases which can be contracted 365 days of the year) are the answer to the spread of HIV/AIDS obviously hasn't done their homework.

And, BTW, there was barely any controversy in Africa itself. The "controversy" was stirred up not by Pope Benedict but by the international press. Go figure.

More room upstairs for the rest of us. It may start to get a bit crowded down below, though.

Who's rejecting reality? It seems these atheists want to pretend an historic event in their lives never occurred, to toss it in the memory hole and be done with it.

Don't like that it happened, fine, reject it and move on. If you must, make a public statement renouncing the 'faith' you think was somehow foisted upon you & affirm what you do believe.

Saying you want to undue or otherwise strike the record of having gone through some religious rite as a child just seems silly.

Just about as silly as willingly going through with some relgious rite.

Damn.

Now I almost want to go get baptized, just so I can turn around and get a certificate of De-Baptism.

Seems like a hassle, though. And the idea of being washed by a "celibate" man who spends a lot of private time with altar boys ... somehow it just doesn't hold much appeal for me.

Just about as silly as willingly going through with some relgious rite.

But I thought atheists were supposed to be so much more sophisticated & intelligent than us religious rubes.

At least that's what I usually hear (not specifically referring to you here, AtlanticJim, I don't know your view on the subject).

To Saber0 and Atlanticjim!

http://www.circlist.com/considering/recircumcision.html

If you want to be de-baptized I'm your man.
For a mere $350. I will rub your forehead with a Shamwow towel (you know the Germans make good stuff) and yell, Out, Out damn spot at the top of my lungs. If you respond in the next twenty minutes, I can't do this all day folks,I will include your wife for only $100. That's a $700. value for only $450.

Does anyone else see the logical contradiction here? Atheists are willing to pay money to perform a reverse-ritual. But wait, they don't believe the original ritual held any meaning, so why even bother performing a reverse-ritual? Performing a reverse-ritual implies that the original ritual had some meaning or purpose.

Excellent.

This will make their assimilation into islam much easier in the next year or two.

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

"But wait, they don't believe the original ritual held any meaning, so why even bother performing a reverse-ritual"

Of course it had meaning - it was a ritualistic, superstitious initiation ceremony performed on an innocent child. How the hell could that NOT have meaning?

Presumably, you don't believe in Allah, right? But if some Muslims made off with your child and indoctrinated him into their religion, would that have some meaning for you?

Why is it that Christians seem to be completely unable to use their brains when contemplating religion or irreligious? I've met SO many smart people whose minds just completely shut off as soon as religion comes up as a topic, and they start spewing the kind of nonsense that you just did. No logic, no rational basis, no facts. Just spurious accusations, ludicrous conclusions, and blind belief. I don't get why any sane, intelligent human being would act in such a manner ...

My bumper sticker reads:

Jeez if you love, honkus!

Momar-1

In answer to your question - what are the benefits of being a Christian.

1. The most powerful being in the entire universe is your Father and you are dearly loved by him.

2. Sins are forgiven and we too live guilt free - "There is no condemnation for those who believe in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1)

3. What is the price of five sparrows—two copper coins*? Yet God does not forget a single one of them.  And the very hairs on your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are more valuable to God than a whole flock of sparrows.
 “I tell you the truth, everyone who acknowledges me publicly here on earth, the Son of Man* will also acknowledge in the presence of God’s angels.  But anyone who denies me here on earth will be denied before God’s angels. (Lk 12:6-10).

4. Keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you.  For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. “You parents—if your children ask for a loaf of bread, do you give them a stone instead?  Or if they ask for a fish, do you give them a snake? Of course not!  So if you sinful people know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good gifts to those who ask him.
(Mt 7:7-11).

5. Hope, peace, joy, faith, comfort and Love.

6.  “Again, the Kingdom of Heaven is like a fishing net that was thrown into the water and caught fish of every kind.  When the net was full, they dragged it up onto the shore, sat down, and sorted the good fish into crates, but threw the bad ones away.  That is the way it will be at the end of the world. The angels will come and separate the wicked people from the righteous,  throwing the wicked into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.  Do you understand all these things?”. (Mt 13:47-51)

7. “If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me.  If you try to hang on to your life, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for my sake, you will save it.  And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?* Is anything worth more than your soul?  For the Son of Man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father and will judge all people according to their deeds
(Mt 16:24-27).

8. “I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven.  So anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.
 “And anyone who welcomes a little child like this on my behalf* is welcoming me. But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.
“What sorrow awaits the world, because it tempts people to sin. Temptations are inevitable, but what sorrow awaits the person who does the tempting. (Mt 18:3-7).

9. Security, answered prayer, grace...just to name a few.

Well it is good to see that people are using thier freedom to renounce thier faith or lack there of. No big deal to me. But if this genaration feels the smugness of thier self liberation I would like to ask them what are they doing now for the freedoms of thier future children?
Because in twenty to fifty years most of Europe's future genaration will have much of a choice now will they? And I think most here know of what I speak.

Can I order one as a gift and have it sent to the Reverend Wright with a tax receipt ?

"Keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives."

Except for amputees. God just really hates those poor bastards.

Anyway, he was asking for the benefits of Christianity, not a religious sermon. Of the 9 "points" you wrote, only number 5 would actually be a tangible benefit, and you could achieve the same things by being secular (as I do), or believing in Thor. Ergo it's not a benefit of Christianity.

Ditto for number 9, except that it's not even a tangible benefit. You could argue that it's a benefit of religion in general, but certainly not Christianity in particular, since it's been experienced by believer of every religion which has ever been made up. And it's not a tangible benefit because we know that it's a delusion - prayers are never answered, and false security isn't of benefit to anyone. People simply attribute happenstance to prayer. You could spend the next year praying to a pair of panties, and your prayers would be "answered" at roughly the same rate as now.

Try being a Christian, Alex. Then, you'll find out about all of the "benefits." They're out of this world, and I'm not joking ...

Try being a Scientologist, Batb. Then, you'll find out about all of the "benefits." They're out of this world, and I'm not joking ...

Rational reasons to believe in God.

There is an order to everything from the smallest atom to the largest galaxy. These laws apply everywhere and can be discovered by those who seek to learn them.

Everything man creates is subject to whim and error.

Therefore we did not create the universe of the laws that govern it.

Most everything in nature is regenerating and sustainable. All the plants and animals alive today are from life that has been passed on from time unknown.

Everything that man creates is subject to decay.

We did not create life, we only participate in a process established long before our existance on this planet. We manipulate it and manage it, but it was never our making.

Everything about the sustainablitiy of our lives, from our heart beating, the color of our hair, to what diseases we are prone to is written in a code our minds are only starting to decode, but our bodies have understood since we were a single cell.

We have never written a book as complex as this ever. We aren't obedient to most of the laws we do write. Yet our bodies obey perfectly everything that was written in our cells.

So some unseen entity, brought order to the smallest atom to the most distant star. It likes life, and seeks to make it self-sustainable and remarkably self-healing. It wrote the most intimate details of our lives so that we wouldn't have worry about the correct formula for breast milk, but just feed our children.

Science is but the study of the laws that govern the world and our lives. It did not create it. We did not create it. Call it what you will, from the beginning of time, we have called it God.

You may reject different religions, but to reject the existance of God is not rational. To try to find our more about Him is wisdom.

Of course it had meaning - it was a ritualistic, superstitious initiation ceremony performed on an innocent child

The incredulity you are seeing is based on the fact that most protestant Christians believe baptism is a symbol, a public declaration of ones faith in Jesus (or, for infant baptism, a recognition of the child as being a part of the covenant community). It is a symbol which does not itself either bestow salvation, grace or any other metaphysical attributes on the one receiving the baptism.

Cases of re-baptism do occur within the Church, but not because the first didn't take, but typically because a person comes to Christ as an adult and the first (usually infant) baptism was meaningless to them. The other case I can think of is when an individual is baptized originally into a "church" they believe is unscriptural (Roman Catholicism or Mormonism, for example).

However, re-baptisms are not intended to somehow undue what has been done; its just that we view that first one as an empty religious rite devoid of any true meaning.

Good post No-One. Get ready for the backlash and rude behaviour from the 'secure within themselves' athiests.

I've seen a growing tendency on this blog to bash Christians more and more. Remarks like, we don't need those Christians in the Conservative movement. Remarks like, we should appeal more to the progressive segment of society. It's only going to get worse. You and I both know that.

Whatever. When the progressives finally and totally throw God out of society they'll get something else to fill the void. The opposite of God.

Don't believe in God? Who cares. I do. You sew the wind, you reap the whirlwind.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster will wreak havoc upon ALL you unbelievers soon.
Ramen.

1. You get to sleep in on Sunday: I sleep in too, and go to mass at 11 am.
2. You get to live a relatively guilt free life: you mean like worrying about how my refrigerator is causing global warming?
3. You save 10% of you dough: for what, more cookies? Go on a diet fatso
4. You get to read a variety of books you mean like Boys 'n Barnyards and the Koran?
5. You get to be more realistic about how we all got here you mean like how your father is a toad and your mother is a tapir?
6. You don't have live in fear of spending all eternity in hell burning I don't spend any time fearing the fire of Hell, but say that again about one minute before you die, then I might believe you

and they start spewing the kind of nonsense that you just did.

Like defending atheism by accusing every/most/many/etc. Roman Catholic priests of being pederasts? (Especially when the ones you do mean were homosexuals and not pederasts.)

And, FYI, the child isn't "washed" in a baptism.

Momar-1:

The reason why there are few atheists in prison is because they can tell the parole board that they've found Jesus.

Next the atheists will be organizing Anti-Lent and Un-Easter.

The former will be celebrated by gluttonous binging on chocolate while the latter will be observed by rolling the tombstone from the grave to deposit the corpse.

This will be known by atheists as Death by Chocolate followed by gentle roasting over an open fire in Non-Hell.

A more moronic brood of vipers it would be hard to imagine.

Oh, oh God DENIERS!

And these people are the "ENLIGHTENED" ones.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

If this form becomes a requirement for a Government job, does that leave Quebec without a civil service?
(or is that the point?)

I'm *dying* to hear an explanation of how a grassroots, capitalist movement like the one linked in this post is somehow a threat to you Christians? There is no government organization trying to eliminate your religion here...there's no promotion of an alternative religion at the expense of yours. It's simply a story about people who have chosen to protest a church that they see as wrong-headed, using a wholly symbolic gesture. Does this sound like any other symbolic gestures undertaken on, say, last Saturday at about 8:30 PM?

Why are you so threatened?

What I meant, Alex, is that you can never experience the benefits of anything without becoming a participant. Asking what are the benefits of Christianity and then treating others' sincere answers with contempt, reminds me of pearls being offered to swine.

Your juvenile put downs and your disdain for people's heartfelt beliefs is no credit to you.

John the Baptist and Jesus Christ baptized adults, not children. I do not imagine a child that is not even able to understand the concept of asking for forgiveness and washing away of sins would be held to account after a baptism.

Alex: Sso that's why I have to keep going back to my prosthetist. I'm at the bottom of "God's food chain" :-)

batb:

I'm sure Alex also believes in free speech, as long as he's doing the speaking.

Just because your an atheist doesn't mean you have to be adick about it!

Or does it?

I'm *dying* to hear an explanation of how a grassroots, capitalist movement like the one linked in this post is somehow a threat to you Christians?

As a Christian I'd be interested too ... I haven't heard anyone here even mention being threatened by this.

Alex;

I'm not into voodoo therefore I would feel no need to try and remove a curse someone tried to put on me. As Brendon said, "But wait, they don't believe the original ritual held any meaning, so why even bother performing a reverse-ritual?" If you can't understand that you're not the sharpest tool in the box.

"What I meant, Alex, is that you can never experience the benefits of anything without becoming a participant"

Ditto. So when will you be joining the Church of Scientology? You know - just to test their claims, in case Xenu gets you more shit than this Yahweh character ....

"Your juvenile put downs and your disdain for people's heartfelt beliefs is no credit to you."

Ridiculous beliefs need to be ridiculed, regardless of how deeply someone may believe them. Most of the commenters here seem to have no problem at all with dismissing and ridiculing the "heartfelt beliefs" of the AGW crowd, or repeatedly insulting the "heartfelt beliefs" of Muslims, so why in the world would you expect anyone to treat your religion any differently?

It's because you really DO believe that you're special, isn't it? You see yourselves as better than everyone else, and expect to be treated as such. You can't believe that sinners would dare to challenge your moral high-ground. Is that it?

As a Christian I'd be interested too ... I haven't heard anyone here even mention being threatened by this.

I took a leap of logic: if atheists who ridicule or vocally protest organized religion are insecure in their non-faith, then exactly the same can be said about Christians who ridicule (or wish dead, i.e. No-One 4:42 PM) atheists.

bob:

Weird - hundreds of women were burned alive for the crime of casting a curse on Christians. You seem to be at odds with your religion!

As for voodoo ... trust me, if Voodoo were the dominant religious belief in our society, you certainly would want to disassociate yourself from it in every way possible. Or rather, I would. You'd probably buy into it.

RW, who says we're "threatened"? I in no way feel threatened by this infantile and mean-spirited nonsense. It just saddens me to see such a waste of energy, and such a miscomprehension of what baptism actually is.

There are comments increasingly made by anti-Christian individuals and organizations which make it abundantly clear that those making them have a totally inaccurate understanding of what they are criticizing. That is frustrating.

Also, seeing as our Western democracies have been founded upon Judeo-Christian values (FACT) and seeing as many in the West are trashing the J-C principles which have guaranteed our democratic freedoms in the West, it is of some concern -- concern for everyone, believers, non-believers and atheists alike -- that we seem to be axing the root of the tree in which we have all found shelter for many centuries.

When the tree comes crashing down, where will we find sustenance, shade, and shelter? Certainly not from the barren ground or the deep hole which will be left -- or from all of the atheist charities which are so prolific.

Alex:

Not sure what you your problem is with a philosophy that teaches people they have free will to make their choices and they are individually responsible for those choices.

I am a sinner, that is I'm not perfect.

Therefore, the premise in your last sentence is incorrect and in fact, is backwards. It is God who judges a person's heart, since no other human being is capable of understanding another human's thoughts and intentions.

Not sure where you get the notions you do, but my religious experience is nothing like your ignorant generalizations.

To me this is just more nonsense by modern morons. They are free to not to believe in God all they want. Its their eternal loss. Free will is God’s gift.

This though is what really worries Bible loving Christians.
This insidious doctrine has joined up with Islamofacism. What’s worse is its being done in Churches on the sly from Catholics to Evangelicals. Its a great Heresy. Some are calling this the GREAT Apostasy before the coming of Yeshua as found in prophecies in the Old & New testaments.
These guys want to marry the Church to the World again, plus their theology on Israel is heresy.
The Church is Christ’s Bride. Israel His people. The whole purpose is for the Messiah to come back to set up a Jewish Kingdom. Read Revelation.
You may think this is goofy or a belief in God. It makes no matter, when multiple millions do. Things happen. This whole dogma is known a Dominion Theology. A cursory look at scripture shows how far in left field this group is. Their bits & pieces types. They contradict most Christian beliefs under the guise of true followers of Jesus.

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cor/dominion.htm

JMO

Oh Alex do lighten your load in non-Confession.

If you feel that Christians are all full of 'jiggery pokery' fine; you are entitled to your opinion.

Whether your opinion has any merit is another question entirely.

You then bring in the the notion of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) which can be debated objectively whether you are atheist, Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu, Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

You seem to think that having a religion somehow prevents people from making observations which everyone can attend to, by presenting a full accounting of the facts at hand. Your assumption is quite simply false.

The "Un-Baptism" was obviously intended by atheists as good sport to 'stick it to the Christians' once again. Then when the Christians reply in kind you get your nose out of joint.

If you can't take the heat of AGW then get out of the kitchen.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

I took a leap of logic: if atheists who ridicule or vocally protest organized religion are insecure in their non-faith, then exactly the same can be said about Christians who ridicule (or wish dead, i.e. No-One 4:42 PM) atheists.

From my perspective at least, you took your leap in the wrong direction.

I don't see these men & women as being insecure in their faith; I see them as symbolically, even religiously, declaring their faith in atheism. It is that juxtaposition that I think has prompted many of the comments here.

As an aside, I think you completely misread No-one's 4:42 PM comment. He seemed to be simply commenting on what the symbolism would be for an anti-baptism (i.e., the opposite of the symbolism used in baptism). I really don't think it was intended as some sort of death-wish upon atheists (I could be wrong though I guess ... just doesn't seem that way).

Revnant:

My denomination is totally opposed to the ecumenist movement which you describe.

I have a book put out in the mid-70s which warn about the movement to forment this ‘new religion' which has moved away from the tenets of early Christianty.

Sadly, it is a chillingly accurate prediction.

"Not sure what you your problem is with a philosophy that teaches people they have free will to make their choices and they are individually responsible for those choices."

Eh? Whoever said I had something against Buddhism?

"It is God who judges a person's heart, since no other human being is capable of understanding another human's thoughts and intentions."

Sounds good - since I don't believe in your magic man, I can judge you and pronounce you a fool. And since you DO believe in him, you don't get to judge me! Sweet deal. This non-belief stuff gets better and better all the time.

"Not sure where you get the notions you do, but my religious experience is nothing like your ignorant generalizations."

Oh-oh! You're judging! How dare you presume to take God's job! Better stop before you get smitten!

Let's get serious for a minute: nothing you've said means ANYTHING. Let's take a look, sentence by sentence:

1. You pointed out a couple positive aspects of your religion. Whopee. That's like saying Mussolini made the trains run on time.

2. You admitted to being imperfect - as if such a thing needs to be pointed out.

3-4. You claimed that an invisible fairy-man in the sky is the only one who gets to judge people. You provided no evidence that such a being exists, let alone that your assertions about him/her/it are in any way accurate. You didn't even provide a rational for how you could possibly know such things. You simply made a silly statement, and expected to be taken seriously.

5. Ignoring what you just finished saying in sentence 4, (and, incidentally, proving the accuracy of sentence 2) you went on the attack, using supposed personal experiences to dismiss my claims.

Now do you see why I laugh in your face?

It's because you really DO believe that you're special, isn't it? You see yourselves as better than everyone else, and expect to be treated as such. You can't believe that sinners would dare to challenge your moral high-ground. Is that it?

I am better than no-one here and, on my own, have no high ground on which to stand. I have every reason to expect you are a better person in comparison to me.

That said, I've examined the evidence and have come to the conclusion that Christianity is the best explanation for the facts we have. While yes, there are other emotional or metaphysical aspects which confirm my belief, it is not built on such things alone.

An extended discussion of this is out-of-scope for this venue, but one book I highly recommend, if you are interested, is "The Reason for God" by Timothy Keller (the author has a video explaining his book if you want to get a taste of his style on his website of the same name).

Also, seeing as our Western democracies have been founded upon Judeo-Christian values (FACT) and seeing as many in the West are trashing the J-C principles which have guaranteed our democratic freedoms in the West, it is of some concern -- concern for everyone, believers, non-believers and atheists alike -- that we seem to be axing the root of the tree in which we have all found shelter for many centuries.

You have a valid concern, I think. I believe in those values myself, and I fear for what our society will become if the conflicting values are allowed to continue spreading (in the name of "tolerance"). However, while the founders of Western countries may have believed that their values were derived from divine sources, I don't. Rather, I think the early religions derived their values and commandments from basic human values, especially those which support a peaceful, functioning civilization.

I don't advocate chopping down your metaphorical tree. A better metaphor is to say that I advocate removing the Christmas decorations from the tree that forms the "shelter" of our civilization. And no, this doesn't mean that I want Christmas trees removed from shopping malls.

Alex;

What makes you think I'm religiously inclined? You're quite the arrogant little SOB aren't you? For the record, I'm not, but neither do I consider myself an atheist. I'd like to be but unfortunately, insufferable boors like you gave it a bad name a long time ago.

Oh, and if voodoo were "the dominant religious belief in our society" I most certainly would not need to "disassociate" "from it in every way possible." No, I would simply and unceremoniously walk away.

Atheists have their own church it is called the ACLU
"Our Forefathers Freely put "In God We Trust" on America's Money and let citizens have the Freedom to exercise their beliefs, as they saw fit.
The government kept out of it.
Then along came the ACLU with a Political Agenda of making Atheistism the Official Church of the United States. Seeking to not only promote the atheist belief, but to force all of America's Children to worship that Religion.
These Atheists Religious Extremists, seeking to impose their beliefs, and practices, on everyone else, embarked on a policy of filing suit whenever any religion, other then the religion of atheistism, was practiced in public.

They twisted the law, deceiving the public, and the Courts, and skillfully used the best attorneys in the Country to unconstitutionally do away with the prohibition clause of the First Amendment that required the government to stay out of religious arguments.

And they obtained a number of Court Decisions not only promoting atheism, but making that religion the Official Church of the United States Government, and the ONLY religion that may be practiced in public, and taught in our schools.
How does the ACLU justify this blatant violation, and destruction, of the First Amendment?
By frivolously claiming, as most atheists do, that atheistism is not a religion.
http://maxreport.blogspot.com/

Alex:

I was just making a statement of fact.

If you choose not to understand any subject, then you are ignorant of what it's all about.

For example, I know very little about nuclear physics and therefore I am ignorant of nuclear physics.

Bob Dylan summed it up pretty good: Don't criticize what you can't understand.

You can choose to be blissfully ignorant on the subject of religion.

I choose to learn as much as I can, whether it be religion, science or whatever other topic that I find interesting.

Does that make me better than you? No.

Does the fact I know something you don't make me better than you? No.

Does ridiculing through ignorant generalizations make you better than me? No.

Infant baptism is a church ritual which is unscriptural to begin with. It is neither taught nor practiced in the Bible. Baptism is to be done to believers only, on repentance of sins and professing faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus blessed little children but did not baptize them.

I think mhb @ 5:16 hit the nail on the head.
Perhaps these people (in Britain specifically) are getting their slates cleaned up so as they can get ready for their new 'religion in a robe'.
Something along the line of 'spare me as I've already denied Christ'...see here's my $4.50 cent proof!
Or something like a convicted felon turning up for his sentencing hearing already dressed in prison stripes.
And to think that @ one time I seriously contemplated moving to Britain...the home of my grandparents. LOL!

Herman:

Baptism replaced Old Testament circumcision, which was done when a male infant was eight days old.

Colossians 2:11-12 explains this.

Christ was baptised by the Forerunner, John the Baptist. When the Apostles were baptising, they baptised entire families which presumably included children.

That's my belief. You are free to believe as you wish.

set you free;
Brother are you right. Now I know how a buddy of mine went wobbly thinking he's some kind of "Latter day" prophet going to a Church that believes in this. (Think Vineyard not Mormon). What was the name of your book if you feel like saying. Curious myself?
This group uses stealth means to even bring down Ministers who preach against this error. Read Jude if you want, to see the signs of Apostasy. Its a great book for that, I’ve found anyway.
JMO

This is sad -- yes I was aware of the story. The truth is that these folks are just showing off: to make a statement. The Lord knows a persons heart and a public proclamation will mean nothing, or most likely work to your disadvantage in your final hour at the judgment. I will include them in my prayers...

Revnant:

Trying to find the booklet.

Let's put it this way. Catholicism and the majority of Protestant groups are all in on this one.

I come from an Eastern Orthodox tradition and sadly, even some of our brothers are in on this project to create a monstrosity that will, in no way, resemble the original richness of ancient spritual understanding.

If baptism replaced circumcision, what happened to girls? I know some churches teach this but most Evangelical churches don't. It is really a practice that Luther and Calvin retained from the RC church after reformation. Some of their followers actually believe that children are saved by baptism.

There is no record in the New Testament of an infant being baptized. I myself was baptized as an infant, but when I became a believer I realized that my baptism was meaningless and I was baptized as a believer. My parents likewise, recognized their error and were baptized as believers.

"I was just making a statement of fact."

No, you're stating an opinion. If it was a fact, you would have actual evidence.

"You can choose to be blissfully ignorant on the subject of religion."

Yes, you can.

"I choose to learn as much as I can, whether it be religion, science or whatever other topic that I find interesting."

I've yet to see any evidence of this. If you truly had studied your religion, you would have rejected it long ago. There's no way that a rational and intelligent human being (which, despite your delusions, I believe you to be) could accept even one tenth of the nonsense in your holy books. So what you actually do is read the literature, and then either ignore or rationalize away the inconsistencies, the clear errors, the immoral advice, and the ludicrous claims. You end up believing only a small fraction of what's actually in there.

Can you imagine what would happen if we approached science that way? If we wrote a physics book which was 99% wrong, presented it as 100% accurate in every way, and then allowed everyone to just pick the parts that they like?

That's not "learning" - it's simply starting off with a pre-conceived set of notions, and then flipping through a buffet-of-belief in order to find the parts which support what you already believe. It's preposterous. Stop fooling yourself.

Amen to what No-one 5:38 said

LOL 6. You don't have live in fear of spending all eternity in hell burning I don't spend any time fearing the fire of Hell, but say that again about one minute before you die, then I might believe you

Did you hear about the dyslextic atheiest? "There is no Dog!"

Alex:

I enjoy my life and and totally at peace with my beliefs.

I pray you have also found inner peace in your own way.

Herman:

I'm not totally familiar with how Old Testament practitioners treated girls.

Christ did say that all human beings are equal before God and baptism seems to me a reasonable way to demonstrate that girls are equal in God's eye as are boys.

Girls are routinely baptised at eight days old in my denomination.

set you free;

Alex is in a place I used to be years ago, a snot nosed atheist arrogantly self-assured that God doesn't exist because no one can provide the proof when he demands it. But then I grew up and came to understand that I was no better placed to provide proof of God's non-existance.

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." -
I love the way Dr. Dick "nanny knows best" Dawkins always gives me the impression that he's never met an actual human.
A clever adolescent, like most "professional atheists" (well, they aren't all clever).

Well, I see Alex has managed to stir the pot. Personally, I find atheists in the same category as those green-eco goracle followers. It's not enough that you might believe in something they don't but, it's the fact that they want to "convert" you to their anti-belief that bugs me.

For the record I was thinking that this thread would head off to "... where the foxes scamper..." theme.

bob:

There has to be an explanation of how we got here and why we are here, questions that have been asked since human beings were able to think and to reason.

Like you, I went through the perfectly natural stage of questioning and at times, ridiculing, the beliefs of my elders.

If you scratch the surface of today's atheist, you'll likely find some sort of Marxist-inspired thought, backed up by Darwin's theory.

That's why you'll often find the tactic of casting science against religion.

From where I sit, there is not contradiction between the two and, in fact, religion's original premise of attempting to explain previously inexplicable questions complement scientific study.

The Abrahamic religions and in particular Abraham himself, undeestood the ills of humanity were caused by hatred and ignorance.

Not much has changed in human nature, but I feel confident that my religion helps counteract those ancient ills through love and wisdom, the latter of which can be achieved through scientific method.

Peace be onto you, my brother.

Set you free:
You say that "the apostles baptized entire families which presumably included children." Are you basing a doctrine on a presumption? Check Acts 16:34 which shows that the children, if they were there, were also baptized upon believing. In fact, all baptims recorded in the NT were upon faith.

With all due respect, I have studied this issue very carefully and have concluded that infant baptism is a church doctrine, not a Bible doctrine. Baptism did not replace circumcision. They are distinct, for different people and for different reasons. But I realize that Reformed and Presbyterian churches hold that belief. I maintain that infant baptism is meaningless, therefor so is being de-baptized for those who are unbelievers and were baptized as infants.

I find even the wildest eyed Jesus shouters considerably more polite and considerate than several of the "evangelical" atheists who troll these SDA threads and put up signs on buses etc.

You don't believe in God. Awesome. I'm not interested in converting thanks, so please keep your wee pamphlet, be a shame to waste it.

Revnant Dream wrote: These guys want to marry the Church to the World again, plus their theology on Israel is heresy.

I believe this is referred to as replacement theology or supersecessionism (sp.) Pretty dangerous stuff that breeds anti-sematism in the church. It's been going on for a long time in certain denominations. Definitely wrong teaching. These are dangerous times.

bob:

I'm sorry that you've grown senile in your old age. Those of us who still have all of our faculties are aware that there is no more need to prove the non-existence of gods than there is a need to prove the non-existence of the tooth fairy. Claims of knowledge must be substantiated by evidence in order to be accepted - otherwise the only logical response is a rejection of those claims. That makes the rejection of all gods the only logical position. If you had ever been a rational atheist, you would have understood this.

s-y-f:

"If you scratch the surface of today's atheist, you'll likely find some sort of Marxist-inspired thought, backed up by Darwin's theory."

Congratulations - you win the prize for stupidest comment so far. Remember that part where I said I believed you to be rational and intelligent? Well, I'm honest enough to admit when I'm wrong. And boy was I off on that one ...

Not that I expect you to understand, but I'll explain anyway, for the more intelligent folks:

Atheism isn't a belief system, and it's not based on any theories or philosophies. Atheism is simply the lack of a certain theological belief. In a technical sense, you are ALL atheists since none of you believe in Thor, Zeus, or Allah. The only difference between me and you (as far as theology is concerned) is that you reject 99.99% of the religions which people have come up with, whereas I reject 100% of them. Therefore it should be easy for you to understand where I'm coming from - simply ask yourself:

Why do I not believe in Krishna?
Why do I not believe in Xenu?
Why do I not believe in Obatala?

When you find the answer to those questions, you will understand why atheists reject not only those gods, but also your precious Yahweh.

And, for those of you incapable of formulating a coherent thought (syf, I'm looking at you) the answer is simple: Lack Of Evidence. How can you possibly expect anyone to accept your invisible man when you cannot provide any real evidence?

If you blindly accept one god (for whom there is no evidence), while simultaneously rejecting all other gods (for whom there is an equal amount of evidence) then you are a fool. And if you expect me to accept your claims while rejecting all the claims of other religions, even though all of you present the same type of "evidence", then you are a fool, and a hypocrite.

That is all.

Herman:

If parents were directed to circumsize their sons at eight days old, and Christ taught that baptism replaced circumcision, I'm unsure as to why the practise would stop at the advent of Christianity.

Are you saying there is no need for parents to initiate children into the Body of Christ, which is a reformed version of the corrupt Judaism of the time?

As I said, you are perfectly free to believe at the level of your understanding.

Not every act that was done was recorded in the Bible.

In fact the Holy Bible itself was formulated from a vast body of writings by what you call the Church, under the direction of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

As I understand it, some of the Protestant denominations (which separated from the Church of Rome BTW) do not even recognize such historical councils existed.

In my understinding the Bible is a good starting point. There is a long history of human experience that happened after Biblical times which is also recorded in lives of the Saints. Without human experience, how can value possibly be placed upon the words?

For instance, it is a historical fact that all 12 Apostles met a violent death for standing up to their beliefs. Not sure how much of that is recorded in the Bible, but it remains a historical fact.

Yet, some denominations totally ignore the struggles of people in the ancient world and pretend the human experience started at the same time their denomination was invented.

How daft. How ridiculous.

Golly gee whiz... ya know... it sounds like atheism is becoming a religion itself... and they're demanding official recognition already.

Next thing you know, the courts will rule that constitutional protection of religion includes protecting atheism... and, boy, will that open up a helluva can of worms... 'Cause the Hard Left is full of atheists hellbent on destroying actual religion just because they hate the concept of belief in a power higher than themselves... or higher than "The One". Leftists want to be the center of the universe, so it's normal for them to be afraid of the idea that there's something bigger than they are, other than, you know, the State...

I don't know why some folks feel they need to come out of the closet and be officially recognized as Atheists with a capital "A". Perhaps they need to get a life... or get something to actually believe in, other than Communism and GLBTism.

there is NO god

now give me my foreskin back!!!!!

If somebody gets unbaptized, do they relinquish the name they were baptized with? Can we refer to all atheists as "hey, you" or do we have to capitalize it as "Hey, You" since it is now a proper name? All the other chat here is getting too serious.

Athiness is not ordered! Oh, did you mean "atheist"?

Uli:

Good research, but I understand it in a different way.

Christ himself was baptized and those accounts are in all four Gospels, pre-dating Paul.

Entire families were, in fact, baptized during the early period.

When children were born, both boys and girls were baptized at eight days old, replacing the Old Testament practise of circumcision. It was only 17 centuries later that this particular understanding was lost through the protestations against the Church of Rome.

But I'm pretty sure now that in Canada, all Catholics are disqualified from holding any office the medical profession after the Pope's remarks on condoms, right?

I mean look at the Goodyear science thingy.....

Slow day Kate?

FWIW, I believe because the other option makes no sense to me, Atheism is illogical.

Pascal, however, I get.

Revnant:

I have found my book and have found it is available on Amazon for six bucks (used).

It is written by Fr. Seraphim Rose and includes in its title ... the Religion of the Future.

If you're interested, research google Seraphim Rose.

It may seem a bit different than the Western understanding, but Fr. Rose did spend some time in Asia and has seen some of the influences that have crept in from that part of the world.

Be prepared for a totally different viewpoint than you're used to. Fr. Rose is a well-respected author whose ideas I do not always agree with or fully understand, yet it does make for an interesting intellectual exercise to remain open-minded.

Alex:

If you're interested in learning, I'd suggest you ask some questions.

Do you have any?

Heck! ... Haecceity makes sense!

But it still doesn't excuse being a D!ck.

Alex,

Is this proof? Who paints such things in the eyes of an image and how?

" "Digital technology is giving new leads in understanding a phenomenon that continues to puzzle science: the mysterious eyes of the image of Virgin of Guadalupe.

The image, imprinted on the tilma of a 16th-century peasant, led millions of indigenous Indians in Mexico to convert to the Catholic faith. Last week in Rome, results of research into the famed image were discussed by engineer José Aste Tonsmann of the Mexican Center of Guadalupan Studies during a conference at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum.

For over 20 years, this graduate of environmental systems engineering of Cornell University has studied the image of the Virgin left on the rough maguey fiber fabric of Juan Diego’s tilma. What intrigued Tonsmann the most were the eyes of the Virgin.

Though the dimensions are microscopic, the iris and the pupils of the image’s eyes have imprinted on them a highly detailed picture of at least 13 people, Tonsmann said. The same people are present in both the left and right eyes, in different proportions, as would happen when human eyes reflect the objects before them.

Tonsmann says he believes the reflection transmitted by the eyes of the Virgin of Guadalupe is the scene on Dec. 9, 1531, during which Juan Diego showed his tilma, with the image, to Bishop Juan de Zumárraga and others present in the room.

In his research, Tonsmann used a digital process used by satellites and space probes in transmitting visual information.

He insists that the image "that has not been painted by human hand." As early as the 18th century, scientists showed that it was impossible to paint such an image in a fabric of that texture. The "ayate" fibers used by the Indians, in fact, deteriorated after 20 years. Yet, the image and the fabric it is imprinted on have lasted almost 470 years ago.

Tonsmann pointed out that Richard Kuhn, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, has found that the image did not have natural, animal or mineral colorings. Given that there were no synthetic colorings in 1531, the image is inexplicable.

In 1979, Americans Philip Callahan and Jody B. Smith studied the image with infrared rays and discovered to their surprise that there was no trace of paint and that the fabric had not been treated with any kind of technique.

"[How] it is possible to explain this image and its consistency in time without colors, on a fabric that has not been treated?" Tonsmann asked. "[How] is it possible that, despite the fact there is no paint, the colors maintain their luminosity and brilliance?"

Tonsmann, a Peruvian engineer, added, "Callahan and Smith showed how the image changes in color slightly according to the angle of viewing, a phenomenon that is known by the word iridescence, a technique that cannot be reproduced with human hands."

The scientist began his study in 1979. He magnified the iris of the Virgin’s eyes 2,500 times and, through mathematical and optical procedures, was able to identify all the people imprinted in the eyes.

The eyes reflect the witnesses of the Guadalupan miracle, the moment Juan Diego unfurled his tilma before the bishop, according to Tonsmann. In other words, the Virgin’s eyes have the reflection that would have been imprinted in the eyes of any person in her position.

In the eyes, Tonsmann believes, it is possible to discern a seated Indian, who is looking up to the heavens; the profile of a balding, elderly man with a white beard, much like the portrait of Bishop Zumárraga, painted by Miguel Cabrera, to depict the miracle; and a younger man, in all probability interpreter Juan González.

Also present, Tonsmann believes, is an Indian, likely Juan Diego, of striking features, with a beard and mustache, who unfolds his own tilma before the bishop; a woman of dark complexion, possibly a Negro slave who was in the bishop’s service; and a man with Spanish features who looks on pensively, stroking his beard with his hand.

In a word, the Virgin’s eyes bear a kind of instant picture of what occurred at the moment the image was unveiled in front of the bishop, Tonsmann says.

Moreover, in the center of the pupils, on a much more reduced scale, another scene can be perceived, independent of the first, the scientist contends. It is that of an Indian family made up of a woman, a man and several children. In the right eye, other people who are standing appear behind the woman.

Tonsmann ventured to express why he believes the Virgin’s eyes have a "hidden" message for modern times, when technology is able to discover it. "This could be the case of the picture of the family in the center of the Virgin’s eye," he says, "at a time when the family is under serious attack in our modern world." "

Actually, set you free, Baptism has its origin in the Jewish Mikvah Bath which is a cleansing (repentance) prior to entering the Covenant symbolized by male circumcision for those converting to the Jewish faith. Although over the years the Church, especially the Reformed Churches which kept infant baptism tried to equate baptism with circumcision, the real meaning is you are repentant and want to be cleansed. This is why I hold to the Anabaptist tradition of voluntary baptism instead of the Mainline tradition of forced baptism. That is not to say that I haven't baptized children because I have had several children ask to be baptized. OTH I believe that the act of baptism is only for the believer and any non believer has no need to be "unbaptized".

Joe:

What's your understanding of the Jewish tradition of circumcision at eight days old?

Christ himself was circumsized, making him a member of the Old Testament covenant.

My understanding is that he was on earth to fulfil the Gospels, which had prophesized his presence.

In any event, Christian male infants are now not circumsized. Both boys and girls are baptised at eight days old, according to an tradition which symbolically places the infant within the body of God.

What responsible parent would wish otherwise for his child?

s-y-f:

"If you're interested in learning, I'd suggest you ask some questions. Do you have any?"

Considering that you've managed to confuse fact and opinion, no, I don't have any questions for you.

anselm:

"Is this proof?"

No.

"Who paints such things in the eyes of an image and how?"

Oh, wow, I never thought of it that way! You've convinced me! The creator of the universe likes to screw around and make pixelated drawings of people on the cloth of peasants!

Please.

Here's the relevant images:

http://www.sancta.org/eyes.html

If that random noise looks like "divine artistry" to you, then I suggest you put away the ganja. You're no better than the fools who think they see a face on Mars.

Anselm, if we can have people imagining "holy images" in everything from tortillas, clouds, stained concrete, and grilled cheese sandwiches, why don't you think they can find whatever they WANT to find in a microscopic section of a painting?

Alex:

Enjoy your ignorance, then.

I agree that such "de-baptism" requests are very unusual. For one thing, the requests betray the requestors complete ignorance of the bible, theology and church history. Churches have actually been doing this "de-baptism" stuff since day one. What is now odd is the requests for documentation. I refer, of course, to excommunication. Naturally, this is not quite the same as de-baptism. Baptism is the formal divine acknowledgement that you are part of the family and that you have all the rights and privileges thereof…and all the responsibilities. Baptism has its flip side: you want to reject the benefits? Here are the consequences. Excommunication is the formal divine acknowledgement of the consequences.

Holy cr*p, Ulianov isn't an atheist? Say it ain't so, Uli!

Free will is God’s gift.

And the punishment for using it, and arriving at the wrong conclusion, is an eternity suffering the torments of Hell. In God's love.

Never mind the logical inconsistencies; I wouldn't worship a god who would incinerate and torture his children.

Texas Canuck;

You're right about atheists wanting to "convert" you to their anti-belief." I wonder whether Alex is capable of seeing the irony. He's as adamant in a belief he can't prove as is any priest I've ever met. At the same time, I'll bet he swallows whole the idea of the Big Bang, that the entire mass of the universe at one time fit into a space one billionth the size of a head of a pin.

set you free;

And peace to you my friend. Agree with your post, especially the part about religion and the scientific method. I'm not sure whether you mean it this way, but to my mind, why can't God and evolution co-exist? Why could God not have created a world intended to function in that manner?

Alex;

The decidedly un-Christian comments I made to you were in response to needlessly denigrating comments you made to other posters. It gets ugly going down that road, doesn't it.

In a sincere and civil tone, you're likely a smart guy who thinks you know far more than you do. What say you to Steven Hawking who believes in God, or to Einstein who said that the existence of the universe points to "the presence of a superior reasoning power."

I'll leave you with a quote by Nobel Prize winning scientist Leon Lederman.

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

"Enjoy your ignorance, then"

I won't wish the same on you. I truly hope that one day you reject your ignorance, and rejoin the rational side of mankind. If that day comes, feel free to get in touch with me - I would be happy to share my knowledge with you.

De-baptized? Isn't that sort of like trying to get re-virgined?

Alex:

I'm quite comfortable being responsible for my own life and coming to my own reasoned understandings.

I really don't need your help with anything.

Thanks for the offer, though.

Alex & everyone.

Great discussion, I quite enjoyed it.

My 2 cents:

Christians: Could you please just acknowledge that IF there is no god, and that's a BIG IF, that the whole thing looks a little ridiculous?

There is no common dialog in this discussion. Alex wants proof! You can all offer proof in all of its forms, but every one of you knows that what you offer isn't the "proof" Alex is speaking of. I'm no religious scholar but my understanding is the proof Alex is looking for that isn't there. That’s where faith comes in, but Alex has put his faith in science, or Atheism, or his own judgment; therefore, stalemate.

Alex,

Did you not ask for proof?

The creator of the universe may indeed make pixelated drawings just for you and preserve it for 500 years whilst knowing you are blind.

Alex, if there is no God, relax, get on with your life.

SDC, ignore the eye issues, then explain the rest of the tilma image using scientific facts.

bob:

Thanks for trying to be civil. I'll just address a couple of your comments:

"you're likely a smart guy who thinks you know far more than you do"

Hardly. I'm more than happy to admit my ignorance, when I'm actually ignorant of the subject at hand. I simply do not believe in cloaking ignorance with "faith", which is what all religions attempt to do.

Saying "God did it" is not knowledge - it is ignorance masquerading as knowledge. That's why people have resorted to the same fallacy throughout the history of our race. They have used it to "explain" phenomena such as lightning, earthquakes, and even the rising of the sun. It's also why, every time that science peels back the curtain of ignorance, gods domain shrinks a little more. Face it - ignorance makes blind faith easy. True knowledge makes the need for faith ... disappear.

"What say you to Steven Hawking who believes in God, or to Einstein who said that the existence of the universe points to 'the presence of a superior reasoning power.'"

If they believe in a god, I would say the same thing to them that I say to anyone else who holds such unfounded beliefs. Fortunately, I don't have to, since Hawking is a an atheist, and Einstein was at best a Deist, and more likely an atheist. If you have gotten the impression that either of them believes in a Magic Man in the sky, then you have not actually read their works - you've simply read one or two quotes which were taken out of context.

Well set you free I think you answered your own question. When I partake in Communion I eat the Body of Christ and drink His blood. I do not partake in some symbol. When I was baptized as an adult I did so because it was not symbolic. When I baptize someone I make sure they understand what it is they are partaking in and that they understand the consequences. I don't allow anyone to 'symbolically' enter the kingdom of God if for no other reason than I can't. As the old saw goes, "If going to Church makes you a Christian then going to a garage makes you a car."

Black Mamba - I'm as shocked as you regarding Uli, maybe even twice as shocked...wasn't lenin the guy who called religion the opiate of the masses?!

Ulianov who are you and what have you done to Ulianov?

Anselm, what is LEFT to explain about this painting? It's no different than any other religous painting, and people will read into it what they WANT to read into it, the same way they will when looking at clouds or a grilled cheese sandwich.

Joe:

Symbols are a way human beings can comprehend sacraments (gifts from God).

Candles are a symbol of our prayers. Icons are symbolic in a way that they allow us to think about the nature of God, the Theotokos and the Saints.

Just like language, symbols are a means by which human beings can understand each other.

Are you, as a purported man of God, suggesting that God only exists if an individual says he exists? Or, as a man of God who baptizes people, at what point in a human being's life does God begin to exist?

Does God exist only when somebody acknowleges he exists or, as the Holy Scriptures say, ‘I am the alpha and the omega (the beginning and the end)?

It seems to me you are placing humanity above the reality of God, who not only came before human life but created it.

In my understanding, that exemplifies one of the fatal flaws of Western Christianity as adopted by the Church of Rome and further corrupted through Protestantism.

Alex,

I don't think Hawking is an atheist

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html

Alex at 8:54pm said;

"Claims of knowledge must be substantiated by evidence in order to be accepted - otherwise the only logical response is a rejection of those claims. That makes the rejection of all gods the only logical position. If you had ever been a rational atheist, you would have understood this."

Following Alex's logic, that means the big bang never happened because we can't prove it. It means that dark matter can't exist because we can't see it. It mean quarks don't exist because we can't catch one.

I wonder whether he realizes what a pompous fool and scientific illiterate he shows himself to be for claiming to know more than Einstein, Hawking and all the rest of the greatest minds who ever lived?

These people are actually quite smart. They're jumping the queue - you know, the queue that will form when the Muslims take over and everyone will have to become believers of Islam. You can't believe in two things at once, you know - so why not shake off the trappings of Christianity now. That will make the jump to Islam that much easier.

Hip hip and a stiff upper lip and all that!

bob:

It would also mean that nobody can prove life was created from an inanimate object.

Although much of humanity can see there have been changes within species, atheism can never answer the question of ‘how did we get here?' or ‘why are we here?' with any clarity.

syf - since joe likely won't bite...

"purported"? Are you not a judge with evil thoughts? :-)

Ah, well...this is what happens when tradition ranks scripture.

Now that I have your attention: how can you, a catholic, object to joe's rejection of the sacraments as merely a symbol? I could understand parsing the issue if you were Zwinglian ... or even a disputatious calvinist...but as a catholic?

"Well if it's a symbol, to hell with it!"

Alex;

You're dead wrong on Hawking and you're ignoring the Nobel Prize winner I quoted. I'd be happy to quote some more but I think you're in need of doing some research on your own. You clearly haven't done much.

Simply put, the greatest scientists the world has don't have an answer for what you seem to be so certain about. You really need to read Hawking's A Brief History of Time. God is mentioned frequently.

Ten:

My point is that symbols are a valid way to express concepts.

I stick to my understanding of infant baptism based on two scriptural facts.

1) Christ was circumcized at eight days old. Nowhere in scriptures did it say he rejected the Word of God, he only said he was the fulfillment of the word. Therefore, his circumcision was a means by which he became part of the Body of God.

2) Baptism replaced circumcision in the New Testament (New covenant with God). Certainly, Christ was an adult when he was baptised, but that does not preclude the necessity of joining an infant child to the Body of God at eight years old. Baptism, therefore, is the outward SYMBOL by which other witnesses can see a child is accepted into the Body of God. The only difference is that the child is immersed in water, rather than being circumsized.

Is that the question you were asking?

Yes Set You Free symbols are man's method of talking to man. God's method in the New Covenant is far more radical. Instead of cutting off a bit of flesh we, by God's Grace, receive a new heart (nature) upon our repentance. Part of our repentance is obedience which is why we are baptized and baptize new believers.

BTW God exists whether we acknowledge Him or not. He does not need us as we need Him. God is very reality which is why I don't do symbolism such as lighting candles. In like manner I don't subscribe to forced 'belief' such as infant baptism or infant circumcision. Force indicates law and we are free from the Law. Christ took the law away by nailing it with His Body to the Cross. We are free, new creations in Christ Jesus entering His Kingdom as we we do through His Grace, our repentance and Baptism.

When asked whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing world views, Hawking replied, "...then Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity." He knew that Newton had strong religious convictions.

A Brief History of Time makes wonderfully ambiguous statements such as, "Even if there is only one possible unified theory [here he's talking about the unification of quantum mechanics with an understanding of gravity], it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"(p. 174).

Hawking pokes fun at Albert Einstein for not believing in quantum mechanics. When asked why he didn't believe in quantum mechanics, Einstein would say things like, "Well, God doesn't play dice with human beings"(p. 56). Hawking's response is that God not only plays with dice, He sometimes throws them where they can't be seen.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

As an atheist, all I can say about the noted sub-group is 'what a bunch of sorry dorks'...and the same goes for those atheists that feel compelled to constantly attack Christianity. Try stfu for a change, and let others enjoy their beliefs, and the benefits they may enjoy from their religion.

set you free said "atheism can never answer the question of ‘how did we get here?' or ‘why are we here?' with any clarity."

True, but apparently Alex thinks he can. Cue to you big guy. Take it away. Me, set you free, and Hawking all want to know. You do realize though that if you can't it means your beliefs are no more valid than anyone else's. Good luck.

Thanks for that Hans. Got any good links?

I see atheists as those who will not accept that there is an elephant in the room. We've all met them - those who will not, no matter the subject matter, accept that there is that proverbial elephant in the room.

Intellectually they know that the world they live in contains wonders that they are loathe to explain. They dismiss it as "nature". Now there is a convenient word if there ever was one. Can't see past their nose. That, or it is much too inconvenient to acknowledge that a higher being does exist. Gee, if I say there is a god, that might really cramp my style.

When the END comes (and it does for us all), it is a zero-sum game for the atheist. If he's right - no big deal. If he's wrong - now thats a BIG DEAL!

I am glad to see so many Christians standing up for their faith for a change and not simply turning the other cheek - this is meant as a sincere complement as so often Christians just stay quiet when their beliefs are attacked.

From an empirical point of view are not countries based on Judea o - Christian values such as Canada, UK, US, Australia, New Zeland, etc the countries with the highest standards of livings, the most equality and freedom? And are not the countries founded on Atheist principals such as Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and the Communists everywhere the most repressive, least free countries around?

Religion is f*cking retarded.

Well set you free I understand that Jesus was born as a son of the Covenant (Jewish) and was therefore circumcised on the 8th day in accordance with the Law which He was to fulfill. That does not mean that Christian males should be circumcised. However there is something interesting in your belief. Jesus supposedly entered the Kingdom of God upon His Circumcision so then why was He later baptized? Obviously the traditions of man (circumcision/infant baptism) was not sufficient unless there is also belief and obedience. To equate infant baptism with circumcision as you do seems to argue against your own position. Jesus though circumcised (infant baptism) didn't believe circumcision (infant baptism) was sufficient and was consequently baptized as an adult. Upon His Baptism He received the Spirit and the rest as they say, is history.

feel free to get in touch with me - I would be happy to share my knowledge with you
Posted by: Alex at March 30, 2009 10:16 PM

Thanks for that offer, Champ. An excellent opportunity for all the SDA readership; should we all book in advance, or will you shoehorn us a spot at the last minute?

So you've no use for Christianity, alex. Good for you. Not only that, but you take it upon yourself to mock and harangue those who believe with your snotty and supercilious attacks. How tolerant of you; how enlightened. How liberal.

You scoff at those who profess faith in a power beyond themselves, and yet it's your crowd who bow in obeisance to the AGW movement (with increasing evidence of its wrongheadedness, every day) and have absolutely zero tolerance for anybody who dares to publicly disagree. Can you imagine, just for a moment, the screaming outrage if Christians pilloried and excoriated atheists or nonbelievers the way the global warming alarmists attack the "deniers"? You know: condemned them on television, discredited their research (and tried to deny them tenure or funding), propagandized their children at state-monopolied schools? Reduced their private property rights and personal wealth with "Jesus taxes" or "Apostolic tax credits"? Forbade them to buy large screen plasma TV's because it wasn't the "Christian" thing to do? To dictate the "Christian" gas mileage their government-funded cars must acquire, to say nothing of not allowing anybody to buy a new car in un-Christian black? Or asking everyone around the world to shut off their lights in global handholding and awareness of "God Hour"?

Guess your "irony meter" is on the blink, alex. But don't send it out for repair wherever you sent your "hypocrisy meter", as it's not quite up to snuff, either.

Apart from your Christian sniping, however, there IS one thing you could share with some of us. For my part, I'm pretty ambivalent about other people's faiths. If somebody is into Hinduism, or Rosicrucianism, Buddhism, Judaism, it's all fine with me. Heck, I was even more or less insouciant with islam until, oh, roughly 9/11/01, and then I started looking at that crowd a bit more closely. But my question to you, alex is this:

What is it about Christianity that drives you liberals so nutty? Honestly, now: what is it about Catholics, or Protestants, or Christians in general that threatens you? I'm sure you don't get worked up about the other religions, but why come here and take shots at Christianity and those who believe? What assuages your fears and hatred by doing this? What do you (pardon the pun) exorcise by publicly mocking Christians as you do?

My guess is that you and others like you just loathe the concept that there is some absolute right or wrong in the grand scheme of things. The idea that you may one day be judged by someone or something that holds you to a non-negotiable standard doesn't worry you, and that's fine: it's your right to believe and no Christian is threatened by it. But it appears you and your crowd just hate the idea that the followers of that Being also believe that behaviour is either "right" or "wrong", and I suspect that interferes with the liberal playbook of moral equivalency. That some folks won't condone anything and everything a liberal does or believes in is a huge stick-in-the-eye, and the only defense is to lash out, to publicly ridicule, to demean and punish.

I'm sure the Christian-haters were gleeful at Obama's reducing the charitable tax deductions for higher earners. Not only does this mean potentially lower donations for the despised Christian churches, but those organizations will have less to give to the poor and needy; this leaves the gap to be filled by the Almighty Church of the Left: The State. Hey! A "Two-fer"! Now All's Well in obamaland... unless, perhaps, if you're poor. Or needy.

You may learn a great deal about someone by watching them fear and hate. You, alex, have certainly shone the light of clarity and understanding with your opinions, and there's no reason to believe the illumination will stop just yet, is there?

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

Hawking:

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_SHawking.htm

'nuff said. Your ignorance is mind-blowing. And I'm done with this discussion.

Gawd, nothing is more entertaining than witnessing the mental gymnastics performed in the name of rationalizing supernatural belief systems.

Really, Thor is a pretty cool god. You guys that worship Jesus are pu**ies. Thor could kick his ass.

It is to laugh.

Back to the actual topic:

Instead of what seems be a merely symbolic act (de-baptism), there is a much more practical and effective act, possible at least in some countries.
That act is to officially leave the Church of Country, and then pay less taxes. I did just that when I was about 20 years old and my tax rate went down 0.7%.
(Additionally, of course, it also made me less of a hypocrite, as I am an atheist.)

Alex;

I can see why you provided a link but no specific quote from Hawking. Here are four.

"An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!"

"God not only plays dice. He sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen."

"But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"

"This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary."

A fair read of this is of a guy who doesn't know for certain whether there is or isn't a God or what his role and function would be. He certainly isn't dismissive of the idea as you are which has pretty much been my argument all along. I'm not sure it was your intent, but thanks for making my argumnent for me.

On the other hand, I would never ask to have my batism record deleted, as that would be to re-write history.

"A fair read of this is of a guy who doesn't know for certain whether there is or isn't a God"

Which makes him an atheist.

"I'm not sure it was your intent, but thanks for making my argumnent for me."

*facepalm*

Goodnight, bob.

mhb

Interesting observations on why non Christians seemed to get hyper about Christians living their lives. It's puzzled me too at times. Why does it exercise them?

I have a friend who makes it a major point to undermine Christianity, at times just out of the blue. I probably wouldn't bother with him but I’ve known him since we were 9 or 10. He has a classic case of moral equivalency and can’t get his head around the Christian belief of, as you say being "judged by someone or something that holds you to a non-negotiable standard" – a standard that he rejects. Fear perhaps or maybe just ego about knowing a better path?

Alex, you genius you, someone who "doesn't know for certain whether there is or isn't a God" is an agnostic.

Alex;

Nice try but an atheist isn't someone uncertain about whether God does or doesn't exist. He or she is one committed to non-existence. From my dictionary, "a person who denies or disbelieves in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

You're confusing atheists with agnostics which are defined as "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable."

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

As an RC lad I was taught that all people are born with orginal sin.
Baptism takes away that sin.
Children are baptised very young to remove the original lest they die with it,for if they should die with the sin on thier souls they would not be granted a place in heaven.
The indocturnation into the faith comes at confirmation around 12 yrs old.

*
uh, folks... this really isn't a "my beads are holier
than your beads" kinda thing.

the dumbsticks that are sending away for this
certificate aren't atheists... they're morons.

*

Alex: "If you blindly accept one god (for whom there is no evidence), while simultaneously rejecting all other gods (for whom there is an equal amount of evidence) then you are a fool. And if you expect me to accept your claims while rejecting all the claims of other religions, even though all of you present the same type of 'evidence', then you are a fool, and a hypocrite."

I can't resist adding this, which I received this morning:

In Florida, an atheist created a case against the upcoming Easter and Passover holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians, Jews and observances of their holy days...

The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days. The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate
presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring,"Case dismissed!"

The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, "Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays."

The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant." The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."

The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned.

You gotta love a Judge that knows his scripture!

sysk: In the Anabaptist tradition we believe that we are born with a sin nature that no one can expunge except God. We can baptize, circumcise, or even set fire to an infant but it has no real effect on his/her sin nature. What is required is what Jesus called being 'being born from above'. This takes place when the sentient person realizes that indeed he is a sinner (suffers from original sin) and by God's Grace asks for a new nature by asking to be forgiven by God. Upon that act of contrition a person is given a new nature by God and enters into a new covenant which is sealed by the act of Baptism. In the Apostolic tradition I try to baptize by full immersion in a flowing stream although standing water is acceptable as is sprinkling if the candidates health would be harmed by immersion.

For anyone who didn't know, Pope Benny has decreed that any child who dies without being baptised goes to heaven. The doctrine that such a child would go into "limbo" is now officially dead. Bout time - dumb doctrine if ever there was one.

Seriously - do any of you people actually LISTEN to what you sound like when you talk about your imaginary friend, his arbitrary rules, and the magical sky kingdom?

How can you complain when people make fun of you?

To loosely paraphrase Einstein,

Leftard stupidity is as endless as the universe. Maybe more so.

These people are not atheists. Atheists are indifferent about other people's beliefs. Leftards are hostile.

If you simply are not a believer, you don't get all worked up about your non-belief. Only if you're a leftard with a competing (if secular) belief system every bit as dogmatic and oppressive as the worst of the Hapsburg inquisitions do you care one wit about other people's religions.

An excellent observation Warwick.

Late to the conversation, I realize, but I thought I'd add a little.

There've been several requests for 'proof' of God so that knowledge can preceed faith. There is a distinction here that is being glossed over: that there are several ways of 'knowing' things. We all, people of faith as well as atheists, operate under these 'ways of knowing'.

A simple example can demonstrate them. If I hold a coffee cup in front of me, how can we know that it contains a hot liquid? We can experience it directly, by touching/drinking it; we can look for rational evidence, such as steam rising from it (although other explanations must be considered); or, lastly, if the person holding the cup is trustworthy, we can ask him (or perhaps, he may offer the information without our asking). The same may be true of belief in God. Atheists seem to want to focus on the rational evidence way of knowing, and exclude the last. For whatever reason, they've decided that people they might/would otherwise trust to communicate true information might be unreliable when it comes to matters of religious faith. I don't want to drag this out too long, but I think it would be valuable from the religious side to recognize that perhaps the atheist is having more trouble accepting you as a trustworthy authority than he is in evaluating what you are presenting as evidence. On the other hand, I would think it valuable for the atheist to do a more rigorous evaluation of religious history. Why have so many believed in God for so long? While many societies have "God-like" myths, the big monotheisms (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) believe that their particular myth is objectively true. It sounds unreasonable, but I doubt that holders of elaborate creation stories suggesting that the Earth is a giant turtle egg (or whatever is in their mythical stories) really believe in the objective truth of their story (which is not to say that I reject all symbolism and accept only literalism in Christianity). Hope this helps.

I just call myself an athiest to make it easier, nobody cares if you're on the fence. I don't see how anyone can know for certain that there isn't a god, so I think the tern athiest is an overstatment for anyone who uses it.

So if there is no God, Higher power etc., why would anyone worry about a baptismal certificate??The truth is that traditonally, the baptismal certificate was an offical document that was recognized by the state. My Grandad was born

Opps sorry...
Cont'd....
My grandad was born on 1888, in a small town in France. His baptismal certificate was the only document we could obtain when we visited the parish in 1999. In 1888, the state recognized such documents as a valid proof of birth. Is it wise to want to destroy or nullify your ancestor's official documents. I think not!!

Different bob,

I am aware that Limbo has been closed, but I am not sure why, as far as I know there were still people using the place and and more coming everyday. Where do they go? Who closed the place down?

I am also aware that several years ago, 'they' also closed purgatory too. Now, I am sure that place was doing great business, since nearly everyone dies with some sin, it is natural that they spend some time in that soul-wash before they are let into the mansion in the sky. Where are those folks now?

I remember when it was a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday, but no more. What happened to that rule?

If there is someone on earth with the authority to do these things, who is giving him the orders and how is he or she getting the messages.

I know that in the past it was usually 'the voices' they heard in their head. Is that still the method? ... are religious schizophrenics still making the rules for us?

The rules of Christianity are based on decency and civility and I have not beef with that, but when you get all supernatural about it, I lose interest. I can't help it, I born that way and I do not hear voices and I don't think people who do, should be given any attention at all.

FYI, I am glad about Limbo, Purgatory and that Friday meat thingy being de-listed. It was a bit silly in my view to begin with.

Now if we could just cancel Islam and it's schizophrenics, this world might find some peace.

:0)

What ever happened to 'Non-Practicing'??

Hey really folks, there are a lot of people who share your right wing political views who simply cannot bring themselves to believe in magic. IE god and heaven and hell and eternity.

You should not be too critical of us we are on your team in every way except for that one, we don't believe in the fairly tale that someday we all live forever in heaven with mummy daddy and spot the dog.

Do any of you believers have any idea how long FOREVER actually is? You think that being stuck in a place where you are in eternal worship of the big guy with the G on his t-shirt and you must behave FOREVER?

WHAT WILL YOU DO WITH ALL THAT TIME?

And have you ever spent even a day with a bunch of scripture-quoting, god-fearing people? To a rational mind, it is hell on earth!

Let's just get along and vote out the leftist loons because there is no group with stronger beliefs in their deities than them. And their rules are not civil or decent as we often observe.

I think you can best describe atheists as people who are ambivalent about how and why we got here. We simply use logic and common sense to guide us through life and we accept that when it's over ... it's over and for most, that is a relief.

This atheist is anti-abortion, for tough on crime, for integrity in the systems we rely on etc. I have many atheist friends and we are all subscribe to Sarah Palin's views except for ... well you know.

@ warwick March 31, 2009 9:51 AM

Well said. I would however take issue with the following:

Only if you're a leftard with a competing (if secular) belief system every bit as dogmatic and oppressive as the worst of the Hapsburg inquisitions do you care one wit about other people's religions.

I'm certainly no "leftard", and, for the most part, unless the issue comes up, I keep my atheism to myself.

But if, as in Texas and Kansas and undoubtedly elsewhere, boards of education are furiously attempting to work creationism (or its sneaky pseudonym, "Intelligent Design") into public school curriculum, I'm glad there are those who will fight them.

If your child came home from school and told you you were stupid to believe the world was more than 6,000 years old, would you have to be a "leftard" to object? What if she told you you were a blasphemer?

This might seem like an extreme example, but when you look at some of the nutjobs ("My grandfather was not a monkey!") who would have their way, it's not really that extreme.

Jack:

Some here argue that there's no need to be born until you're an adult.

I love it when leftard trolls pretend to be right wing...

so, lemme see if I got this right; floating axe heads, talking mules, talking snakes, earth's spin lurching to a halt, the world wide deluge and humans traipsing around the time of dinosaurs.

I belong to the religious denomination Usedtobe. ie used to be of a certain other denomination but after getting ostracized a total of 3 times by certain carisssssstian chuchy churches a wholesale reevaluation occurred and boy do I ever get lots done on sundays now !!!

Sorry if someone scooped me on this one, but there's no way I'm readin' 169 comments:

Dear Islam,

We've now emptied everything out and given it a good cleaning. We're ready for occupancy. Please come and claim your keys.

Britain

anon: "Seriously - do any of you people actually LISTEN to what you sound like when you talk about your imaginary friend, his arbitrary rules, and the magical sky kingdom?"

Seriously, anon, do you think anyone here actually LISTENS to someone whose moniker is "anon"? Step up to the plate, son/missy, or stHu. :-)

It is the godparents who take the vows for the child, who is, as pointed out, too young to do so. Do they have to sign this certificate of un-baptism, renouncing their vows? And would they?

Alright, for those arguing their points, especially the angry atheists: we live in a free society, right? So why the excessive effort to change people's point of view?

It can be maddening that the conservative movement so often cannot see an allies unless they go to the same church. Like many who read this blog I am a conservative atheist. I am anti-abortion, pro-guns, pro- military, etc.

I think mailing in for a de-baptism is silly, but in England they are awash in fundamentalist Islam and they want religion especially that religion separated from the state. You can't keep out one without the other and in many ways this is the fire behind the movement.

As someone pointed out above, it's not so much atheists who virulently abhor Christianity, it's hardened leftards, some of whom happen to be atheists, who detest the Christian faith and those who adhere to it.

Kyla: " ... why the excessive effort to change people's point of view?"

It's pretty clear to me that the only thing that stands in the way of a complete takeover of the West by the socialist secular humanist leftards (and the Islamist extremists they champion) is (Judeo-)Christianity and Christians. We're not going to go down without a fight. Not only do the hardened leftards know this, they also know -- and they're really pi**ed off about it -- that our God is a Mighty God and that victories that should never happen very often do. They think it's "magic" we believe in when, in fact, it is a living God, strong to save and mighty in power, who we worship. We know, because we have experienced it, that "the LORD is with us like a dread warrior" (Jeremiah 20).

They also know that practising Christians are, by and large, not cowards, they're not wimps. The Christian tradition "boasts" hundreds of thousands of martyrs to the faith and, as the saying goes, "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." Hard-left atheists know that their fiercest adversaries are committed Christians, otherwise why would they be so vociferous in their condemnation of our faith?

When Stalin was told that the Pope was against him, the old killer laughed and said, "How many legions does the Pope have?" The Pope responded through Stalin’s bootlick Molotov: "Tell your master he will meet my legions in Eternity."

And a final thought: Where are the In from the Cold/Heat programs, the soup kitchens, the homeless shelters, the food banks, the clothing depots run by atheists?

'Just asking ...

I've met very few atheist who treated people of faith with scorn and bigotry in real life but the intenet attracts the bigots enmasse which is not surprising they generally are moralless cowards in real life the net makes them feel powerful. The truth is it's not the atheist who treat us with scorn, hatred and hurl bigotry at the people of faith it's the leftards. The socialist Modern Liberal's Ideology is akin to "If it feels good baby do it", they have no moral compass unlike atheist who are deeply moral and ethical people governed by common sense. The socialist Moderal Liberal aka leftard lack the basic intellect regarding morals and ethics, they demand we be silenced whilst demanding their voice and ideology be given supremacy. We've seen the damage the loopy left have caused in Europe, their belief system is compatable with Radical or Wahhabi Islam because both are rooted in upside down loopy logic. Some examples would be under Sharia Law a rape victim is stoned to death and the rapist is considered moral, the socialist Modern Liberal heaps scorn on the victims of crime whilst decrying the inhumanity of our penal system. Another example is Pedophilia, under Sharia Law it's called marrage when a parent sells a nine year old to Uncle Joe. Under the socialist Modern Liberal they consider inferior cultural practices to be noraml thus polygamy paves the way for pedophilia.

I do not have an issue with Atheist, but I have come to fear and loathe the socialist Modern Liberal they have not a modicum of humanity or morals, ethics and values are foreign words to them. They are what's tearing the fabric of our global communities apart.

They also know that practising Christians are, by and large, not cowards, they're not wimps. The Christian tradition "boasts" hundreds of thousands of martyrs to the faith and, as the saying goes, "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." Hard-left atheists know that their fiercest adversaries are committed Christians, otherwise why would they be so vociferous in their condemnation of our faith?

a) Substitute "Muslim" for "Christian".
b) Ask yourself why you despise radical Islam.
c) Question answered.

This is silly, and spiritually dangerous, actually. It also shows that many moderns in post-Christian Europe are incapable of perceiving irony. One of the most distinctive qualities of twenty-first century society is it's joyless, inverted piety. Committed atheists are purchasing indulgences to prove they aren't Christian; neighbours inspect each others' waste bins looking for evidence of environmental sin; bottled water is frowned on... Get a life, people!

Mambo Bananapatch, well put.

batb,

I could help but laugh as I read an earlier post of yours(re: condoms in Africa).

"The Pope's actually correct. In areas hard hit by AIDS the spread of condoms promotes promiscuity because many people believe that using them makes everything safe. Condoms distributed in Africa, especially in rural areas, are often unreliable."

Seriously? Where are you getting your facts from? The Pope? This is a ridiculous and untenable assertion. People, regardless of where they live, have sex! It's a fact of life, though maybe not one in your life. Nevertheless, promoting abstinence in Africa instead of promoting the benefits of the use of condoms ignores this fact and is in part responsible for the proliferation of AIDS. Has America's domestic reliance on abstinence in their education system reduced teenage pregnancies or the spread of STIs? No, it's done the opposite.

I commend you on exposing a problem with condoms in Africa though - because of the manner in which they are transported and contained, their efficacy is reduced. However, it is entirely fallacious to assert that, in light of this, we should be focusing on abstinence. This may be what your faith tells you but reason dictates we fix the problem with condom transportation and storage to increase efficacy.

Also, the failure rate of condoms with "proper" use (whatever your quotations mean, I'm not quite sure) is not 20%. Check your facts before stating them instead of having 'faith' in them.

-J

"S*x ... is a fact of life, though maybe not one in your life."

GIVE ME A BREAK. I'm a mother.

Of course people have s*x. 'Only thing is, it bothers me when thousands of people having s*x die because they're having it -- and at such young ages. I'm not laughing. No one ever died of not having s*x but untold hundreds of thousands have died, and are still dying, because of promiscuous s*x -- you know, the kind of s*x divorced from love, from family life, from what makes sex meaningful and productive, in the most basic sense of the word.

"Has America's domestic reliance on abstinence in their education system reduced teenage pregnancies or the spread of STIs?"

EXCUSE ME? What "reliance on abstinence" in North America's education system? There's barely a whisper about it. The usual s*x ed curriculum in our public schools begins with the sentence, "The only 100% reliable way to avoid pregnancy and S*xually Transmitted Diseases is abstinence." The next sentence goes, "However, if it is your personal lifestyle choice to have s*x, we are here to help you and this is how." The rest of the 80-page curriculum then catalogues for 13, 14, and 15 year-olds how to manipulate contraceptive devices that even adults in committed relationships find difficult to use effectively.

At least the Pope looks at the whole person when talking about s*xuality, not at people as s*x machines whose activities are garnering gazillion$ of dollar$ for the pharmaceutical industry -- first, when they sell all the contraceptives and, then, when they sell prescriptions for the plethora of drugs to treat STDs. Follow the money to see why young people the world over are encouraged to be s*xually active: "People, regardless of where they live, have sex [you moron. Get with the program]!" nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Check out Uganda's ABC program and you'll discover that I'm not as naive as you condescendingly suggest.

Jono,

What batb said, with a small caveat. In Africa, Uganda has achieved remarkable success through teaching abstinence, beside countries that have worsened their AIDS rates using the condom rate. And no, I doubt it's simply a matter of condom transportation.

The caveat: I recently read that there has been some success with the condom approach with sex workers in a couple of Asian countries, where apparently the primary transmission is through prostitution.

Thanks, Shane O.

ABC in Uganda stands for Abstinence, Be faithful, and use Condoms -- as I mentioned above. Perhaps Jono missed the "C" part of the prevention program.

Uganda seems to be one of the only African nations to emphasize abstinence and faithfulness in relationships (certainly two aspects of the HIV/AIDS prevention program the Pope and various churches would encourage) and they have considerably lowered the HIV/AIDS rate in women, from a peak of 15% (30% of pregnant women) to 5% (see link in my post above).

The big problem with condom use as a prevention strategy, with no emphasis on abstinence or faithfulness in a relationship, is that it deals only with s*xual “mechanics” not the whole person, not the psychological aspects of s*x in a relationship.

I'm surprised that so few "condom activists" are aware of the success of abstinence and faithfulness, alongside condom use, in the prevention of the transmission of HIV/AIDS in Africa. Ridicule and being dismissive seem to be the prevalent attitudes towards anyone who dares to question condom use as an effective means of combatting the spread of HIV/AIDS.

The "ABC" policy you mention is oxymoronic and confusing: "abstain from sex" but also "use condoms". It gets dwindled down to simply "AB". Condoms get left out of the equation and efforts to reduce AIDS are hampered.

Read this:

U.S. officials describe their strategy in Uganda as “ABC”—a popular acronym standing for “Abstinence, Be Faithful, use Condoms.” Some experts credit the “ABC” strategy with helping to reduce HIV prevalence in Uganda from about 15% in the early 1990s, to less than 10% today. However, Human Rights Watch’s new report documents how condoms are left out of the equation, especially for young people.

A draft “Abstinence and Being Faithful (AB)” policy released in November 2004 by the Uganda AIDS Commission cautions that providing information about condoms alongside abstinence can be “confusing” to youth. Teachers told Human Rights Watch that they have been instructed by U.S. contractors not to discuss condoms in schools because the new policy is “abstinence only.” President Museveni has publicly condemned condoms as inappropriate for Ugandans, leading some AIDS educators to stop talking about them."

From:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/03/29/uganda-abstinence-only-programs-hijack-aids-success-story

Momar 11:38PM - I'm very sure the Vatican hasn't closed Purgatory.

11:38AM.

Correct, purgatory is alive and well (although not spoken of as much), while limbo was only ever a philosophical speculation.

Mambo Bananapatch: Steve Martin much?

Alright, for those arguing their points, especially the angry atheists: we live in a free society, right? So why the excessive effort to change people's point of view?

Who wants to change anything? I get more satisfaction laughing at you and making fun of you.

BTW, batb, I'm pretty sure you're terrible in bed. You sound incredibly boring. That's probably why you have such a restricted view of sex. Some of us know how to have fun when we have sex, and we're responsible, contributing, and caring adults - some of us even have families. I'm sorry you've decided to arbitrarily restrict yourself in some sort of pitiful ascetic tradition, but don't assume everyone else is as boring as you. Also, I'm pretty sure Stalin didn't give a sh*t about the Pope's comment, as he was more than aware that the old man's half-crazy ramblings with his imaginary sky friend were not going to amount to squat at any time, up to and including eternity.

You guys are just laughingstocks, that's all. Religion is ridiculous supernatural bullsh*t, and there is nothing wrong with pointing at childish beliefs and laughing at them.

Finally, do you really think that 'batb' is that much more of a descriptive moniker than 'anon'? Jesus t*tty-f*cking Christ, they're even the same number of letters. What a dumbass thing to use to dismiss a blog comment.

"Some here argue that there's no need to be born until you're an adult."

Yeah but then we think we are in pretty good company. John 3:1-7

A man named Shane would know a thing like that (11:18 PM).
Jono, anon - one word: Class!

STDs are very tiny organisms, minuscule in size compared to sperm. These super-small viruses can get through a hole in a condom much more easily than sperm can. For example, HIV (the AIDS-causing virus) is so small that two million of the disease-causing agents could crowd on the period at the end of a sentence.

One reason condoms fail in preventing the transfer of AIDS is that latex condoms have tiny intrinsic holes called "voids." Sperm is larger than the holes, but the AIDS virus is 50 times smaller than these tiny holes which makes it easy for the virus to pass through [Source: Dr. C. M. Roland, editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology]. To give you an idea of how easy it would be for the virus to pass through these holes, imagine a ping pong ball going through a basketball hoop. Maybe that's why, in a series of studies on the effectiveness of condoms to prevent the prevalence and spread of HIV/AIDS, the average condom failure rate was 31% (they are more effective in the prevention of pregnancy).

Sex can be a lot of fun, but unfortunately, being sexually active is often a matter of life and death, especially if you have multiple partners.

I happen to think that in order to have fun you have to, first, be alive.

Morning batb, please allow me fill in this anon basement dwelling leftoid whose only exposure to sex has been through the internet.

Hey doofus, if you have been around any length of time you would know that batb stands for "been around the block".

As far as batb being good in bed, I'm afraid you would have to ask Mr batb... if you dare. Most people would not make statements like that in person but through the relative anonymity of the internet, the imature and the fools have an outlet to show the world that they are indeed imature and fools. In other words, it's none of your f*cking business, so next time you post here please bring a note from your mommy, eh kid.

PiperPaul,

Congratulations! In the three years I've been using this moniker, you are the first person to correctly identify its origin.

Well done sir. Now I have to kill you.

:-)

MB

PiperPaul,

Congratulations! In the three years that I've been using this moniker, you're the first one to correctly identify its origin.

Please don't tell anybody else. :-(

Cheers,
MB

anon - Er, you're claiming that the leader of Soviet communism (a movement enforced on a huge nation by a relatively small cabal with an eventual lifespan of 72 years and untold millions intentionally murdered) is somehow superior to the leader of a religious organisation with voluntary membership that continues, doctrinally-unchanged (including in the area of sexual mores that you so disparage), for 2000 years? Who am I supposed to believe is delusional?

Black mamba - I'm not the authority on all obscure religious trivia, but I'm in the running ;-)

Aaah! I thought my first post was canned because of the "kill" reference...

> Who am I supposed to believe is delusional?

Can't they both be?

Thanks, Texas Canuck, for coming to the rescue of a lady's honour! Geesh. I just laughed ... after all, what would a bottom feeder know?

'Funny, isn't it, how simply stating facts that others for some mysterious reason don't want to hear -- do they value their or others' lives at all? -- dredges up ferocious name-calling and derision.

I hope that sometime in the future "anon" gets a life ... and then manages to hang on to it.

Ulianov 3:20 AM - "...the irony is that spiritual and moral support of Pope John Paul 2 for the Solidarity Union in Poland was one of the key factors in the eventual downfall of communism."
Okay, Uli, you're just making me nervous now. To paraphrase Agent Smith way back when, Who are You Ulianov and What Have You Done With Ulianov!?"

As far as I can tell, there are no real atheists. I mean, how can you know for a certainty that God does not exist? How would you prove such a thesis? As for me, I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them. I think a lot of self-confessed atheists actually believe this, too, but are afraid of the implications. After all, if God is real, if He's really there as the infinite-personal God, then it follows that we are accountable on a big scale. And who wants that?