Archived blog post

Judgement Day

Posted by JGJ on Thursday, April 13, 2006 | Permalink

Ignorance is the mother of all religions, and those who admit their own ignorance are wiser than most. Those who do not admit their ignorance are the breeders of intolerance and hate. I don't have all the answers; we are here because the system works well enough for our continued existence. Knowing how we got here doesn't concern me. When I tell people, usually only when asked, that I am an atheist, usually the first question out of their mouth is "Well, how do think we got here?" My typical answer is that I don't know and that finding out is not high on my priority list. I'm here and I'll make the best of it. I follow my own moral code just like everyone else. People are not nice or mean to people because a book tells them to be, they are nice or mean because there is something in it for them.

If there is the Christian god at the end who is going to judge the way I handled my life, what I believed in, or not, he will know that I never claimed to be something I was not. Heaven or Hell would be his choice, not mine, regardless of what I label myself with. The same goes for those who label themselves Christian, that god will know what they have claimed and if their actions fit their claim. That god will know the true path to heaven or hell because he built them. He will know if the self labeled Christians were on that path or not regardless of what they believed or if they thought of themselves as the most devout people on earth. Belief is one thing, and probably the smallest part of it, actions speak louder than words, and thoughts and motives are the true paths to heaven and hell, real, religious, or personal.

I doubt that I'm an atheist most of the time and just prefer to be anti-religion, any religion. Atheist just seems to fit better than most other labels. My thoughts and beliefs change every day. Someone once said that if you began as a Republican or Democrat and hadn't changed your mind by 30, you havn't learned anything. The same can be said with beliefs. I don't know for sure what's out there, if we were created, accident, or just the sum of our parts, chemistry and physics. I prefer the chemistry and physics because that is what can be observed. But I will or will not be judged on my own merits and prefer to stand on my own two feet any which way it ends. I walk my own path. Friends, walk your own paths too, there is no need to force, coerce, cajole, or ridicule anyone onto your own path. After awhile, your path would get too crowded and when that happens people start splintering off in directions you didn't intend, kind of like what happened to the followers of Jesus. If you can talk sensibly to someone about your beliefs and they decide that is the way for them as well then it is their own choice. People forced into a belief because of threats, intimidation, fear, and whatnot will not stay long and are only on that path in action, not in spirit. Parents who force their children into church force them away from it. People should let the decision to go or not come naturally and not ignorantly pushed into it. I think more people would go to church today if they were not force fed it.

I don't believe I have ever met a member of any Christian denomination that knew everything their denomination believed AND how those beliefs were came into being. Which will lead me to my next post sometime in the future about my first statement in this one, "Ignorance is the mother of all religions." So if you can hold off on flaming me for a bit on this particular subject I will go into more detail later.

Comments [ hide comments ]
I've no problem with people being anti-religion if they want to as long as they don't start persecutign religious people.

But if one accepts the possibility of there being a God one can hardly say all religious activity is meaningless can you?
field, 13.04.2006, 1:41pm #
It depends on what you mean by "religious activity." Some activities done in the name of religion or done by the religious can be done without religion at all. You would have to be more specific at what you are getting at.

Define persecution as well, because persecution can take many forms in this day and age and it is not only directed to those with religion but those without by the religious. Take the case in Atlanta, GA for an example. Ruth Malhotra is suing her college trying to overturn anti-discrimination policies so that homosexuals do not have the same rights her religious group has. She wants the right to protest against policies and people she feels are unacceptable to her religion.

"Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians. Evangelicals have been suspended for wearing anti-gay T-shirts to high school, fired for denouncing Gay Pride Month at work, reprimanded for refusing to attend diversity training. When they protest tolerance codes, they're labeled intolerant." For the full article you can go here...,0,6204444.story?coll=la-home-headlines

It's just step one in persectution in the name of religion. It is those same policies and freedoms that protect the religious from discrimination that they are fighting. They feel they are justified because they consider homosexuality to be a lifestyle choice. They have no evidence of that other than their own beliefs. Religion is a lifestyle choice as well, shouldn't they have the plug pulled? But that would be persecution! I'm not gay and I don't hang out with gays, but I'm not going to hatemonger against gays. And I can even suggest a plausible reason for homosexuality physiologically, that in a lot of cases it is not lifestyle choice but rather a trait they are born with. Persecution is a two-way street and religion has showed that it can not only benefit society but harm it as well. Stripping the rights, freedoms, and lives away from those whom the religious deem unworthy is persecution in its ugliest forms. If the door to persecuting people who do not fit the religious idealist's view is opened, who is next? Those who eat shellfish? It sits right next to the verse used to support anti-homosexuality. So when you say "all religious activity" you are loading the question with variables too numerous to count.
JGJ, 13.04.2006, 2:19pm #
I get the "Well, how do think we got here?" question quite a bit when its mentioned that i don't believe in any religion or gods. Its kind of stupid to assume i would have an answer, if i did know the answer then i would probably be the top scientist in history by now.

"Ignorance is the mother of all religions." How any Christian can argue against this would be interesting to hear. Pretty much all major religions rely on faith. This being a blind faith where they can't question there god or religious leaders. The most shocking thing about Christians and other religious followers is that they lack the very understanding of what "having faith" actually means for them.

Why exactly would it hurt to question what they believe? is it a crime? will they burn in hell for it? How can people accept that they simply have to believe what they are told, end of story...?

As most Christians inform me, the only requirement to get into heaven is to believe in god. This means even a serial killer, serial rapist, child molester can repent and live eternity in paradise. Now if a Christian were to question there god, search for answers or look for alternative ways of explaining the universe, there would be no reason for anything to happen to them as long as they only end up being convinced that the god of there religious following is indeed the real answer. They still believe in god, will be forgiven and will still go to heaven.

Yet if they do question there god and end up on a journey that would lead them to discover that actually, a lot of things about there religion doesn't add up and it may all be nothing more then a lie. This would then eliminate heaven and hell altogether and the individual would have no reason to fear anymore.

There are choices, even for Christians. If their god is so loving then im sure he wouldn'¬Ęt mind his believers questioning him. After all, what is there to be scared of? If god is the "undeniable truth" then the followers of the faith will only end up being even more convinced of there religion and will be closer to god.

The truth is (for any Christians/ Muslims reading) that it is infact the churches, mosques and religious leaders that fear losing followers, fear that they will get less funding, fear that people will turn to crime and drugs as they have no explanation for life and no meaning or purpose. It would not be god himself who fears doubters, after all with the large amount of people who are going to hell anyway it would be no skin of his back to toss a few more into the fires of hell, not that that would be any concern of the now non believer as hell is no longer a reality or possibility.

Atheists/agnostics don't have a creator, don't have to follow any rules and are free to do as they wish. This does not mean we are all evil. People can still live their lives by good morals. I find the idea of people living there lives peacefully and respecting others simply because its the right thing to do is a lot more respectful and admirable then people believing for the sake of believing, for the sake of not wanting to suffer, for being an ass kisser to there god.

Ask yourself what is "faith"? Why are you not allowed to question god if god is undeniable? Why are your leaders teaching you to be ignorant?
Whitty, 13.04.2006, 2:38pm #
it's ahrd to keep people from going rambo for their beleifs or sense of right and wrong. i am happy that none of this ahs at least shown it's ugly face among my group of friends.

GSA day of silence is going to be sweet though. one benefit is the amusement of watching angry people squirm as they realize there's little they can do without getting sued.
Shaggy, 13.04.2006, 10:37pm #
Whitty, I am currently working on a blog entry for exactly what you mentioned.

"Atheists/agnostics don't have a creator, don't have to follow any rules and are free to do as they wish. This does not mean we are all evil. People can still live their lives by good morals."

It will come sometime after the "Ignorance is the Mother of Religion" entry which I am almost finished with but am holding off for a bit to see if I get more comments on this one. Plus Ben is working on one and I want to give him the chance since I can't seem to shut up. I don't know if Tim is working on one or not though, last I heard he was in Turkey searching for the Lost Ark of the Covenant, I tried to tell him it was Noah's Ark in Turkey but he might have missed my email.
JGJ, 14.04.2006, 5:31am #
Whitty/JGJ -

I am not sure you are understanding my point.

I suppose I am saying, by analogy, that if in 1400 some European told another that 2000 miles to the west there was a large undiscovered continent and then proceeded to describe this continent, even if the description of the continent was fantastical and wrong, it wouldn't affect the essential truth that there WAS this continent 2000 miles to the west.

You appear to be saying the essential truth is irrelevant - it's no more than a lucky guess.
field, 14.04.2006, 11:32am #
The ignorance of many 'faithful' has always been a matter of great fascination to me, and it's interesting how atheists seem to have far more knowledge of the history of religions than their followers. The other day Morgan Spurlocks' 30Days programme had a devout Kristian spending a month within a Muslim family. He was extremely uncomfortable about the prayer requirement, and was shocked to discover that it was the same god he would be praying to, and that Islam was just another Abrahamic religion. He had NO idea. I was totally flabberghasted.
Another example is a devout Muslim I used to work with. Lovely chap, salt of the Earth and all that. However, he had no idea why he fasted during Ramadan. None. Zip.Nowt.
Being a born again, my BIL has a wierd problem with swearing, so has a tendency to say 'Crikey' as an alternative, not knowing that just saying 'shitty fucking bollocks!' like he wants to would be far less blasphemous than the abbreviated 'Christ Almighty!' he insists on using. Have I pointed this out? Of course not. Why should I?
Pinchbeck, 14.04.2006, 1:08pm #
Ahh, I see, are you sure you want to use the continent analogy or shall we just go with your real point on the existence of a creator god through the philosophy of Berkeley?
JGJ, 14.04.2006, 1:37pm #
"But if one accepts the possibility of there being a God one can hardly say all religious activity is meaningless can you?"

No i don't understand your point. If there was a continent to the west, then well done to the guy theorising its there. In failing to describe anything accurate about the continent would make sense considering he has never seen it and he is only theorising.

The point I'm trying to get at is that there was lots of undiscovered land years ago and theorising there was more land in 1 specific direction would more then likely be true. But if this European was able to get to this new continent in a boat and he was able to compare what he thought would be there compared to what was actually there then he would instantly see how it was wrong to assume he could work out such specific facts based on nothing.

Compare this to religion and science. Its very hard to think there cant be a creator of life/ the universe based on the irreducible complexity of it all. So imagine there was infact a god and all the religions/ some scientist were correct all along. There is still no way to know the specific details of what this creator is, where the creator is, or weather there are rules they want us to live by.

By going about spending the rest of your life dedicated to 1 religion you are assuming you know it all, based on ancient books and religious teachings. It's a waste of life and resources to think 1 old book knows it all. Compared to science, Yes science has only to theorise about most things when they are first discovered as there is a lack of evidence about such things. But science is not rock solid and is always changing to find the truth.

Religious activity is meaningless because there are so many religions out there and so many different teachings even about the same religions that even if 1 of them were anywhere near close, all the others would be wrong anyway.
Whitty, 14.04.2006, 2:11pm #
Field and Whitty,

There are many pardoxial questions one can ask in philosophy and religion but in the end it still gets you no closer to answering the questions and either ends up as spiritual revelation unto one's self, confusion, or total disregard. To some people who post regularly at this blog, the possibility of anything and everything is either evidence or just reason not to discount anything. The possibility of some sort of god exists, therefore a god must exist. The logic is paradoxical because the possibility of no god existing is equally probable. One has to use their own judgement because that is all one has. Trying to use paradox as proof for the existence of a god is absurd since it cancels itself out. One should look elsewhere or spend the rest of their life in meaningless, undending debate.

The main arguments for a god are:

The First-Cause Argument or Efficient Causation

The Natural-Law Argument

The Argument from Design

The Moral Arguments for Diety

The Argument for the Remedying of Injustice

All of which have been addressed by philosophers through the years.

All other philosophical reasons, that I know of, for or against the existence of God don't really matter unless one can define the nature of a god. Arguments such as Hume and Pascal's arguments with the problems of evil, Saint Anselm's Ontological Argument, Pascal's Wager, Mackie and his Evil and Omnipotence, and a host of others.

Move on Field, you will get nowhere with me using this line of thought.
JGJ, 14.04.2006, 6:31pm #
Judgement day is coming. Without fire preaching, people will do as they please. This leads to the kind of Godless, heartless, unkind society we have today.
RHF, 15.04.2006, 4:31am #
you really have no better use for your life, do you?
Shaggy, 15.04.2006, 9:12am #
Shaggy, I don\'t mind atheists as long as they keep it to themselves :)

My life is fine Shaggy. I know the ultimate truth, where am I going after death, etc...

It\'s great being a christian.
RHF, 16.04.2006, 10:39pm #
Shaggy, I don\'t mind atheists as long as they keep it to themselves :)

My life is fine Shaggy. I know the ultimate truth, where am I going after death, etc...

It\'s great being a christian.
RHF, 16.04.2006, 10:39pm #
Hey, just like I don't mind Christians as long as they keep it to themselves. And there you go again, judging yourself as well as others on where you have a room reserved after death. You still havn't answered my question about Matthew 7:1-2
JUDGE not, that ye be not JUDGEd.
Mt 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

I'll just have to assume you know that I'm right.
JGJ, 16.04.2006, 11:07pm #

I have argued here before that a supernatural deity (i.e. a designing force lying outside time and space) is a more rational fit for our scientific observations than infinite causal regress OR instantaneous creation (the last two seeming to be all that is on offer from science).

However, I think in many ways this is a semantic issue. Scientists seem more and more prepared to entertain fabulous explanations - multi dimensions, multiverse theories, space/time dissolution. How far away from teh traditional notions of God are these things.

In terms of a "proof" of God, only the first cause argument and the ontological argument really matter. I think we haven't really yet got to grips with the ontological argument. There does seem to be a sense in which it is difficult to imagine a world like ours without a creator - it's a bit like asking can one imagine a book witout an author. Yes, one can (there could have been an accident at the printers and the words and pages just fell together), but it is a lot more hard work than believing there is an author who has decided how the words are goign to be arragned on the page. This isn't an argument from design - it is simply that the actual existence of the cosmos is an argument for a God of some sort.
field, 17.04.2006, 2:53pm #
Whitty - great post. I've argued before that you need faith to believe in science too (based on Hume's observation that there's no logical reason to think that the future will conform with the past), so won't go over that one here.

Be that as it may, I agree with you about questioning. I think it's really important to try to think through my faith, not just accept it because I'm told it. As a sort of church leader myself (of a small group within my church) I've always tried to get other people to think things through and ask questions as well.

Two reasons: (1) not everything one gets told at church is true, clearly, since not all Christians agree on everything, and our preachers are fallible. It's dangerous just to accept what you're told. Better to have the mental tools to examine it and see if it agrees with what you already know about God / Jesus etc. The Bible actually tells us to do this (1 Thess 5:21, Eph 5:14).

(2) It's a bit like the house built on rock or sand thing. In my experience if you are used to thinking through your own faith and arguing it against other ideas, then your faith becomes a lot more robust. Things go wrong in life, and you do come across conflicting ideas. You're far better equipped to deal with them if you've really come to terms with your own faith through thought and questioning than if you've always just accepted it.

There certainly are preachers like you describe. I'd argue that the "religeous right" in the US is full of them: how else could the republican party have successfully infiltrated and subverted so many churches, given how dangerously radical the Bible's teaching on the subject is? And there will be plenty of other examples too. But just because Christians do it doesn't mean that it is Christian to do so.

There's also a difference between constructive and distructive questioning. I ask questions of Christianity with the aim of building up my faith, for example; but if I think someone's beliefs are incorrect then I might well ask questions in order to undermine those beliefs. But that's not an issue: as a believer I guess one should be able to respond to destructive questions, and also ask questions which one hopes will be constructive.

Like you I would worry about anyone who tells someone else that they shouldn't be asking questions. If Christianity is true, then my faith has nothing to fear from rational argument.
Tom di Giovanni, 18.04.2006, 12:30pm #
Religion does not have the sole rights to the word "faith" since it has several meanings. It depends on how you mean it when you are saying it. Faith in science doesn't require religion.

I think you guys are equating religious faith (the theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will or even Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence) with acceptance of science as fact without observing the evidence for yourself. Two totally different concepts of faith.

Science Theory is testable and repeatable. If I were wanting to test my faith in a particular science I would be able to test the theories put forth and most likely come to the same conclusion unless I discoved a modification of some sort. Religious faith, however is untestable, in scientific method, and even considered sinful to even desire a test which makes it unmodifiable, static, and the belief that it is infallable.
JGJ, 18.04.2006, 12:49pm #
I agree with your first paragraph. I meant "faith" as "belief without proof" rather than "religious faith". "Proof" to me means logical proof.

When I talk about needing "faith" to believe in science, I don't mean not having seen the evidence, I mean taking the illogical step of assuming that what you've seen in the past (or what is in your memory) will continue to hold true in the future. (Hume again:

A corollary of that is that science cannot disprove e.g. the resurrection, instant creation, etc.

It shouldn't be too surprising that you can't verify the existence of God by experiment. Unlike most scientific equipment, God has a mind of His own, and tends not to be restricted by physical laws or laboratory environments. He wouldn't really be God otherwise. Sure, you can argue that therefore he doesn't exist, but that's an inference made by selection rather than reason.

Of course, I believe I have experienced God in my life. I could argue that you have too. It's just that the events I explain as God at work, you would explain in other ways.
Tom di Giovanni, 18.04.2006, 2:38pm #
One cannot argue personal experience either for or against. It's personal.

I avoid the justification of personal experience debates like the plague.
JGJ, 18.04.2006, 2:44pm #
"There's also a difference between constructive and distructive questioning. I ask questions of Christianity with the aim of building up my faith"

Nothing personal but I think that is a grave mistake. It's sort of like structuring the question around what you belive to be the correct answer. What's the point in questioning anything if you're not prepared to accept the fact that your previous conclusions may have been wrong? Seems awfully cart-before-horse to me.
theantibush, 19.04.2006, 2:33am #
"One cannot argue personal experience either for or against. It's personal."

Too true. Imagine how much more advanced our culture would be if we could get to the bottom of all the claims people have made over the millenia that god spoke to them directly. There wouldn't be enough material to even write a "new testament" since all of the authors would be discredited as lying or delusional.
theAntiBush, 19.04.2006, 2:40am #
"You still havn't answered my question about Matthew 7:1-2
JUDGE not, that ye be not JUDGEd.
Mt 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

LOL That always shuts the Christian fundamentalist up.
I Cheon Sin, 19.04.2006, 5:01am #
JGJ - that was kind of the point I was trying to make in my last para. If you can't make a decision based on reason or experience, you have to go by faith, and that's just as true whatever you do or don't believe.

theAntiBush - great name, by the way. Your first point is kind of fair - but it's no different from atheists who examine Christianity only with the aim of finding holes in it rather through trying to convince themselves it's true. Which latter would be an odd thing to do.

As for the second, naturally I'd completely disagree on all counts. Firstly, I believe you'd be left with not only all of the Bible but also the experience of millions or billions of other people through the ages (not all of whom were Christians); and secondly, if you were to delete the teachings of Jesus and everyone else who claimed to hear from God (Christian or otherwise) I genuinely believe society at large would be far worse than it is now. It's a hard point to argue, though, since I can't think many places have ever tried it.

I cheon Sin - If I were to tell you "you're going to burn in hell forever", that would be judging you. If I were to say "you're going to burn in hell forever if you don't accept Jesus as Lord, Saviour and God", that would not be judging you, just stating a belief; I'd say the same about myself or anyone else. If you were to apply that to your own situation (about which I can only speculate), you might perhaps be judging yourself. Not judging, following Matt 7:2, doesn't mean accepting univeralism or disengaging one's brain. It does mean recognizing that no-one is beyond redemption.

I think that's kind of exciting.
Tom di Giovanni, 19.04.2006, 12:22pm #
Antibush, did you read see the interview with Lee Iococa? Truly funny stuff, even though I have been saying it for the last 3 years.

Lee Iacocca. "I make speeches for the Washington Speakers Bureau, get $75,000 for 30 minutes, and all I ever say is, "Here's what management is about. Hire good people and set some basic priorities and objectives" Well, let's see how George Bush qualifies. The people that surround him are just friends, and I think most of them just schmucks, because I know a lot of them. Who runs the country? Cheney, is getting old and sick and had this hunting accident. And "Rummy," Rumsfeld, whom I know real well -- they've been together forever, and they run the country. They had Condoleezza Rice for lunch. I don't know what she's got on Bush, but, boy, he believes in her. Other than those three, the mastermind of them all, the boy genius, is Karl Rove -- slime bucket that he is. You've got to know him to see how slimy he is."

You're making the assumption that the Bible is truth and that family's religious traditions passed on by their parents, peer pressure, the obvious historical record of the church's degredation of all those who don't believe, the results of missionary movements to third world countries stripping their natural culture away and killing those who did not comply, Inquisitions, persecutions, etc. etc. etc. has had the most impact on what people believe today and as a reason for why there are so many that do believe. Church attendence is falling rapidly and people are finally starting to wake up to the bad sides of religion. Just a few hundred years ago I would have been put to death which is a pretty good reason to believe whole heartedly.

I don't see how saying "you're going to burn in hell forever" is not judging. You're disguising it as belief, which is opinion, which is caused by a value judgement on the worthiness of one's actions or beliefs. And it is not just Matt 7:2. It's Luke 6:37; Luke 19:22; John 5:22; and especially John 8:14 and 15 because it applies to Jesus just as much as it applies to everyone else.

John 12:47 and 48 specifically says that not even Jesus judges those who do not believe in him and that there is only one who does and is the same one that judges everyone on the last day. I suppose that will be RHF or you.

Using fear tactics like threatening people with hell is exactly the opposite of what the early christians did to attract followers.

Perhaps you believe that absolution only comes with an act of contrition but not even all christians believe that. There is the belief that Jesus died for our sins that all may live without fear of hell. Acts of contrition has always been used to keep people giving money to the church and has nothing to do with Jesus. The modes of getting forgiveness is one of the most humorous things to read about in Christian History.

I'm currently working on a Guide to World religions for those who are unsure of where they belong. I'm currently up to around 350 major beliefs, denomoniations, sects, cults, and movements and have a long way to go. Over half of all those are Christian related. Stating the number of Christians as evidence for God is useless for providing evidence of its validity when these people can't even agree on how to do it. I would argue that a single boat with rowers rowing in opposite directions would never get anywhere and Christianity is and will continue to lose its followers for something that is more progressive.

I'd say more but I have to get to class.
JGJ, 19.04.2006, 12:53pm #

" different from atheists who examine Christianity only with the aim of finding holes in it..."

You're absolutely right. So we see that people arguing from both sides of the field are guilty of the same thing. Maybe that's why it's so hard to have these types of discussions with people we know in social circles outside the internet. My friend, if you were within arms reach I would firmly shake your hand!

Now, a religious person do you believe that GW received a divine mandate to start another war in the middle east or do most christians kinda snicker at him a little for that one.
theAntiBush, 20.04.2006, 4:06am #

GW it's truly hard to know anymore who runs the country. I'm starting to think our country is run by lobbyists. I have nothing against this wonderful new "global economy" everyone's talking about but how does it benefit America to ship jobs overseas to cheaper labor markets? Personally, I'd rather pay a little more for my Tonka trucks, clothes, shoes, etc. than know that another corporation is closing U.S. plants. And if oil is so damn expensive that we all have to pay $600/gallon, why are oil companies still reporting massive profits? Whatever happened to the big bad presidential inquiry into oil co. profits that GW was supposed to launch? I haven't heard much about it.

If we could pass legislation to outfit EVERY new car with a catalytic converter, why can't we pass legislation to make EVERY new car after a certain year a hybrid that gets 50mpg? Could it be that automakers and oil companies have tons of money to throw around and Jorge just can't say no. Toyota and Honda are doing it without a mandate from the federal government. No wonder the big three are falling apart.

Did anybody notice that he bankrupted two of his family's oil companies? What made us think he could run a government any better? But I suppose this is all talk for another blog.
theAntiBush, 20.04.2006, 4:19am #
JGJ - You've misquoted me slightly but critically. I could summarise my point by saying that quoting or explaining the law isn't judging, applying it to individuals is. IMO anyway.

I agree with you on the fear thing, anyway: as I said elsewhere it's plain stupid to think that an atheist will be scared of the concept of hell. I mentioned it purely to clarify the issue of what constituded judgement and what didn't.

theAntiBush - now we're on the same wavelength :) That's why I like this site, at least here we can discuss stuff.

As for GW and his "holy war" - I think it's tragic that any devout Christian could think something so stupid, and yet clearly lots do. To me, claiming such acts are in the name of God is dire blasphemy. The result is people like JGJ thinking (quite understandably, given the evidence) that Christianity is about killing people for oil (or whatever). The Iraq war is no more Christian than Stalin's pogroms or Pol Pot's "year zero". Whether that is easier to demonstrate to a Christian or an atheist, I have no idea - clearly it's not that obvious to either.
Tom di Giovanni, 20.04.2006, 11:36am #
Tom, I knew what you were saying and really I didn't mean for it to be directed at you specifically.

One could also say that we could have dealt with Al-Qaeda without going for the Taliban. But there is the issue of the oil pipeline we wanted to create that has to run through Afghanistan that the Taliban didn't want us to have.
JGJ, 20.04.2006, 2:00pm #
as you may know very well than me these days blogs are cropping up all over the place.most loeppe starting such blogs think,they can write anyway and anything on there blog which is definately not true.but your blog solely stands out for your writing style,it is actually quite engrossing.keep at it.
Nada, 28.03.2012, 3:24pm #

New comments disabled due to spam