Most Liked Content

Islam is underrepresented in the Religious Afflictions forum, but Christians aren’t the only people trapped by false dichotomies.
  
P.S. Why does this guy remind me of Joe Bloe?

 

 An admirable man.  His defiance of the locally dominant brand of stupid does remind me a bit of Joe Bloe at the age of 11.

I know you love Sony, Steve.

 

I heard about this.  My sincere condolences to the family and all of his friends.

 

I looked at the comments and the first one I saw was

What the heck is wrong with you cretins debating whether or not this poor man went to heaven or whether he is suffering eternal torment? Do you have screws loose in your heads? The family needs compassion, not your self-righteous debate about the eternal fate of their beloved. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

 

I guessed it was going to be my favorite so I stopped there.  Those people are not going to be ashamed of themselves, obviously they have no shame.

 

Obviously being a nasty hater does not rule out the possibility of being a Christian, but these trolls are the worst of the worst.  This reaction is not at all typical of most Christians.

 

If there is a Hell it should be reserved for the people who obviously love the idea so much. 

Note: the Seventh-Day Adventist (7DA) and the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW) in this article are two different families and two different sisters. Yeah, it gets kind of confusing if you didn’t grow up with these people.

 

I posted this image to Facebook, as a sort of nudge-wink to my 7DA sister’s 17 year old son, who has posted two cartoons containing the David Silverman rage face in the past year. Notice how I very carefully and deliberately left in the word “atheists” when I cropped the photograph.

 

 

So far, it’s gotten two likes: one from my nephew’s 15 year old brother, and one from my JW brother-in-law! The kids are old enough that I’ve described them as “Seventh-Day Adventists,” but I may have to revert to describing them as “children of a Seventh-Day Adventist.”  Plus, my BIL’s recent “likes” (including one for the anti-gay-marriage parody video) suggest that his adult son may not have to worry about being shunned should he need a blood transfusion, notwithstanding the very scary declaration that his mom (my sister) made to me last year.

The Muslims will soon be telling us that the Higgs boson was described in the Koran centuries ago.

It's too bad the Constitution of Australia doesn't allow them to build, purchase, or rent a building, gather in it on Sundays, and preach to their hearts' content in it. Such persecution!

Must... not... make... crushing pope's ring gag... must... resist...uuurrrgghhh!

The President of the United States of America has sent a friend of the court brief (amicus brief) to the Supreme Court of the United States asking them to find that the Defense Of Jesus-Brand Bigotry Act (DOMA) does, in fact, violate the US Constitution in that it identifies an historically oppressed minority to be denied certain legal rights based on the ridiculous ancient superstitions afflicting millions and millions of muggles.

I'm pretty sure I did have the legal right to marry my husband five years ago when we were married at the Riverside County Court in Indio, CA.  Yet until now the US Government insists that it is not possible for me to be married to my husband.   Unfortunately for the Jesus industry, denying objective reality does not make it go away.

It is obvious and an incontrovertible fact that a marriage between two people of the same gender has exactly the same no effect on anybody else as a marriage between two people of differing genders.

The Christian practice of constantly pursuing, hassling, demonizing and slandering gay people is really starting to get old, many would agree and have said so.

It is time for the United States to declare this nation will not be ruled by narrow minded bigots with deeply rooted fears of objective reality.  Christians should and absolutely must remain free to believe their ridiculous manure-scented dogma, but it is time to remove from the Jesus industry the power to dictate which citizens should be persecuted.

As for the POTUS, his efforts are appreciated and seem likely to bear the sweet fruit of equal rights.

Earlier this week I noted a powerful sign that makes it undeniable that, SCOTUS rulings aside, our culture has realized there is no net gain in hassling homos.  While watching a local TV newscast the anchor man said something to the effect (emphasis added) that the Supreme Court will hear arguments next month on whether or not "gay couples should have equal rights"

Now that the discussion is finally framed with greater accuracy the outcome is clearly inevitable.  Even if SCOTUS chooses to legitimize hate, the war loving peoples of the United States, and the POTUS, have already decided that justice should be served.

The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama has filed a legal brief with the Supreme Court to strike down a 1996 law defining marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman.

VOA

Well, I have to say that Mythofsextrafficking’s manifesto seems pretty tenuous.  He doesn’t appear to have done any of the research he espouses and seems to be taking as his baseline that the evidence for sex trafficking is “lies, myths and exaggerated numbers being told about sex trafficking slaves”.  He wants ‘a news organisation’ to investigate (not sure I’d regard this as the most unbiased and partisan watchdog myself) but I did find a report that’s already out there:
http://www.unodc.org...sis/glotip.html

I concur with Ungodly – sex trafficking has been around forever, along with slavery and bride kidnapping.
http://en.wikipedia....ride_kidnapping
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=LvmOmaLB8d8
http://www.chinadail...nt_14206548.htm
I’m just grabbing at articles as it’s way past my bedtime, but suggesting it’s all some recent myth invented by not-for-profits to get US tax-payers’ dollars is a bit too rich for my blood.  There is a gruelling but impressive Chinese language movie (whose name escapes me entirely, it had a female director and it came out about four years ago) that describes the practise as described in the video.

I do find some of Mythofsextrafficking’s comments touchingly naïve:
“It is very difficult to force someone to be a prostitute, they would have to have 24 hour guards posted and be watched 365 days a year, 24 hours per day. Have the threat of violence if they refused. They would need to hide from the general public yet still manage to see customers from the general public They would need to provide them with medical care, food, shelter, and have all their basic needs met. This is extremely difficult to do, which makes this activity rare.”
How the heck *else* does he think this goes on?  I’m pretty sure these practises have been well documented for many decades now.  The best example of ‘how it’s done’ I can think of off the top of my head is in the movie “The Whistleblower”.  It's brutal and very disturbing to watch, but I expect it's a pretty watered-down version of reality.
http://en.wikipedia....e_Whistleblower
I’m sure it wouldn’t take long to find other reports and stories from victims.  I’m assuming this rush to denial is an unwillingness to accept that systematic abuse on this scale is feasible and the very idea of it is too insidious for it to be accepted as true.  As per child abuse in the HRCC.

I live in a country where prostitution is legal, Unions include sex workers as members and sex and labour trafficking is low by world standards (or so I understand from recent news reports).  I believe I can certainly tell the difference between a sex worker who has made a conscious career choice and someone who has been deceived and uprooted and is currently being exploited, physically abused and mentally tortured.  But if other people are failing to make that distinction, and are using it to deny the existence of a global issue – that bothers me.

And if anyone can tell me how to put in a link to video without it showing up full size, I'd very much appreciate it!  I’ve tried several ways, but there it is again!  Apologies

Good one Sammie.

 

I saw this comment on another forum:

Why doesn't he just pray for the required strength? Surely god would be inclined to help out his No 1 representative on earth?

I see Joe has tackled the first video quite nicely. I will refute the second one. Well, some of it anyway. There is quite a bit to debunk and I may not do all of it. Here are the first ten Creationist claims debunked.


1. Evolution has not been proven or is just a theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It is labeled as such for two reasons. The first reason is that it has accumulated so much scientific evidence defending the claim, that it has gone from being an unjustified hypothesis to a justifiable theory. A “scientific theory” is not the same as a “guess” or “hypothesis” (or a regular “theory” in layman’s terms). It is the official scientific explanation for a huge set of facts and evidence. Secondly, it is called a scientific theory because, by definition, it is possible for it to be falsified. If a piece of evidence were to contradict evolutionary theory, the current theory would be dismissed and discarded. This has never, ever happened. Ever. This should show just how powerful this scientific theory really is.

2. The dogs only give birth to dogs argument.

This is the argument that a butterfly will only give birth to a butterfly (or that a dog will never give birth to a “non-dog”). Popularized by Kent Hovind, this argument against evolution actually defies the very definitions of evolution, speciation, and macro-evolution. I will use the butterfly scenario. An animal is considered a butterfly if it falls into Kingdom Animalia + Phylum Arthropoda + Class Insecta + Order Lepidoptera + any number of Families ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly ).

This being said, there are still smaller classifications (Genus and Species), ALL of which are still considered butterflies . This means that a butterfly parent could hypothetically even have an offspring in a different GENUS (not just Species) and it STILL wouldn't fall under the ridiculous ID goalpost-moving fallacy (http://en.wikipedia....ng_the_goalpost ).

You might as well move the goalposts all the way back from the get-go and say evolution hasn't occurred because animals only give birth to animals .

3. Where is the missing link/ transitional fossils?

First of all, it should be noted that fossils are not easily found. They are rare, as general conditions do not always favor the formation of fossils. This being said, we actually have a HUGE number of transitional fossils and links between species. While it’s true that we won’t be able to find every single fossil for every single species that has ever existed, we have more than enough to accept the fossil record as extremely important evidence. An analogy would be this: ABCD_FGHIJK_MNO_QRST_VW_YZ. We have some blanks, but we can pretty much figure out which letters (or in evolution’s case, species containing certain traits) fit into these holes. Keep in mind that not having a perfectly complete fossil record is NOT evidence against evolution. It simply implies that there’s still room for improvement, and we still continue to fill in the blanks with new fossil finds. Here is a great reference with an enormous listing of different fossils and links: http://www.talkorigi...ansitional.html

and here’s another: http://darwiniana.or...ansitionals.htm

and ::gasp:: here’s ANOTHER: http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm

4. Humans did not evolve from fish.

For this answer I direct you to this BBC link that explains the anatomical clues to human evolution from fish.

5. How do you explain how petrified trees are found vertically in the fossil layer. These trees prove the layers were formed rapidly by the flood, not slowly over time.

Wrong. These upright petrified trees are not proof of the great flood in the Bible. They are merely polystrate fossils.

A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum. This term is typically applied to "fossil forests" of upright fossil tree trunks and stumps that have been found worldwide.

In geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation. Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments.

[Source]

6. The Grand Canyon has no river delta.

It isn’t true that there is no delta. All you have to do, is do an internet search, and you’ll find the images of it easily. For example, the one below:  You can read more "Young Earth Creationist" claims about the Grand Canyon debunked here.





7. Carbon dating is science fiction. It is not accurate.

Wrong. Carbon dating is real science and it is accurate. Read more here.





8. Shells of living snails were carbon dated at 27,000 years old, showing that the dating method is invalid.

The source of the 2,300-year-old radiocarbon date (Keith and Anderson 1963, discussed by Strahler 1987, 156-157), has been abused and misused to discredit radiocarbon dating. The article discussed the potential errors that the presence of "dead carbon" would introduce into the dating of mollusks. For example, carbon dioxide in the water can partially come from Paleozoic limestone, which lacks carbon-14. As a result, the carbon dioxide in the water is deficient in carbon-14 relative to the atmosphere, and mollusks living in the water build shells that give apparent dates older than they really are. This is a type of "reservoir effect."

The 27,000 year old date comes from Riggs (1984, 224), who wrote:

Carbon-14 contents as low as 3.3 +/- 0.2 percent modern (apparent age, 27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melanoides tuberculatus living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attributed to fixation of dissolved HCO₃^- with which the shells are in carbon isotope equilibrium.

In other words, the apparent age of 27,000 years for these snail shells is another example of the reservoir effect. The springs, from which the snails came, were fed by carbonate aquifers. As this water percolated through the enclosing carbonates, it dissolved limestone and dolomite hundreds of millions of years old. The dissolution of limestone and dolomite introduced considerable quantities of "dead carbon" into the groundwater. As a result, the groundwater which fed the spring and in which the snails lived was significantly deficient in carbon-14 relative to what is found in the atmosphere. When the snails made their shells, they incorporated an excess amount of "dead carbon," relative to modern atmosphere, into their shells, which resulted in the excessively old apparent date.

Contrary to the complaints of creationists, conventional scientists are well aware of this problem. They test for it and take it into account when interpreting radiocarbon data. In cases where corrections for presence of dead carbon cannot be made, such dates are readily recognized as erroneous and can be safely disregarded. This is not the fatal flaw to radiometric dating that some creationists claim it to be. It just shows that dates from mollusks from streams and lakes need to be carefully evaluated as to their reliability. Other materials, such as wood, charcoal, bone, and hide, would remain unaffected by this type of reservoir effect. If found with shells in the same layer, these materials could be dated to determine if shells are locally affected by the reservoir effect and, if so, how much their radiocarbon dates have been skewed by it.

[Source]

9. Evolution is wrong because of the Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, or any other famous scientific hoax!

Like other areas of science, evolutionary theory has had its fair share of greedy scientists who fabricate finds and make up data in poor attempts to gain a quick path to fame and fortune. However, it has always been the case that, through peer review, Other scientists have discovered the occasional forgery and refuted it. Science is, after all, self-checking. The rare fake does not discredit the hundreds of thousands of other genetic, geological, and biological facts that all agree with one another and validate evolutionary theory.

Besides, there have been plenty of fake religious propaganda and forgeries as well (Paluxy tracks, Peter Popoff, Shroud of Turin, Kinderhook plates, etc.); Creationist's wouldn’t want us saying that their entire religion is false just because some religious fundamentalists fabricated “evidence” to further their own agendas, now would they?

10. The remains of Lucy were just a three foot tall chimpanzee.

This is false. Lucy is of the species Australopithecus afarensis. Australopithecus afarensis is one of the longest-lived and best-known early human species — paleoanthropologists have uncovered remains from more than 300 individuals! Found between 3.85 and 2.95 million years ago in Eastern Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania), this species survived for more than 900,000 years, which is over four times as long as our own species has been around.

Au. afarensis had both ape and human characteristics: members of this species had apelike face proportions (a flat nose, a strongly projecting lower jaw) and brain-case (with a small brain, usually less than 500 cubic centimeters -- about 1/3 the size of a modern human brain), and long, strong arms with curved fingers adapted for climbing trees. They also had small canine teeth like all other early humans, and a body that stood on two legs and regularly walked upright. Their adaptations for living both in the trees and on the ground helped them survive for almost a million years as climate and environments changed.

[Source]

As I hinted at at the beginning of the post, I may or may not debunk the rest of the video. I can however tell you that after watching the video, it will be easy to debunk, but a little time consuming.

That wild-eyed hysteric, Michelle,
Says that gays are all going to hell.
I find it ironic
That bigot iconic
Is certainly going as well!

Thanks for the video alteredmind. I watched the section from 1:02:08 - 1:07:22



It seems the club was "The Monks of Medmenham" and "The Hellfire Club" was a nickname given it by outsiders - so already the story has lost most of its impact. Clubs like that (Gentlemen's clubs) abounded in England in those days and most of them humorously referred to themselves in disparaging terms and regarded their members (humorously) as scallywags and rapscallions.

The commentry says things like, "We read that..." but it doesn't tell us where it can be read, so for all we know, it could be complete bullshit. The commentator goes on to say that the Hellfire Club's purpose was "at best to mock traditional religion..." and at worst "to perform satanic rights and sacrifices..." So which scenario was it? The best, or the worst? The commentator doesn't say does he? But he clearly wants his viewers to follow him all the way to the "worst" scenario because that's the story he is trying to sell.

Check out these screen shots:

click to enlarge

Notice that in this first one there is no source given for the quote and that there is no evidence for satanic worship, just allegations. Also for a cynic like me, that ellipsis has a huge bearing on the meaning of the quote. Is there any connection between "The Club" and the allegation? Certainly the movie maker wants me to make that connection, but without seeing the full quotation I'm going to regard it with deep suspicion.

click to enlarge

Here again, I am suspicious. Read the source carefully and see if you can make sense of it. I can't. Even if the document exists, it seems that the author is identified only as "MF" (and I really can't be bothered trying to discover who that might be).

The commentator also claims that the club was "said to be a satanic occult organisation." Said to be (by whom?)

The club was housed in the old Medmenham Abbey and that's why the group (jokingly) referred to themselves as the Monks of Medmenham. The commentator refers to the building as a "hideaway"; a purely emotive term designed to make the viewer think that something suspicious was going on. Here's a picture of Medmenham Abbey - some hideaway!



As for the bodies buried under Franklin's house - For two years it served as a medical school.

And remember that in those days there were no strict laws regarding health and safety so the casual dispersal of bodies would not be uncommon. Probably most of the bodies were eventually properly reburied, but if the medical school was occasionally short on funds, a burial under the house may not have been unusual (because there were not the same regulations in those days, as there are today).

The commentator then proceeds to plant suspicion in the minds of the viewers when he claims that there are "others who still suspect" the dead bodies may have been the result of human sacifices conducted by the Hellfire Club."

• Others (who?)
• suspect (= no evidence)
• may have been (= pure conjecture)

Based on what I saw in that short section of the movie, I would say, "Move along folks - nothing to see here."

DH suggested I take a camcorder down the street a few doors to the Moron Church, the one which is still about 180 feet below our launch platform deck.

His idea was that I could stand in front of the Moron Church and video myself imitating Nelson.  It's not like I have had no practice, there are Republicans arrested for sex crimes often enough to keep me in tune.

We shall see, then we might or not.

A few decades ago the Republican leaders were laughing at the fundies and saying, "Let's use these ratbags to gain control of the Senate and then kick the silly buggers out on their arse." Now the chickens have come home to roost; the inmates are running the asylum and the party leaders are powerless to stop it.

-----


I saw a facebook quote that combined stories about the Virgin Mary and comments made by Akin:

To recap, so far this week we've learned that

a woman can get pregnant without having sex,

and that victims of rape and incest cannot.

I love that cartoon in post #100


In some countries the people want to hear what politicians intend to do about things like:

• Finance
• Foreign Affairs
• Education
• Workplace Affairs
• Regional Development
• Local Government
• Arts
• Defence
• Health
• Community Services
• Transport
• Roads
• Communications
• Industry
• Science
• Law
• Agriculture
• Fisheries
• Forestry
• Tourism
• Immigration
• Trade
• Climate
• Energy

In America the Republican supporters are saying things like this:

• We're the army of God... We're are going to take back America in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

• If we trust God with all our hearts, we can rise up and win over those who would destroy this nation.

• The greatest need is for America to find its spiritual roots.

• There is no group or influence in America that can impact the community like the local churches.

• People who have a lifestyle that's not in line with biblical principles, we love them, we care about them but that's not what marriage is.

• The future of American depends on what God's people do. If America dies, it will be from self-inflicted wounds.

• We are at a fork in the road and once we go down that fork, it's going to be difficult to come back.

• If we get down on our faces and our knees before Almighty God, and we beg of him, not because we're pointing fingers at anybody else, but because of what we have allowed to happen... then I believe in November God will have mercy on our land and we will have a Renaissance of the values that made this country great

I guess it's just a matter of priorities.

A pastor from Red Wing, Minn., was cited for allegedly exchanging money for sex with an undercover police officer, St. Paul Police say.

According to police, Gary Elg, 60, pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Red Wing was charged with a misdemeanor after allegedly engaging in prostitution on July 24 in St. Paul.

Elg resigned from his position on July 26, the Republican Eagle newspaper in Red Wing said.

“I have failed you as a pastor and a friend,” Elg was quoted as saying in a letter sent out to church members. “I have crossed some serious ethical and moral boundaries.”

http://minnesota.cbs...paying-for-sex/

Now here's a case where we can all agree that "He was never a real Christian in the first place." A real Christian would have stood up in front of the congregation; got the tears flowing; said "I am a sinner", and then taken up a collection to pay for a therapeutic holiday in the Bahamas.


This is how the experts do it:
click to enlarge

“However the church’s mission is to bring God’s word to God’s world. God designed marriage to be the union of one man and one woman, reflecting the union of Christ as bridegroom and his church his bride. That purpose will never change.

1. That purpose will never change. Right, it will never change. Just more bullshit from the bible thumpers. The definition of marriage has changed and will continue to do so until same-sex marriage is no longer an issue.

2. This is God's world. This is man's world. I don't see God anywhere.

3. God designed marriage. God didn't design marriage. Marriage is older than the Bible. Plus Christians need to read their Bible and not cherry pick what they like from it. What does the book of fairy tales say about other types of marriage besides heterosexual marriage?

Polygamous Marriage

Probably the most common form of marriage in the bible, it is where a man has more than one wife.

Levirate Marriage

When a woman was widowed without a son, it became the responsibility of the brother-in-law or a close male relative to take her in and impregnate her. If the resulting child was a son, he would be considered the heir of her late husband. See Ruth, and the story of Onan (Gen. 38:6-10).

A man, a woman and her property — a female slave

The famous “handmaiden” sketch, as preformed by Abraham (Gen. 16:1-6) and Jacob (Gen. 30:4-5).

A man, one or more wives, and some concubines

The definition of a concubine varies from culture to culture, but they tended to be live-in mistresses. Concubines were tied to their “husband,” but had a lower status than a wife. Their children were not usually  heirs, so they were safe outlets for sex without risking the line of succession. To see how badly a concubine could be treated, see the famous story of the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19:1-30).

A male soldier and a female prisoner of war

Women could be taken as booty from a successful campaign and forced to become wives or concubines. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes the process.

A male rapist and his victim

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes how an unmarried woman who had been raped must marry her attacker.

A male and female slave

A female slave could be married to a male slave without consent, presumably to produce more slaves.

Monogamous, heterosexual marriage

What you might think of as the standard form of marriage, provided you think of arranged marriages as the standard. Also remember that inter-faith or cross-ethnic marriage were forbidden for large chunks of biblical history.

The important thing to realize here is that none of these models are described as better than any other. All appear to have been accepted. So there you go. The next time someone says that we need to stick with biblical marriage in this country, you can ask them which of the eight kinds they would prefer, and why.