Saturday, February 28, 2009

Christians killing their kids is not news

I meant to make this post a couple of weeks ago, but never got around to it. By now, most people will have heard the story of an 11-year old American girl who was suffering from diabetes, but whose parents wouldn't take her for medical treatment because of their fucking retarded religious beliefs. They prayed really hard though. I guess they did everything they could.

I mentioned this story to my co-worker, who grew up in the American Midwest in a religious family. He somehow managed to become an atheist. He has 2 young daughters himself, so I expected a reaction of shock or sympathy or something along those lines. But all he said was, "Let it go. This kind of thing happens all the time."

How sad is that?! It has become such a normal occurrence for hardcore Christian parents to neglect/abuse/kill their children, that it doesn't even get a reaction from this father of two little girls. I don't have any kids, and even I'm shocked. I guess for those who are close to this part of the world and these attitudes, nothing can shock you anymore.

You can read about it here, although a few excerpts are below.

Her parents were told the body would be taken to Madison for an autopsy the next day. “They responded, ’You won’t need to do that. She will be alive by then,”’


Wormgoor said he had urged the father to seek medical help and was told the illness “was a test of faith for the Neumann family and asked the Wormgoors to join them in praying for Kara to get well,”


“We just thought it was a spiritual attack and we prayed for her. My husband Dale was crying and mentioned taking Kara to the doctor and I said, ’The Lord’s going to heal her,’ and we continued to pray,”


A day before Madeline died, according to the criminal complaint, the father wrote an e-mail with the headline, “Help our daughter needs emergency prayer!!!!.”


One relative told police that the girl’s mother believed she “died because the devil is trying to stop Leilani from starting her own ministry,”

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Fatherly love, insane violence and the clitoris

There is some great reading over at the Atheist Experience blog today.

Check out Tracie's post, in which she explains to a father of a young girl why it can be harmful to raise his daughter in Christianity. A preview is below:

I asked this dad what he would think of a neighbor who each day sat his own kids down and told them, “I think you are all such despicable children that you deserve nothing less than to be beaten without mercy, but since I love you so much, I won’t do that to you, so long as you tell me how truly sorry you are that you’re who and what you are—utterly unworthy.”

Then check this post by Kazim (Russell), responding to a lunatic Christian who tried to argue, among other things, that the clitoris (yes, THAT clitoris) is evidence of the existence of a god. The lunatic Christian then also explains what he would do to people if he thought that his god didn't exist. A preview (written by the insane Christian, not by Russell, just to make that clear) is below:

if i didn't have God to keep me in check i know i would hurt anyone who pissed me off and kill anyone who did anything bad enough for me to want to kill them. and screw the police since i would not care about jail or the death penalty because there is no after-life. right? i'd probably kill myself afterwards anyway just to prevent them from locking me up.

Gotta love Christians! Go religious morality!

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

A Post About Irrelevant Things

I am making this post because I think that atheists often take the wrong tactics in debating against believers. They get caught in a trap, arguing completely irrelevant points, and do not demand that the believer make arguments which are relvant to the issue.

Here are some of the common arguments made by the religious, and what I think an atheist's response should be.

1. "(insert famous scientist's name) believed in a god."

Well, that's great. This is why science examines each idea individually, and does not just take people's word for something based on their reputations. If a great scientist was right about one thing, it does not mean that they were right about other things, especially when it comes to issues outside of their area of expertise. In religion, the sheep just choose a person to listen to then accept everything he says, but science doesn't work that way. It examines ideas on their own merit.

In addition, some of the scientists who are often cited (ie. Newton) lived in an era when they did not have the proper evidence to refute ideas such as the young-Earth model. It's an extremely dishonest tactic.

If you are faced with this argument from a believer, do not try to argue the fact, regardless of whether it is true or not. You should instead make it clear that it does not matter what a scientist believed about gods, unless he had proof of it. You can explain how science is not a battle of reputations. You could also ask them to demonstrate that the scientist was correct in his assessment.

2. "Atheism/evolution leads to abortion/genocide/Communism/school shootings/(insert social-evil-of-the-week here).

Even if it's true, it doesn't matter. Not even a little bit. What certain people do with such knowledge is completely irrelevant. Anything bad, or good, which comes from knowledge of a scientific field, does nothing to influence the truth. Anybody who uses this argument is implicitly saying that the truth is not important to him, and that he would prefer to believe lies if it makes him feel good.

Believers use this argument because they have no evidence to back up their case. If faced with this argument, you should dismiss it and ask the believer if he has anything to say on the facts of the issue itself.

3. "I can prove that a god exists. The Universe must have a creator because bananas are perfect/look at the trees/DNA is a code/logic is transcendent/bacterial flagellum/(insert hand-waving-argument here)."

Congratulate the believer for actually attempting to make a relevant argument this time. Unfortunately for him, he has not proven anything, but merely made a hypothesis based on a proposed model of reality. This hypothesis has alternatives (ie. no gods), and so the believer must now actually produce the evidence needed to support his case. The typical standard for proof of the existence of an entity is to detect it, either directly, or based on its observed interaction with the things around it. In order to be considered proof, you must also exclude all other reasonable possibilities. Wish the believer good luck, and send him on his way to do years of research to prove his case.

If the believer doesn't like this reasoning, ask him if scientists should declare the existence of the Higgs Boson to be proven, just because they have hypothesised it and it fits the models. Wouldn't it be better if they actually detect it before declaring it to exist? Chances are the believer will agree with you on this.

The mistake that so many atheists make in these cases is to try to argue the truthfulness of the believer's assertions. This often leads to disaster. The problem is that there are so many, probably an infinite number, of arguments that a believer can make in this style. It is fruitless to try to argue against them all, as nobody has the knowledge necessary to do so. You cannot refute all of these points to the satisfaction of all observers. This allows the believer to make the atheist look bad in front of easily-impressed onlookers. It also distracts from the truly important point, which is that any argument of this style proves absolutely nothing. It is completely irrelevant whether or not the assumptions the believer is making are true or not, except for the final conclusion, the leap to gods. Don't get caught in this trap. Instead, attack the logic that was used and the hands that were waved. I've posted on this topic before, here and here.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Not Slick Enough

Last week, I heard an argument from yet another deluded fool claiming that he can prove the existence of gods. The deluded fool's name is Matt Slick, and the argument is known as the Transcendental Argument for god. If you're interested, you can find it on his website, here. I really recommend against wasting your time on it, however. It basically states that logical rules exist in the Universe, that they are the same over space and time, and that requires some kind of external mind to observe them.

Slick called in to the Atheist Experience TV show, and claimed that he could offer a proof of the existence of a god. He then went on to engage in religious-hand-waving, what he called 'philosophical proof' of a god. When the hosts failed to acknowledge that his wonderful reasoning proved his case, he accused them of not doing their homework on the philosophy of the argument.

I find his case to be absolutely pathetic, for several reasons.

1. Slick is a Christian, and in the Bible, the Christian god did all kinds of obvious and amazing things which clearly revealed its presence. It slayed children, parted seas, released plagues, flooded the entire Earth, spoke to damn near everybody, etc. And now, the best these idiots can come up with is hand-waving, 'philosophical proofs' (when has philosophy ever proven ANYTHING about existence in the real world?), and using a bunch of big words to dazzle people into agreement or confusion. What a totally lame attempt to prove the existence of something which he believes used to reveal itself all the time. If it ever did exist, I think it's clearly dead by now.

2. Even if Slick is right in many of his assertions, it doesn't prove anything. It is at best a model to suggest that such a thing might exist. One would have to actually detect a god in order to claim proof. I suspect that Slick knows this, and is just being a dishonest scumbag. He'd probably reply that his god cannot be detected, as it is supernatural. You know what other kind of things can't be detected? Things that don't exist! That puts this god in a not-so-impressive crowd. There is a very good reason why there is no such thing as a 'Nobel prize for god proofs'. I've posted on this topic before, right here.

3. The whole part about requiring an outside observer kinda smells like something that I've encountered before. It was the 19th-century belief that all waves required a medium to travel through. This resulted in scientists hypothesising the existence of something called 'the aether'. The aether was a substance which existed throughout the Universe, and provided the medium for light to travel through. It was reasoned that the aether had to exist, otherwise light couldn't travel over distances. It also provided an absolute reference frame for the Universe, by which all velocities and energies could be measured. Experiments failed to detect this aether, and the idea was replaced with the 1905 publication of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. We learned that light requires no such medium, and that there is no such thing as an absolute reference frame (or an outside observer by which all else could be measured). This may have sounded crazy at the time, but it's true, and the concept has passed all experimental tests. The brutal truth for Slick is that nobody has demonstrated his assertion, about requiring an outside observer, to be true.

4. I wonder if Slick would say that it is even possible to have a universe in which the laws of logic are different or non-transcendent. If he says no, then his argument really boils down to another version of "the Universe is here, therefore god(s) exist". If he says it is possible, then I wonder if he could describe what it might look like. How could a thing possibly be something that it isn't? Does it require a god for something to not be something that it wasn't just a moment ago? Creepy.

So, another idiot waves his hands and fails to impress me. I'm being totally honest, not trying to be funny, when I say that I find this argument less convincing than Ray Comfort's banana argument.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Give the entropy thing a rest

About 5 weeks ago, I received a comment on one of my posts. The post was about a common misconception that humans are some kind of linear progression from chimps. The comment was from a Young-Earth creationist who calls himself, Schnoodle. It contained the often-used and tired argument about how the laws of thermodynamics prevent evolution from taking place. I ignored the post until now, but think I'll respond to it as I realised that I do not yet have a post on this topic.

I also want to say that I have a strong feeling this guy is not a scientist. The language he uses is wrong, as much as he might like us to think that he has science training.

Schnoodle's text is in blue, my response is in black.

Saying that man did not come from the chimps but rather both came from a common ancestor is semantics at best. What the creationists mean is that evolution teaches that man evolved from a lower primate. Stating that man did not evolve directly from the monkey does not invalidate the creationist position that man did not evolve from any primate, no matter what the primate is called.

I didn't know that the purpose of my post was to invalidate the creationist position. I thought it was to clear up a common misunderstanding of the theory. Thanks for letting me know. Did you know that man IS a primate, by definition of the word?

In the aspect of simpler life forms “evolving” into more complex ones it violates some important scientific laws. The first and foremost is that of entropy.

I have to admit that this is where your post put me to sleep and caused me to ignore it for weeks. You think you're the first person to ever give me this argument? Yawn. As I stated above, I'm only responding to this garbage now because I don't yet have a post on the subject.

Also, no it doesn't violate any scientific laws. Why is it that you, a person who is not a scientist, think that you have noticed something so fundamentally wrong with the theory, that has not been noticed by the actual scientists who do the work on the subject? Don't you think that if thermodynamics excluded evolution as a possibility, that oh I don't know, some actual physicists might point that out?

Everything and I do mean everything, moves from usable to unusable states. That is everything is in a state of degradation.

No, this is a misunderstanding of thermodynamics; the layman's definition, if you will. I read an article recently by an actual thermodynamics researcher who was complaining that the public doesn't understand what it means or when it applies. If your statement were true, then it would be impossible for a baby to grow in a mother's womb. And we know that happens, so evolution is also in the clear.

So to accept the proposition that everything “evolved” I must suspend the “observable”, which by the way is the foundation of all scientific study, and accept the unobservable. That is, I must concede that the scientific laws do not constrain evolution but they constrain everything else that is observable.

Fail. Your assumption from above (pun) is wrong, and that is the problem with your entire post below that assumption.

I guess the laws were different in the past to allow for evolution to happen because we do not scientifically witness macro-evolution still happening

Macro-evolution? You're giving yourself away as a non-scientifically-trained bible-thumper. No, the rules did not have to be different in the past, and it is still happening today. The answer is simply that it happens slowly. Are you seriously unable to figure this out? Would you have been able to witness it in the past? No!

– and don’t waste my time and insult my intelligence by postulating that genetic mutations prove evolution. All genetic mutations are harmful not beneficial, and this cannot account for an increase in genetic information, which would be required for evolution to work.

Don't worry, you don't need me to insult your intelligence. You're doing a fine job of it yourself. No, all mutations are not harmful, and there are beneficial mutations. Who told you that? Your preacher? The high-school educated Kirk Cameron? Try reading the scientific literature. If there were any proof of your statement, evolution would be pretty much dead in the water. On the contrary, there are scientific papers documenting beneficial mutations which occurred under observation in the lab, as well as those taken from studies in nature. I even read about some last night, and the night before that. Where is your research which supports your argument?

However, instead of baiting an augment over secondary issues, such as the complexity of life, let us get to the heart of the real issue. Whence the first cell? I mean where did the very first living cell come from?

Off the top of my head, I don't know. But I'm sure scientists have some ideas which are under study, if they haven't already cracked it. Do you know? Do you know how your imaginary friend pieced together the first cell? What process did it use? See, we're at a point here where I say nature did it, and you say a ghost did it. You are then challenging me to back up my statement and explain further, but think yours gets a free pass because your imaginary buddy can do whatever it wants. That's intellectual dishonesty.

And Please!!! Do not insult my intelligence like Richard Dawkins did and postulate the notion that aliens put the first cell here or that the first cell on this planet came from another planet (however you want to word it).

I guarantee you that Richard Dawkins does not think the only possible way for life to have originated on Earth was from aliens seeding the planet. It's called panspermia, by the way. You'd have known that if you were actually scientifically educated on this topic.

But I wonder why you think it would insult your intelligence to say this. After all, it's a better theory than yours! Why? Because we can show that other planets exist! We don't even have to be able to show that they can support life, because that's already more evidence for panspermia than you have for your god! More importantly, we know panspermia is possible, BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE IT! We lowly humans have transported organisms to the moon, and possibly even to Mars or other bodies in the solar system. So panspermia is proven to be possible! Take that, dumbass!

His response to Ben Stein was not an answer to Stein’s question; rather it just moved it to a different location and was guilty of infinite regression.

The only way you can possibly make a statement like this without realising how dumb and hypocritical it makes you look is if you have no desire to figure out where your god came from. However, for anybody who can think, it would demand an explanation!

Where did the very first living cell come from? And please come up with a logical answer.

Ha! IDiot!

Louis Pasteur proved that living cells must come from living cells,

As opposed to spontaneous generation, which evolution does not claim. By the way, I love how you people always reference scientists who died more than a hundred years ago, without any care that we've moved forward in understanding since then.

hence the law of biogenesis. At least Dawkins understood the implications of this law well enough not to postulate the idea that living cells come from nonliving matter.

Huh? Dawkins said what now?

So, where did the first cell come from?

I don't know. Do you? Does it make you uncomfortable to know that there are still unanswered questions? Does it make you run and hide in fear with your imaginary friend? Need a pacifier?

Since all contingent beings need a necessary cause,

Yes, including your god! IDiot! How can you not realise how stupid you seem right now?

please explain the necessary cause of living cells. For the sake of logic, please be consistent with your worldview. That is, come up with a logical explanation that has the explanatory power to justify were living cells come from, or how living cells can have their origin in nonliving matter.

Be consistent? Like you are by not demanding an explanation for the origin of your god? Stop saying that the first cells came from non-living matter! Depending on which definition you want to use for life, this is not believed to be true.

This is why I wrote the post about why scientifically-illiterate people should shut up! You should be asking questions of those who understand it better than you, not arguing against it in public!

Friday, February 13, 2009

Aura readers are the life of the party

I was at a pizza party at a friend's apartment a couple of nights ago. There was a woman there who claimed she could see people's auras, and was giving readings for some of the other females. I was wondering how people can possibly believe this shit. The host, my girlfriend and I were openly mocking the whole thing right in front of her. She wasn't very good at English, so she didn't understand what we were saying, but she probably knew anyways. And if she did, I don't care. I don't care if it was rude or if it offended her. She should be offended if she's going to be spouting off such total bullshit among people who know how to think.

Here's a video of James Randi humiliating an aura reader on his TV show.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Fair and balanced

This blog prides itself on being fair and balanced. So to counter all of the pro-Darwin festivities going on today, I will objectively present a summary of the evidence for young-Earth creationism:




There are some things that evolution can't explain! Take that ......... Darwinists!

Happy birthday, our dead Lord!

In honour of the 200th anniversary of the coming of the Messiah*, Charles Darwin, I have put together some of my recent thoughts about the relationship between humans, animals and gods.

*It's a joke, creationists! We don't worship the guy! I wish I didn't have to actually point that out, but I know that it's necessary.

1. Why do some people get so offended to hear that we're related to monkeys and apes? They're so cute, I love them!

2. If your god created humans in its own image, then does that mean eagles can see better than it, dogs can smell better than it, cheetahs can run faster than it, gorillas are stronger than it, dolphins swim faster than it, and monkeys climb trees better than it?

3. If your god created humans, would it have been too much to ask for us to be given infrared vision? This would help ensure that we don't fall prey to predators of the night (such as wild animals and Catholic priests), or don't literally fall into holes at night. Wouldn't infrared vision have been a great advantage to our well-being, as the most important creatures on Earth?

4. An argument that is often used by the IDiot and creationist crowd, is to say that humans are the only animals capable of appreciating music, therefore we couldn't have evolved and must be special creations. So I started wondering, would that same argument apply to dogs? They are able to perceive a rich world of scents that humans cannot. As smell is a sense, like hearing, I can only imagine that dogs must perceive a 'symphony of smells' in the world around them. With these smells, they are able to communicate with each other, as well as to identify individual creatures and objects. None of us can possibly understand how a dog interprets the scents all around it, and dogs might be left thinking they are special creations because of it.

The bottom line is that when you really think about it (thinking being the only thing humans are better than animals at, with some of us being better at it than others), there really isn't much reason to believe that there is anything all that special about humans. We have our strengths and our weaknesses relative to animals, just as each animal has its own strengths and weaknesses relative to other animals. We even have design flaws that one would have to think an omnipotent and omniscient god could have designed around.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Oh... that's just a bad translation.

Whenever the Bible says anything stupid, like its claim that bats are birds, the Christians fall back on a standard excuse.... "That's just a bad translation."

At the same time, they like to state that the Bible is true because it is divinely inspired. This is a terrible case of circular logic, but we'll let it go this time.

My question is, if their god divinely guided the original writers of the Bible to write a book with absolutely no flaws, then why couldn't this same god divinely guide the people who were translating it into English, and make sure that there were no 'bad translations'? Honestly, why not? Is it too lazy? Is it dead? What's the problem? Why did this god go to so much fricking work to make sure humans didn't allow anything flawed into the original texts, then not give a flying fuck when they were translating it into English? It doesn't make any sense at all, but Bible-thumpers are disgracefully bad at thinking.

The Bible would have a lot more credibility, and therefore have many more followers, if it weren't so clearly and obviously flawed.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

"There's no such thing as atheists! La la la la, I can't hear you"

Thanks to the Godless Bastard for bringing this to my attention.

I've been intentionally ignoring the whole 'Barack Obama craze' that is sweeping the world. The guy hadn't even done anything yet, but people were totally obsessed. The only thing I was really interested in was the booting out (*cough*) of George W. Bush. Don't let the shoe hit you in the ass on the way out the door, George!

So it seems that I had managed to miss two facts:

1. Obama said in his speech,"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers."

2. Some people got really upset about it.

You can read a news article about it here, but you'll find some excerpts from it below, in blue.

With that one line, the president "seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian," said’ Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. "The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are.’"

Jackson says: "Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don't think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation."’

The Rev. Cecil Blye, pastor of More Grace Ministries Church in Louisville, Ky., said the president's reference to nonbelievers also set off major alarm bells for him. "It's important to understand the heritage of our country, and it's a Judeo-Christian tradition,"’ period.

According to the poll on the site, which I am aware is not in any way scientific, 27% of respondents were bothered by the line in the speech. So I'm going to say that roughly 1/4 of Americans are in this boat.

This is completely unacceptable for an organisation, Christianity, which is supposed to preach tolerance. In fact, you'll find people all over the internet bragging about how tolerant their religion is, but then you constantly get stuff like this coming up.

Remember that the existence of contrary views is the only thing capable of killing a religion. Gods are made up, ALL of them, and as long as everybody around you believes in the same god, there's no problem. But when more and more people start standing up and ridiculing you for being an adult who believes he has a fairy as an imaginary friend, it gets dangerous. Much like if people would stop clicking on spam emails, it would go away, religion will go away if people stop believing. They have no evidence, of any kind, to back up their assertions. This is why the tactic that religious people use against atheists is to try to silence them. We are their biggest threat, and they know it. Even acknowledging our existence in a public forum is enough to start rocking their unstable boat and unstable brains! Click here and here for previous posts relating to this topic.

One has to wonder if the people who are quoted in this article, and those others who are bothered by Obama's quote, have been asleep for the last few decades. The United States may have been a nation of only Christians at some time in the past (even that is questionable), but things are changing, and have changed. If 80% of the country is Christian, that means 20% is not. According to the article, about 16% of Americans claim to have no religion at all. Even more are likely still in the closet, afraid of repercussions from friends and family if they come out. Yet many people would prefer to go back to the days of George H.W. Bush, who famously was quoted as saying that atheists should not be considered as American citizens.

Wake up call, people! You are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers! You are a nation of whites, blacks, browns and yellows! You are a nation of men and women, heterosexuals, gays, transvestites and hermaphrodites! You are a nation of Nobel Prize-winning scientists and scientific illiterates! You are a nation of rich and poor, healthy and disabled! You are a nation of hard-workers and drug-addicted prostitutes! You are a nation of conservatives and liberals, both moderate and extreme, hippies and stoners! You are a nation of philanthropists and mass-murderers, kind hearts and pedophiles!

Do I need to continue, or do you get the idea?

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

This guy is a REAL Christian!

It was a mere 30.5 hours ago that I made this post, asking if there was such a thing as a true Christian. I naively said that there wasn't, and so to correct my error, the Lord has acted swiftly to bring me an example of one. I love the way that the Lord always shows me the light when I can only see darkness. The Lord is truly the wind beneath my wings. Glory and power to the Lord!

The story is about a young Mennonite man who was about to inherit a fortune of millions of dollars from a distant, deceased relative. He was so excited, knowing that it truly was a gift from the Lord.

Before he could claim his fortune, there were a few formalities to take care of, documents to sign, etc. Of course, documents and legal services come with fees, which he eagerly paid. He even flew to England to meet the legal team in person. They chose a quaint little meeting place in an alley behind a motel, where he handed them an additional $10,000. You know, standard lawyer stuff.

As the man could not afford to continue paying these fees to claim his inheritance, he began to borrow from friends and family. All together, they paid over $150,000 to claim this fortune.

The young man arranged to meet a man in an airport in New York, who would be carrying the final documents and the money. Then the big day came, and the young man went to the airport. But the man carrying the money did not show up.

He contacted the police. Only then did the young man become aware that he had fallen victim to an email scam. There would be little chance of recovering his money, because these scammers seem to not like using their real names when they meet behind motels.

Now I know what some of you might be thinking.... that this young man deserves ridicule for his apparent stupidity. But shame on you! Shame on you all! He is a true Christian! He followed the word of Jesus, and gave away not only everything he owned, but also everything that his family owned! He and his family truly are blessed, and a special place will be arranged for them in heaven.

On a serious note, this is what happens when you teach blind faith instead of how to think. It is the consequence of teaching that faith is a virtue, when in reality, it is merely the shutting down of one's thinking processes. Is anybody at all surprised that this happened to a hardcore Christian and his entire family? It takes a major bypassing of the intellect to believe in religion, and so this should surprise nobody. You can read the full article here.

Faith = Brain shutdown

A quote from Bill Maher's movie, Religulous.

"Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are intellectual slave holders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense ....."

I'm with Bill. Having a lot of faith is not something to be proud of or brag about. You're saying that you don't like to think. That is certainly not a virtue.

Monday, February 2, 2009

Is anybody a real Christian?

Yesterday I was asked a question by an associate of mine. He is from a non-religious country, and he doesn't know too many Christians. He asked me why Americans (although I'm sure he was wondering about all Christians) say that they're Christian, but live in a society dominated by greed, without any regard for the commands of the biblical Jesus. Those commands include giving away their money and possessions for the poor, and the deal with the rich not being allowed into heaven.

In my relationship with this particular person, I am not allowed to reveal my true beliefs or to be as harsh as I am on this website, so I answered as honestly and diplomatically as I could. All I could tell him was that these people are not real Christians, and that they pick-and-choose which parts of the Bible they want to believe and follow.

He then asked me if anybody is a real Christian, and again I answered honestly, that nobody is.

It always amazes me that these people can call themselves Christians, yet have stances on capital punishment, money, etc. which are in complete contradiction to those stances taken by the biblical Jesus. They don't even know what it is that they believe and claim they would die for! It would suck to be that messed-up!

Edit: for a follow-up to this post, which is nothing short of miraculous, click here.