Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

Should Christians boycott the golden arches?

Posted by truthtalklive on July 11, 2008

On todays show we have a guest host by the name of Dr. Michael Brown.

Dr. Brown will  be talking about The AFA’s most recent boycott of McDonalds for its homosexual activism. Leave your comments here or call 1-866-34-truth(87884).

For more information please visit http://www.afa.net/. For more information on Dr. Brown please visit www.revolutionnow.org.

Make sure you check out the LINE OF FIRE SHOW weeknights @ 7pm EST on SIRIUS channel 161 or listen live at www.wtru.com where you can also visit www.wtru.com for a podcast of TRUTH TALK LIVE. For more information on THE LINE OF FIRE please visit http://lineoffireradio.wordpress.com/. As always thanks for listening!

 

Advertisements

116 Responses to “Should Christians boycott the golden arches?”

  1. Steve said

    I heard the end of the broadcast today. In a case like this I think we have to be very careful that we are being Spirit led warriors and not just reacting because we think it is a good idea or a moral stance. Consider this, 2 Chron 7:14 “…if my people, would pray…”. Before we boycott McDonald’s let’s organize an concerted prayer strike, and declare every McDonald’s restaurant a battleground for souls. Ephesians states “…we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places”. Clearly this is a manifestation of a spiritual force, we should recognize that and learn to react spiritually first, believing God is sovereign and that he can affect more than we could even imagine.

    Instead of boycotting McDonald’s, I can see souls being won as we cover this nation with prayer, and continue to be the salt of the earth. We know that people are going to continue to frequent McDonald’s so lets make our presence known. When you place your order, be sure and tell the one who serves you about Jesus Christ the risen Saviour! When you sit down at your table, pray that God will bless your food and anyone else that might be listening.

    Let’s not make McDonald’s the focus of our opposition, (those exectutives are lost and in need Jesus), let’s bombard the gates of hell by prayer and fasting until we hear the report of the men glorifying God, and policies changing from within because they have repented, not just because we take away our money and thus conceding the territory and possibly missing an opportunity to declare the Matchless name of Jesus Christ!

    Let us always be Spirit Led.

  2. Steve,

    Great points, and I certainly agree with being Spirit-led and fighting our battles in the spiritual realm. There were also great points made by callers about ways to use the boycott for the advance of the gospel.

    Perhaps, however, the Lord is leading many of His people to live by their convictions and follow moral principles in not using discretionary money for MacDonald’s at this point. For me, we can do what you expressed and at the same time that we take a stand for righteousness.

    One question for you: Is there anything that would get you to not spend your money at MacDonald’s? Let me know your thoughts, and thanks for posting!

    Dr. Brown

  3. Rob said

    Based on the arguments I heard on today’s show, we should probably boycott anything coming out of California. This would crush their economy until they overturn the gay marriage bill! In fact, we should also boycott Truth Talk because they broadcast on Sirius Satellite Radio, which supports a whole gay channel! Is Truth Talk willing to pull their broadcast from Sirius or continue to hypocritically push this McD’s boycott? If you’re going to boycott McD’s do it because they market poison to our kids!

  4. Rob,

    I’ll ask Stu to give you his opinion on the Sirius question!

    For me, there are certain companies that I cannot give my business out of own conscience. How that can be wrong? And how can it be wrong to call people to account for their actions?

  5. Chris C. said

    I’m certainly not going to call in to question the fact that many of you feel offened by McDonal’ds actions. And its perfectly legitimate to boycott the organization for a perceived injustice.

    However there was one line early in the show today that really irked me. Dr Brown said something like (and forgive me for this is not verbatim), “How can we eat at a place that stands so strongly against one of our dearest values?” or something to that effect. The idea was that what McDonalds was doing something to hurt Christian’s rights in someway.

    I can see no way in which supporting fair and equal treatment and supporting full inclusion of GLBT individuals is an attack against someone’s Christian morals. No one is telling you that you can no longer love your own husband or wife, that you must be paid less for being straight, or that your marriage or relaionship is less important. Consider this example: You have a job that you enjoy and that pays well. One day, someone else is hired by your company to do another job they enjoy, being paid equally well. How does their hiring affect you? It doesn’t.

    I am consistently amazed at people (mostly Christians, although there are some homophobes who aren’t religious) who claim to want to see homosexuals treated equally in society, yet those people would deny homosexuals the same rights the people themselves enjoy. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t claim to love and respect someone while holding them down. Again, two men or women getting married in no way devalues your marriage. I have never heard a response to this argument that wasn’t rooted in religious dogma. So, if thats what you stand on then thats fine. This is America and we accept all kinds of opinions. But there is also the notion of equality, and denying it to anyone simply because of their sexual orientation is, short and simply, bigotry.

  6. Barney said

    A homosexual person is no less likely to be a Christian than you are. This boycott is really about politics.

    Thats my $.02 worth.

  7. Chris C.,

    I have no desire to bash homosexual men and women or to discriminate against them in any way. That is not the issue at all. The issue has to do with the goals of homosexual activism, some of which undermine important biblical foundations and family values. So, when MacDonald’s proudly commemorates the Stonewall riots and financially backs the gay pride parade in San Francisco — which is well-known for some of its shameful displays — that to me is an assault of biblical and family values.

    You wrote, “I can see no way in which supporting fair and equal treatment and supporting full inclusion of GLBT individuals is an attack against someone’s Christian morals.” Again, that was not the issue at all, as laid out clearly on the AFA website.

    Please take a look there and then let me know honestly what you think, OK?

  8. John said

    I like homosexual people,especially lesbians[naughty grin].They are interesting, and usually more polite, open minded, and accepting then many strait men and women that I have known.
    I admit that they do get rather ridiculous with their parades[those costumes and wigs! Good grief! Do they actually think that they look GOOD in those silly things?[laughter], and they do seem to go on and ON[it used to be “The love which dare not speak it’s name.”, but now it’s “The love that won’t shut up.”] but as Chris C. implied, whose getting “hurt” by any of this
    gay activism? It’s a victimless “crime”, and we ARE in America after all.
    Does this boycott of yours involve simply not ever eating at MacDonald’s ever again? Or something more?

  9. John,

    This is not a boycott of mine but rather of the American Family Association, and that’s what we were discussing on the show. See the link on top of the page to afa.net for more information. Specifically, the AFA is calling on people to stop eating at MacDonald’s until they stop supporting gay activism and simply remain neutral in the culture wars.

    As for gay activism being a victimless crime, it is certainly not a crime, since it is almost always carried on within the limits of the law. But if, in fact, homosexual practice is both wrong in God’s sight and detrimental to the familly, aren’t there victims to say, e.g, same-sex marriage and adoption? And what about the attempts to stifle all criticism of homosexual practice by gay activists, thereby removing freedom of speech from a large sector of society. Aren’t there victims? What are your thoughts?

    As for individual gays and lesbians, they have many fine qualities and many poor qualities, just like heterosexual men and women. The issue is with homosexual practice, with gay activism, and with God’s intended design for the human race.

  10. Jenny said

    Dr. Brown,

    I’d like to ask you a more general question about homosexuality, so I hope this is the appropriate place to do so.

    I recently heard someone explain to a group of Christians that “homosexuality is all about sex”. I believe that homosexuality is a sin but do not agree with the statement quoted. From hearing your “Can You Be Gay & Christian” lecture series, I understand that you would not agree either. What do you recommend be said to a Christian who has this mindset about homosexuality?

  11. Jenny,

    Generally speaking, men tend to be more oversexed than women, and women often have a tempering effect on men, so it’s no surprise that homosexual men are often infamous for their promiscuity. Nonetheless, the statement you’re referring to is quite exaggerated and doesn’t understand the mindset of most homosexual men and women.

    So, you might start with the question, “Is HETEROSEXUALITY all about sex?”

  12. John said

    Mr. Brown, hearing someone using a phrase like “God’s intended design for the human race.” in regards to peoples lives comes off as a big red flag for people like me.Such an outlook has great negative potential that many are all to easy to try to take advantage of.
    How is same sex love and relationships detrimental to “the family”[is it because they rarely ever reproduce, or is this the “one woman and one man” argument?], especially in regards to adoption? Are you worried that a child may grow up “confused” within such a household? And if so, then how could they possibly do any worse of a job than the billions of heterosexual parents and couples that regularly do such a lousy job at parenting?

  13. Boris said

    “You’re a group of Christian-based, conservative organizations with several million dollars to spend. Do you: feed the hungry? Clothe the poor? Don’t be so naive! You blow the millions on a series of slickly- worded, logic-bending ads espousing a widely-discredited theory that one can be “cured” of homosexuality through counseling and prayer.” – Mad Magazine, a 1995 issue.

  14. Boris,

    Mad Magazine! I used to described to Mad when I was a kid. Funny reading, but not exactly the best source of accurate information. 🙂

    In any case, I’m not sure who you’re speaking of, but through my own organization more than $2 million a year is funnelled to support missionaries doing humanitarian work around the world, while I personally raise only $10-25 thousand for social action issues.

    As for “curing” homosexuals, what should I tell my friends who have been ex-gay for years, now functioning happily in heterosexual relationships through the power of the gospel? Shall I time that Mad Magazine says that they are deceiving themselves and that Mad is right and they are wrong? And doesn’t God have the power to change a homosexual?

  15. John,

    Thanks for your comments. May I ask if you believe what is written in the Bible, that God uniquely fashioned male and female and joined them together for His purposes, which include gender complimentarity as well as the ability to procreate?

    The fact is there are unique things that a man and woman bring to a relationship, and, by design, to deprive a child of either a father or mother is wrong and harmful to the child. And, yes, studies have indicated that children raised in same-sex households have a higher rate of sexual experimentation and gender confusion. Is this good?

    Note also the sentiments expressed by a woman raised by a gay father: “What makes it so hard for a girl to grow up with a gay father is that she never gets to see him loving, honoring, or protecting the women in his life.”

    What about the fact that heterosexuals have made a mess of marriage? I certainly agree that we have and that we have hurt a whole generation in the process. And it is well known statistically that kids raised by single moms have a much greater propensity for crime, suicide, and depression. All the more reason, then, that we try to fix marriage rather than mess it up even more by arguing that men can “marry” men and women can “marry” women.

    If there was a serious drought in a country leading to massive starvation, would you ration water less carefully since so many people are already starving, or would you do your best to get more water? It’s the same with the case under discussion here: We agree that many heterosexuals marriages are not doing well, but you don’t fix that by redefining marriage and deviating from the Scriptures and from the pattern of almost the entire human race since your inception.

    So, what’s your position? Do you follow the Scriptures as God’s Word or not?

  16. Boris said

    Dr. Brown,
    Hello, I am also of Jewish ancestry. First off, I don’t believe you have an “ex-gay” friends. If you know some people who make that claim they were obviously either bi-sexual to begin with, and/or made to feel guilty about their life-style by Bible thumping orthodox Christians. Homosexuality is very widespread in the animal kingdom and occurs in many species. The claim that homosexuality goes against nature is therefore false; it is PART of nature. As far as people being designed a certain way, that is an unscientific, indefensible dogmatic position held only by conservative American Christians and NO ONE else. Man is an evolving transitional species as are all species on Earth. What you are doing here, is arguing not only against biological facts but also psychological facts too. This coincides with your disbelief in modern cosmology, zoology, geology, oceanography, physics, cell theory, atomic theory, astronomy, archaeology and the rest of science. The Christian war on homosexuality is nothing but a continuation of the 2000 year long Christian war on science. Someone really needs to get through to you people and explain that Christians already lost this war 400 years ago.

  17. Boris,

    I have no war on homosexuality. I simply affirm that God’s design is best, and that His intent is male-female relationships.

    As for the friends, you are simply wrong. These are people whom I have known, in some cases, for years. They were NOT bisexual before, and they are NOT denying any innate homosexuality. They became very uncomfortable about their lifestyles, knowing that there was more for them, and in some cases well before they heard the good news about Jesus. So, to be perfectly candid with you, Boris, I have no issue with you differing with me or the Scriptures, but the fact that you have to support your views with complete falsehoods is distressing to me.

    As for animal homosexuality, again, there is more to the story. First, we know that some animals kill and eat their young (or own mates!) Does that make it right? Second, in most cases, animal homosexuality is quite different than human sexuality in that it has to do with dominance and other social themes rather than with attraction. Among many articles that explain this, see, e.g., http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html. Third, even the gay scientist Dean Hamer could say, “Pigs don’t date, ducks don’t frequent stripper bars, and horses don’t get married.” So again, the comparison between the animal and human worlds is hardly apt.

    As for your accusation that I disbelieve in these many sciences, would you be kind enough to explain how you know that?

    Again, to be candid with you, I have no problem with us differing on a subject, but most all of your last post is so out of touch with reality that I might just as well be defending myself against aliens. So, please, stick with facts, not opinions and, by all means, not your version of what I believe and hold to.

    As to the atheistic views which you espouse, you might want to read David Berlinski’s The Devil’s Delusion (the author is a secular Jew, just FYI).

    Thanks!

  18. Boris said

    Dr. Brown: I have no war on homosexuality. I simply affirm that God’s design is best, and that His intent is male-female relationships.

    Response: Your affirmation means nothing because it is based on the illusion of design rather than science.

    You contradicted your claim that certain human sexual behaviors are right and others wrong when you admitted that these behaviors are based on attraction. Animals that eat their young is neither right nor wrong but part of nature. And animals don’t date or get married but most species do have some sort of mating ritual and some others are monogamous. Animal rituals seem to have some sort of purpose unlike the ones some humans perform.

    “You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and religion… Dogs do not ritually urinate in the hope of persuading heaven to do the same and send down rain. Asses do not bray a liturgy to cloudless skies. Nor do cats attempt, by abstinence from cat’s meat, to wheedle the feline spirits into benevolence. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, quite intelligent enough.” – Aldous Huxley

    Dr. Brown: As for your accusation that I disbelieve in these many sciences, would you be kind enough to explain how you know that?

    Response: You are a fundamentalist Christian. What modern science do you believe in? Certainly not modern psychology which tells us that homosexuality is not something that can be cured. For every supposedly “cured” homosexual there’s at least one Ted Haggard, and probably dozens that are in the closet.

    As far as my atheistic views, these views certainly do not include a belief in such a thing as the devil. The devil has gone from a literary creation to something Christians can blame their own inner weaknesses like envy and lust, and shortcomings like dishonesty and so forth on.

  19. Boris,

    Can science teach us morality? Hardly. With regard to homosexuality, the fact is that the only thing science has told us so far is that homosexuality is not innate. Scientific studies have, however, verified that some people have changed their orientation. Are you open to reading these studies?

    As for allegedly contradicting my claim, to the contrary, my point stands as stated: Animal “homosexuality” is not to be compared with human homsexuality. Moreover, attraction itself proves nothing. Pedophiles are attracted to children. Does that legitimize their desires?

    As for my being a fundamentalist Christian, I’m not sure what that terms means to you, but if it means that ipso facto I therefore believe in no sciences at all, then I am not a fundamentalist. There are serious studies like Gerald Schroeder’s The Science of God that look at the biblical evidence and the scientific evidence and find them in harmony. Again, are you interested in such studies, or do you simply like to fling mud?

    As for believe in a devil, I’ve been in ministry for more than three decades and have interacted with countless thousands of Christians around the world, and I can hardly remember even two who blamed any moral failures on the devil rather than themselves. How many thousands of born-again Christians do you know personally? I would put my evidence up against yours.

    That being said, I find both scriptural and experiential evidence that there is a devil, and I believe he helps inspire some of the wickedness of the the human race, a wickedness from which God can redeem us. You, on the contray, must look at the most perverted, violent Nazi as just a simple byproduct of the human race with no external influences, and with no hope of redemption. I don’t envy you and your atheistic position at all.

    So, can you state for an absolute fact that there is no God? I can state as an asbolute fact that there is a God.

  20. Boris said

    Dr. Brown: Can science teach us morality?

    Response: We taught ourselves morality. Being moral is simply doing what is right no matter what you are told whereas being religious is doing what you are told no matter what is right.

    Dr. Brown: As for allegedly contradicting my claim, to the contrary, my point stands as stated: Animal “homosexuality” is not to be compared with human homosexuality.

    Response: Your claim is based on a staunch denial of man’s place among the animals which is based on religious beliefs rather than scientific data. Your point doesn’t stand just because you say so Dr.

    Science and the Bible somehow being in harmony is Christian wish-thinking, arrogance and scientific imbecility gone into orbit. Once a person believes in miracles science goes out the window.

    “The devil made me do it” must be something non-Christians came up with or something I guess. As far as your evidence for the existence of the devil, I’d like to see what that might be. You can throw in some solid evidence for the existence of angels, Jesus, heaven, hell, seraphs, demons, witches, giants, predestination, telepathy and the rest of the stuff I don’t believe in while you’re at it. The “experimental” data for these things would be fascinating to look at.

    It’s not good to believe that things like good and evil come from someplace outside ourselves, because it isn’t true for one thing. This cosmic battle between the forces of good and evil is a grossly misinterpreted element of ancient literature. The influence on the Nazis and Adolph Hitler was evangelical Christianity’s inbred anti-Semitism which Hitler learned studying is hero, famous anti-Semite Martin Luther in a Protestant seminary for 3 years. You should know that Dr. Brown, of all people.

    I cannot state for a fact that there is no God. I have no belief in anything supernatural including any God. You’re welcome to state anything is absolute fact but that won’t make it true. The problem here is absolutism. Not only do you claim to know something no one does, but you then go on to tell me what this God wants from us as well as other things. If you could prove the existence of God or any of the other wacky things you believe in,it would be the most important scientific discovery ever made and you would surely instantly become very rich and famous. Anyone would of course, but this hasn’t happened and we can be pretty sure by now it isn’t going to. The world would be a lot safer place if theists would just admit that their beliefs are faith-based and they really aren’t absolutely sure about them. When they deny this it’s just another religious lie.

  21. Boris,

    If there is a God, can He make us to know that? Can our faith be proven to be true in this world in any absolute way? Is that possible?

    Also, on what basis do we determine what is right and what is wrong? Is it just human consensus? What if that consensus changes?

    I’ll respond to your other important questions ASAP.

    Thanks for the dialogue!

  22. F. L. A. said

    A Jewish person who does not believe in the supernatural, God, Satan, etc.
    Hmmmmmm.
    There’s something very familiar about you..Boris…[huge sharp-toothed grin].
    Anyway, I enjoy reading your posts.I just wanted you to know that.

    Dr.Brown, as the closest friend of John, I can tell you that he is not a Christian[he’s one of those Witches[Pagan] that Boris doesn’t believe in] and thus does not have the same faith in the Scriptures as you do, at least not in the same context.The human mind is such an interesting complex chunk of glop. John once made a woman think that she was a yappy puppy dog.Perminantly.
    Methinks that this may have something to do with your “cure” for homosexuality. One wonders if the process could be used for a…reverse effect, that is to say, to make a heterosexual homosexual.Hummmmmm?
    Also just out of curiosity, as you stated for an absolute fact that there IS a[your] God, I was wondering, how exactly could one actually go about trying to prove such a claim in such a way that theological skeptics would be satisfied? Because it seems as if the evidence would always eventually come down to being a matter of faith, which as you should know is completely unacceptable and unsatisfying for theological skeptics.

  23. F. L. A.,

    Yes, I understood that John posting here is not a Christian, but since he was taking issue with my biblical position (without stating his own worldview), I interacted accordingly.

    As for God making Himself known TO ME in a definite way, that cannot constitute definite proof TO A SKEPTIC OR UNBELIEVER, except for God working in and through me in such a pronounced way thta they became convinced. So, ultimately, it is between each individual and God to know things for sure for themselves.

    My question to Boris was: Can God make Himself known with certainty to a person?

    Thanks for your post!

  24. F. L. A. said

    You are welcome Dr.Brown. Perhaps John did not think that it was a necessity to state his own world view[Why would it be?].Unless he already thought he had.[?]
    If you already knew that he was not a Christian, then why did you ask such questions?

  25. F. L. A.,

    Please review my posts, which ask questions like: “May I ask if you believe what is written in the Bible, that God uniquely fashioned male and female and joined them together for His purposes, which include gender complimentarity as well as the ability to procreate?”

  26. John said

    I would say to your question, “Not really”.At least not literally.This is not to say that I do not believe that there are valuable lessons to be gained from biblical scripture, for I think that there are.But if you already knew or suspected that I was non-Christian then it would have been safe for you to assume that although I might agree that male and female animals go together like peas in a pod[purpose of procreation aside]that I would most likely not leave it at that.If you were nonetheless trying to get a clearer understanding of my thoughts, then thank you for the opportunity. Nature is weird, and people are even weirder.And as already mentioned, homosexuality IS a “normal” part of the natural world.To claim that homosexuality is abnormal and wrong “because God says so” is a tricky thing to try and enforce or support, as there are hundreds of OTHER theological belief systems that disagree or simply do not care about the matter. I could compose a little list of some if you like[although I am sure that you probably don’t really care about their morals in regards to this issue].
    A homosexual man I once knew said, “If God was truly opposed to men having sex with each other, then why did he make it feel so good and be so fun?”
    Another “flaw” of the Intelligent Designer upon his creations?
    Or a misunderstood and misrepresented biological advantage to be used for recreation by a select minority[smile]?

  27. Boris said

    Dr. Brown,
    You said: If there is a God, can He make us to know that?

    Response: If there is a God he could easily let us all know that. Instead people all get their beliefs about God from other people, usually their parents at first. For example the Gospel is spread by word of mouth, from person to person. Atheism is a rejection of what all PEOPLE say about all Gods.

    Dr. Brown: Can our faith be proven to be true in this world in any absolute way? Is that possible?

    Response: If what theists believed could be proved there would be no need for faith. There wouldn’t be any atheists, deists or agnostics either.

    Dr. Brown: Also, on what basis do we determine what is right and what is wrong? Is it just human consensus? What if that consensus changes?

    Response: That stealing from members of your own community is immoral requires no divine revelation. It is revealed by a moments reflection on the type society that would exist if everyone stole from one another. If lying were considered a virtue instead of truth-telling, communication would become impossible. Mothers have loved their children since before mammals walked the earth – for obvious evolutionary reasons. The precepts unique to religion are those telling us to not to question their dogma.

    There is no need for religious people to fret that our civilization’s general ideas about morals will all of a sudden go backward and we’ll be reduced to lawless savages. History tells us that our consensus of what is right and wrong changes for the better over time. For example, our founders wrote that all men are created equal – while holding slaves. Within decades of that much of the world had grown up enough to find slavery abhorrent. Our founders also gave us a country which did not allow women a voice in government. How wrong is that? Was it wrong 1776? It sure is a good thing we CAN and DO change our ideas about what is right and what wrong as we become more and more sophisticated. What’s wrong with that Dr. Brown?

  28. John,

    Yes, I was trying to get a better understanding of your views. Thanks for sharing more.

    A few thoughts:

    1) What we tell a pedophile who finds pleasure in having sex with children? Does the pleasure justify the crime? What we tell a sadist?

    2) This is not a flaw of the designer. God made us perfectly well, but through our choices, the world is in a messed up state, hence all the pain and suffering, and hence various types of pleasure that are associated with sinful acts. On the other hand, we can still see clear evidence of God’s design, since men who have sex with men have a much higher chance of getting STD’s, and many gay men will also tell you that while they have pleasure in sex, they find no satisfaction in it, going from partner to partner. That too is telling!

    3) It is true that there are many different beliefs and theological systems, but I am responsible to act on what I believe, and I’m also confident that the truths found in God’s Word (the Bible) are important for all people. And so, because I’m convinced that Jesus really is the Savior and the Bible really is God’s Word, and that God’s ways are best for the human race, out of love for other people, I will try to share this message and encourage them to live by God’s standards.

    Now, here’s something for you to consider: If a man and woman get married and have never had sex with anyone else before, and if they have a great, healthy sex life in marriage but don’t sleep around, they will not get an STD. But if they start sleeping around with others, they might well contract one. Why? Because they violated God’s order, and His ways are best.

    One last thing: If you’ve never read my personal story, please take a minute and check out: http://icnministries.org/about/testimony.htm.

  29. Boris,

    Well, at least we agree on this: If there is a God, He can make Himself known, and in my own life, when I didn’t want Him and didn’t believe in Him, He made Himself known and has continued to show Himself faithfully in my life for the last 37 years. My wife was a hardcore atheist when I met her at the age of nineteen, and He revealed Himself to her as well, changing her life dramatically. I would have to be an outright fool, not to mention putting my head in the sand, to deny His reality.

    As to your statement about faith, you fail to realize that once you believe, God can work in concrete ways in your life that make you to know that what you believed is true.

    With regard to how we determine morality, you wrote: Response: That stealing from members of your own community is immoral requires no divine revelation. It is revealed by a moments reflection on the type society that would exist if everyone stole from one another. If lying were considered a virtue instead of truth-telling, communication would become impossible. Mothers have loved their children since before mammals walked the earth – for obvious evolutionary reasons. The precepts unique to religion are those telling us to not to question their dogma.

    Boris, when I was shooting heroin as a teenager, my friends thought it was completely fine to steal from certain people. On what basis were they wrong? And why shouldn’t some people steal from the rich to help the poor? On what basis does one draw the line? There are also societies in which deceit is considered a virtue, as one missionary found out when, to his shock, his hearers thought that Judas, who betrayed Jesus, was the hero of the story! So, again, your argument falls short in many ways.

    I could also ask you this: Is arrogance, in and of itself, wrong? Is every human life, even that of a severely handicapped, incurably ill, premature baby, of the same value?

    You see, once you take the Creator and His standards out of the equation, the dog eat dog world in which we live becomes a law unto itself — really, a dreadful proposition.

    As for the improvement of the world on its own, I do not share your optimism, given the savagery of the 20th century with its Hitlers and Stalins and Maos and Pol Pots. We need a Redeemer!

    There is no need for religious people to fret that our civilization’s general ideas about morals will all of a sudden go backward and we’ll be reduced to lawless savages. History tells us that our consensus of what is right and wrong changes for the better over time. For example, our founders wrote that all men are created equal – while holding slaves. Within decades of that much of the world had grown up enough to find slavery abhorrent. Our founders also gave us a country which did not allow women a voice in government. How wrong is that? Was it wrong 1776? It sure is a good thing we CAN and DO change our ideas about what is right and what wrong as we become more and more sophisticated. What’s wrong with that Dr. Brown?

  30. Boris,

    Sorry for the error at the end of the last post, where I accidentally quoted your words after my comment rather than before.

  31. Boris said

    Dr Brown,
    I wondered why you re-pasted what I said. No big deal. I’m going to respond to your post:

    Dr. Brown: I would have to be an outright fool, not to mention putting my head in the sand, to deny His reality.

    Response: It’s one thing to believe that there might be a God or some sort of creator but no one comes to belief in the God of the Bible without being frightened into it by other people. The Bible God comes with way too much unbelievable baggage like Satan, angels, Jesus, demons, fantastic tales of the supernatural, heaven, hell and a history of violence and crimes against humanity that fortunately cannot be substantiated.

    Dr. Brown: As to your statement about faith, you fail to realize that once you believe, God can work in concrete ways in your life that make you to know that what you believed is true.

    Response: In other words, once I drink the Kool-Aid I’ll believe whatever I’m told or might conjure up in my imagination. No thanks.

    Dr. Brown: Boris, when I was shooting heroin as a teenager, my friends thought it was completely fine to steal from certain people. On what basis were they wrong? And why shouldn’t some people steal from the rich to help the poor? On what basis does one draw the line?

    Response: Assuming one’s parenting could have actually been that bad that a person really doesn’t know where to draw the line, a good way to tell if something is really wrong, is if there is a law against it. Anyone who steals is breaking the law. Your friends might have thought it was fine to steal but not only did they know they would get in trouble if they got caught, if they were messing around with heroin they also very likely had been stolen FROM by other smack heads. An unbalanced person can torture logic enough to make an excuse for pretty much anything.

    Dr. Brown: There are also societies in which deceit is considered a virtue, as one missionary found out when, to his shock, his hearers thought that Judas, who betrayed Jesus, was the hero of the story! So, again, your argument falls short in many ways.

    Response: There a Gospel of Judas that portrays Judas as hero also. A society where deceit is considered a virtue is not normal and you know this. Look how much even non-religious fiction down through the ages has been written to point out how self-destructive dishonesty can be.

    Dr. Brown: I could also ask you this: Is arrogance, in and of itself, wrong?

    I don’t think that arrogance is in itself wrong. It doesn’t really hurt anybody. It’s annoying is what it is.

    Dr. Brown: Is every human life, even that of a severely handicapped, incurably ill, premature baby, of the same value?

    Response: Most people would say yes and I would agree. I’ve heard Christian pastors say though, that if people don’t worship God that their life is of no value to society and meaningless to themselves.

    Dr. Brown: You see, once you take the Creator and His standards out of the equation, the dog eat dog world in which we live becomes a law unto itself — really, a dreadful proposition.

    Response: A third of the world does not believe in any deity so first you have to prove there IS a Creator before you can legitimately put one IN any equation. You are basing your argument on another false premise also, which would be that our world is in fact a dog eat dog world, and then that some sort of philosophy based on this could then somehow be the basis for a new set of laws. That’s a lot of far out assumptions to base a worldview on.

    Dr. Brown: As for the improvement of the world on its own, I do not share your optimism, given the savagery of the 20th century with its Hitlers and Stalins and Maos and Pol Pots. We need a Redeemer!

    Response: The current leaders of Russia, Germany and China thoroughly denounce the barbaric actions of their predecessors. Human rights violations have been going on for centuries with the Christian religion being the biggest human rights violator of them all. With globalization it is going to be nearly impossible for power mad politicians to get away what some did in the past, at least on that scale. For instance, that transvestite weirdo running North Korea has the whole world breathing down his neck and he’s had to step back knock off the saber rattling. It’s too bad you don’t share my optimism for this world and instead have focused on hopes for another one which as far as anyone can tell doesn’t exist.

  32. I wrote: I would have to be an outright fool, not to mention putting my head in the sand, to deny His reality.

    Boris responded: It’s one thing to believe that there might be a God or some sort of creator but no one comes to belief in the God of the Bible without being frightened into it by other people. The Bible God comes with way too much unbelievable baggage like Satan, angels, Jesus, demons, fantastic tales of the supernatural, heaven, hell and a history of violence and crimes against humanity that fortunately cannot be substantiated.

    My response: Boris, obviously, you have no idea whatsoever of what is to have communion with the Lord, to watch Him work in wondrous ways, to pray and experience concrete answers, to see Him dramatically change the lives of others, otherwise you could not have possibly written what you wrote. As for what you call “unbelievable baggage,” there is nothing exceptional whatsoever about recognizing that there is a spiritual world that is just as real as the natural world. In fact, without that spiritual world, the natural world makes much less sense.

    I wrote: As to your statement about faith, you fail to realize that once you believe, God can work in concrete ways in your life that make you to know that what you believed is true.
    Boris responded: In other words, once I drink the Kool-Aid I’ll believe whatever I’m told or might conjure up in my imagination. No thanks.

    My response: You totally miss the point again, but that’s simply due to your limited vantage point. The better analogy would be this: Someone has never experienced falling in love until they meet the person rightly suited for them, after which they see the reality of love.

    I must also say that you have a bizarre view of how people like me operate, as if we simply sit around and just get brainwashed. And that is what vitiates almost all your posts here. You have no clue who I am or how I think and operate, yet you make ridiculous and unsubstantiated judgments. What kind of interaction would this be if I did the same to you?

    I wrote: Boris, when I was shooting heroin as a teenager, my friends thought it was completely fine to steal from certain people. On what basis were they wrong? And why shouldn’t some people steal from the rich to help the poor? On what basis does one draw the line?

    Boris responded: Assuming one’s parenting could have actually been that bad that a person really doesn’t know where to draw the line, a good way to tell if something is really wrong, is if there is a law against it. Anyone who steals is breaking the law. Your friends might have thought it was fine to steal but not only did they know they would get in trouble if they got caught, if they were messing around with heroin they also very likely had been stolen FROM by other smack heads. An unbalanced person can torture logic enough to make an excuse for pretty much anything.

    My response: Actually, I had fine parents but got caught up with the whole 1960’s countercultural revolution and rebelled against what I was taught. People can be terribly self-deceived, and that is the whole problem. That’s why the Bible states that every way of man is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the hearts.

    And this leads to the question: How do you know that you are not self-deceived?

    I wrote: There are also societies in which deceit is considered a virtue, as one missionary found out when, to his shock, his hearers thought that Judas, who betrayed Jesus, was the hero of the story! So, again, your argument falls short in many ways.

    Boris responded: There a Gospel of Judas that portrays Judas as hero also. A society where deceit is considered a virtue is not normal and you know this. Look how much even non-religious fiction down through the ages has been written to point out how self-destructive dishonesty can be.

    My response: I know plenty of societies where all kinds of things that I consider wrong are heralded as right. That’s the whole point! You might say homosexual practice is fine within certain parameters, or heterosexual sex outside of marriage is fine as long as it’s consensual, etc. I say based on God’s revelation in Scripture, along with the history of human race, these acts are wrong and detrimental. The bottom line is this: We will not agree on moral absolutes without divine revelation, which was my starting point.

    I wrote: I could also ask you this: Is arrogance, in and of itself, wrong?

    Boris responded: I don’t think that arrogance is in itself wrong. It doesn’t really hurt anybody. It’s annoying is what it is.

    My response: I beg to differ with you for a number of reasons, among which are: that arrogance is often blinding; it demeans and despises others; and it carries no reverence for the Creator. For these and many other reasons, the Bible identifies it as the root of many other morally flawed behaviors. Yet once again, you have little or no basis for your opinion, other than it’s annoying, and even that is a subjective judgment.

    I wrote: Is every human life, even that of a severely handicapped, incurably ill, premature baby, of the same value?

    Boris responded: Most people would say yes and I would agree. I’ve heard Christian pastors say though, that if people don’t worship God that their life is of no value to society and meaningless to themselves.

    My response: Aside from the fact that misunderstood what these pastors were saying, may I ask you on what basis these other lives are value? You did answer my question but did not explain why, which is the real issue.

    I wrote: You see, once you take the Creator and His standards out of the equation, the dog eat dog world in which we live becomes a law unto itself — really, a dreadful proposition.
    Boris responded: A third of the world does not believe in any deity so first you have to prove there IS a Creator before you can legitimately put one IN any equation. You are basing your argument on another false premise also, which would be that our world is in fact a dog eat dog world, and then that some sort of philosophy based on this could then somehow be the basis for a new set of laws. That’s a lot of far out assumptions to base a worldview on.

    My response: I’m not sure where you get your figures about a third of the world not believing in a deity, but even if that’s accurate, it simply confirms what I’m saying. To be clear, first, I don’t have to prove the existence of a deity. The vast majority of the human race through the centuries has taken this for granted, and to this day, it is the prevailing, majority view. You, to the contrary, have to disprove this foundational belief, which you recognize cannot be done. As for my view of the world, how would you describe a world in which countries must have vast armaments to protect themselves from one another?

    I wrote: As for the improvement of the world on its own, I do not share your optimism, given the savagery of the 20th century with its Hitlers and Stalins and Maos and Pol Pots. We need a Redeemer!

    Boris responded: The current leaders of Russia, Germany and China thoroughly denounce the barbaric actions of their predecessors. Human rights violations have been going on for centuries with the Christian religion being the biggest human rights violator of them all. With globalization it is going to be nearly impossible for power mad politicians to get away what some did in the past, at least on that scale. For instance, that transvestite weirdo running North Korea has the whole world breathing down his neck and he’s had to step back knock off the saber rattling. It’s too bad you don’t share my optimism for this world and instead have focused on hopes for another one which as far as anyone can tell doesn’t exist.

    My response: The current leaders of China continue to sanction atrocities (witness the violent persecution of certain minorities), while the direction Russia will take in the coming years remains uncertain. And within the Muslim world, Osama is one of the most popular names for boys out of veneration for Bin Laden. The sinful cycle repeats itself! As for your statement that the Christian religion has been the biggest human rights violator of them all, it appears to me that you have been drinking too much atheistic propaganda Kool-aid! Really now, you can’t be serious. Anyway, if you are, please read a few of the recent books of anthropologist Rodney Stark as a good starting point and you will see that, in many ways, it has been quite the opposite of what you state.

    As for optimism, I live with an incredible, 24-7 optimism that is attested by everyone who knows me personally. But my optimism is based on my faith in the goodness of God and the assurance that His purposes will prevail, and therefore, despite the carnality and carnage that I witness in this world, I am confident that the best is yet to come.

    One last question for you: Can you tell me your age? I’m just trying to understand the person I’m interacting with.

  33. Chris C. said

    Dr Brown, don’t mean to hijack your exchange with Boris, but I couldn’t help but notice that you claimed non-believers bear the burden of proof. I think Boris’s figure of 1/3 of the population being atheistic comes from the fact that most Buddhists do not believe in a supreme being such as God or Allah or what have you. Anyway, I’m sure you have heard of Russell’s Teapot, the aptly named thought experiment of Bertrand Russell in which he imagined there was a teapot orbiting the earth. This teapot was so small it could not have been detected by any instruments and never interfered in nature in any way. Now, can you prove that such a teapot does not exist. No, you can’t. However, since there is no evidence for the existence of the teapot (other than one man’s wild assertion) you would be justified in rejecting the notion of a teapot in orbit around the earth.

    For folks like me, the existence of your deity (or indeed any deities) has as much corroborating evidence as Russell’s teapot. Theists are the ones making fantastic claims: omniscient, omnipotent creator; salvation through a man who died and rose from the dead; an invisible paradise where the saved spend eternity. Can I prove that these claims are false? No, certainly not anymore than you can prove that there isn’t a teapot in orbit around the earth. Still, as there is no evidence for either of these positions, we can be justified in rejecting the notions of teapots and deities. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Just because people have believed something for a long, long time has no bearing on its truth. According to your logic, anything you can think of (invisible pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, omniscient willow trees, giant floating teapots) must be somehow disproven for us to reject it.

  34. Chris C. said

    Also Dr. Brown, you said: “The issue has to do with the goals of homosexual activism, some of which undermine important biblical foundations and family values.”

    Im curious in what ways do you feel biblical foundations are undermined by homosexual activism?

    And I should be clear, lewd and lascivious behavior should not be supported by any corporations, whether that behaviour is engaged in by heterosexuals, homosexuals, children or the elderly. However I am always wary of the use of the phrase, “homosexual activism.” To me it implies that these people are over-reaching their bounds or their rights in order to achieve some goal. The fact is that homosexuals are one of the most feared and hated groups in america, right behind atheists and muslims. Of the homosexuals that I know, most are simply fighting to be treated equally, and not looked down upon or ostracized. I think it is important that our most influencial, big-name companies take the lead to say, “We accept all people, regardless of sexual preference, and we want you to be accepted by the rest of the community as well.”

    Now, I hear you that you aren’t trying to persecute or hold individual gay men and women down. But tell me, how do you think a company can “remain neutral” on an issue like this? It seems to me there is the status quo, and there is change. You either support the rights of men and women to be treted with equality in a free society, or you want them to remain the second class citizens that have been for the last…well…forever.

    I did take a look at the AFA website. Im for equal rights for homosexuals. Im for gay marriage. So of course I disagree with the idea that homosexuals should be denied these things, whether by an individual or a corporation or a government.

  35. F. L. A. said

    I liked your analogy about “love”, Dr.Brown. You’ll have to wait until after 6p.m.for a reply to your questions from John, weather permitting.

  36. Chris C.,

    Thanks for jumping in! I’m about to do a radio show, so my response is quite brief for now. Hopefully, I’ll be able to write more shortly.

    However, I cannot concur that it is theists making fantastic claims. To the contray, the non-divine arguments for the origin of life are quite specious, while, in my opinion, those who deny any form of intelligent design are the ones making fantastic claims. Also, in light of the many gracious things I have seen the Lord in my life, I would have to be crazy to deny His reality.

    More to come ASAP.

  37. John said

    Hello again Dr. Brown.
    To respond to your post #28;

    1. I say no, that the pleasure gained by the pedophile does not justify the crime, except to his/her self. The problem with using this comparison of pedophilia to homosexuality is homosexual relationships are ideally between consenting adults, while pedophilia involves taking advantage of and/or abusing a child.A child is not in the same position as an adult to give consent for such a sexual relationship. That is why the pedophile has to rely on deceit,coercion,or force to engage in such an experience.
    As for the hypothetical sadist, as long as it’s between consenting adults I still see no real problem with it.Perhaps said hypothetical sadist could hook up with a hypothetical masochist and gain pleasure AND make a little money as a dominatrix?

    2.Do homosexual men have a higher risk of catching S.T.D.’s than heterosexual men? How? I would have thought that it would have been about the same between the two, less even, as there appears to be more heterosexual young men than homosexual.What about the homosexual women and girls?

    3.I can agree with some of that, and respect all of that.For me as a non-Christian I would naturally have a differing view on the matter.Perhaps I can use an analogy of,…food for this issue. Some people love Italian food, and I think that’s fine, if that’s what they like, and the people eating with them like that too.As for me, I would rather have B.B.Qed pork ribs, watermelon, and cornbread.If I hook up with someone that likes that kind of food too, then great! But I won’t force my food on others who prefer Italian, or Mexican, or Chinese.And I expect the same out of others. Now, they can make me an offer. But if I or someone else politely refuses then that should be the end of the matter.Know what I mean?
    I have to go for now. I hope that this helped satisfy your curiosity some.
    Blessed Be,
    John.

  38. Boris said

    Dr. Brown:

    My response: Boris, obviously, you have no idea whatsoever of what is to have communion with the Lord, to watch Him work in wondrous ways, to pray and experience concrete answers, to see Him dramatically change the lives of others, otherwise you could not have possibly written what you wrote. As for what you call “unbelievable baggage,” there is nothing exceptional whatsoever about recognizing that there is a spiritual world that is just as real as the natural world. In fact, without that spiritual world, the natural world makes much less sense.

    Boris says: Of course I don’t know anything about communion with the Lord because I’ve never believed that there was one. I would say that you don’t have any idea of those things either, you just imagine you do just as you imagine that you recognize some kind of spiritual realm.

    My response: You totally miss the point again, but that’s simply due to your limited vantage point. The better analogy would be this: Someone has never experienced falling in love until they meet the person rightly suited for them, after which they see the reality of love. I must also say that you have a bizarre view of how people like me operate, as if we simply sit around and just get brainwashed. And that is what vitiates almost all your posts here. You have no clue who I am or how I think and operate, yet you make ridiculous and unsubstantiated judgments. What kind of interaction would this be if I did the same to you?

    Boris: I would say that you are the one with the limited vantage point. Also, how do you know I have know clue who you are? That might be called a ridiculous unsubstantiated judgment. For one thing I’ve listened to you on the radio and also I happen to know that a person has to hold certain basic views to be on the Christian radio stations I can tune into.

    My response: Actually, I had fine parents but got caught up with the whole 1960’s countercultural revolution and rebelled against what I was taught. People can be terribly self-deceived, and that is the whole problem. That’s why the Bible states that every way of man is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the hearts. And this leads to the question: How do you know that you are not self-deceived?

    Boris says: I was speaking hypothetically, not about your parents. I know I’m not self-deceived because I believe what I see, not what I think, as a opposed to to the believer who believes what he thinks and not what he sees.

    My response: I know plenty of societies where all kinds of things that I consider wrong are heralded as right. That’s the whole point! You might say homosexual practice is fine within certain parameters, or heterosexual sex outside of marriage is fine as long as it’s consensual, etc. I say based on God’s revelation in Scripture, along with the history of human race, these acts are wrong and detrimental. The bottom line is this: We will not agree on moral absolutes without divine revelation, which was my starting point.

    Boris’ Response: We will never agree that there IS such a thing as divine revelation and among theists you people will never agree on which supposed revelation is actually divine and have been killing each other for centuries over this. We will not agree on moral absolutes that intrude on people’s personal freedoms either. I don’t care what people do as long as it isn’t illegal and harmful to others. Whether or not you attach a meaningless label to the word “moral” by calling it “absolute” isn’t going to make a bit of difference to a person who is bent on doing something most of us consider immoral.

    My response: I beg to differ with you for a number of reasons, among which are: that arrogance is often blinding; it demeans and despises others; and it carries no reverence for the Creator. For these and many other reasons, the Bible identifies it as the root of many other morally flawed behaviors. Yet once again, you have little or no basis for your opinion, other than it’s annoying, and even that is a subjective judgment.

    Boris: I wouldn’t want to live in a nation where people didn’t feel free to demean and despise others or to be irreverent to someone elses ideas about a Creator, or even their own. And again I don’t care about morally flawed behaviors as long as they aren’t criminal or harmful to others. I’m not about to make some kind of judgment about a person because they happen to be arrogant. Many arrogant people have something to be arrogant or conceited about. Some of my best teachers were a bit arrogant which is different than being just vain. Now vanity, that’s when you’ve got nothing to be conceited or arrogant about.

    My response: Aside from the fact that misunderstood what these pastors were saying, may I ask you on what basis these other lives are value? You did answer my question but did not explain why, which is the real issue.

    Boris: When we devalue any human life we also devalue our own. I believe we are all brothers and sisters, as you do, but unlike you, I believe we are orphans. This is all the more reason to do what we can for others. No one else will.

    My response: I’m not sure where you get your figures about a third of the world not believing in a deity, but even if that’s accurate, it simply confirms what I’m saying. To be clear, first, I don’t have to prove the existence of a deity. The vast majority of the human race through the centuries has taken this for granted, and to this day, it is the prevailing, majority view. You, to the contrary, have to disprove this foundational belief, which you recognize cannot be done. As for my view of the world, how would you describe a world in which countries must have vast armaments to protect themselves from one another?

    Boris: As long as you keep your claims about a deity and your holy book under the roof of your churches you don’t have to prove anything I guess. But when you start telling other people outside of your religion how they should live based on your own personal religious beliefs, then you most certainly DO have to prove the existence of a deity. And it must be YOUR particular deity, plus all the absurd claims you make about the paper idol you all worship. The burden of proof is on the person who has the beliefs, not the one who doesn’t share them. For example, if I said you owed me money and you didn’t believe you did and we went to court, the burden of proof would be on me, the person who has the belief, not the one who doesn’t.

    My response: The current leaders of China continue to sanction atrocities (witness the violent persecution of certain minorities), while the direction Russia will take in the coming years remains uncertain. And within the Muslim world, Osama is one of the most popular names for boys out of veneration for Bin Laden. The sinful cycle repeats itself! As for your statement that the Christian religion has been the biggest human rights violator of them all, it appears to me that you have been drinking too much atheistic propaganda Kool-aid! Really now, you can’t be serious. Anyway, if you are, please read a few of the recent books of anthropologist Rodney Stark as a good starting point and you will see that, in many ways, it has been quite the opposite of what you state.
    As for optimism, I live with an incredible, 24-7 optimism that is attested by everyone who knows me personally. But my optimism is based on my faith in the goodness of God and the assurance that His purposes will prevail, and therefore, despite the carnality and carnage that I witness in this world, I am confident that the best is yet to come.

    Boris’Response: The Muslim world is a good example of what happens to human rights in religious theocracies. The Christians and Muslims make no secret that their religions are in a war for control of the world. My optimism is tempered a bit by these two religions bickering over whose fairy tales to believe. I have been an atheist since I was born; I have never believed in any kind of God. I haven’t read too much atheist literature but what I have could hardly be called “propaganda.” Anyone who has really studied world history has come across many of the atrocities committed by Christians on people who disagreed with them, especially the Jews and Muslims. In Europe, torture chambers were as numerous as churches during the Dark Ages for dealing with other types of dissenters such as anyone caught studying the workings of the natural world. If modern Christians insist on reminding us of only the good things that their religion as done, it should also be pointed out that wherever Christianity has improved lives it has also wrecked them.

  39. Boris,

    At this point, I need to state something very candidly. (But first may I express my sincere appreciation to you for taking so much time to respond thoughtfully to my posts!)

    I wrote: Boris, obviously, you have no idea whatsoever of what is to have communion with the Lord, to watch Him work in wondrous ways, to pray and experience concrete answers, to see Him dramatically change the lives of others, otherwise you could not have possibly written what you wrote. As for what you call “unbelievable baggage,” there is nothing exceptional whatsoever about recognizing that there is a spiritual world that is just as real as the natural world. In fact, without that spiritual world, the natural world makes much less sense.

    You responded: Of course I don’t know anything about communion with the Lord because I’ve never believed that there was one. I would say that you don’t have any idea of those things either, you just imagine you do just as you imagine that you recognize some kind of spiritual realm.

    My response: This is where you continue to miss the point. What if I told you that, when it was raining, you were imagining it, despite all the evidence you could provide? How far could we get in that dialogue, especially if I simply told you, “But I don’t believe in rain.” (Let’s just say for my analogy here that I lived in the desert without rainfall, hence my belief that there was no rain.) Obviously, we would be at a standstill in terms of constructive dialogue.

    So, in this case, when I speak of communion with the Lord and His intervention in my life, I speak of something very tangible, like when He healed me of hives all over my body in a moment of time when I was a new believer in early 1972; like the many times when He has laid something on my heart which I have then told to others in advance, only to see it come to pass somewhat miraculously (and with no help from me) just as He showed me; like the many times I have felt prompted out of the blue to pray for a certain person in a certain part of the world (and with whom I had no contact for months or years) only to learn that the very moment I was praying for them they were going through a particular crisis in keeping with my prayers, from which the Lord delivered them. . . . The list goes on and on. You can say I’m imagining it all, but let’s like me telling you there’s no rain.

    What then is my point? You simply need to understand that there is strong evidence of God’s genuine activity, and to attribute it to imagination takes quite a leap of faith.

  40. Boris said

    Dr. Brown,
    The leap of faith is interpreting natural causes as supernatural ones. You speak about your distaste for arrogance and then claim that the supposed Creator of hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars actually intervened in your life with some sort of magic to cure you of hives, not to mention giving you magical visions of the future. If that isn’t arrogant I don’t know what is.

    I think you need to understand that what you have offered as evidence for God is nothing but arguments and arguments are NOT evidence. In an earlier post you appealed to the old strength in numbers argument. Just because a lot of people insist on hanging onto ancient superstitions that were rejected by philosophers as soon as they appeared and have been ever since, doesn’t make them valid. In light of the general stupidity of most of mankind a widely held belief is very likely to be false.

  41. Boris,

    Arrogance? To the contrary. That is the extraordinary mercy of God! That is an example of His care and grace, reaching out to frail human beings and making Himself known. For you, it is a leap of faith; for me, it is the only proper response to such goodness and compassion and tenderness and love. The fact is, the same God who created the universe cares deeply about you and me — that’s part of His nature — and it’s hardly a matter of “magic” that people are sometimes healed by Him or that He reveals things to come, as He did often in the Scriptures (which still demonstrate divine foreknowledge). It is the simple reality that He is the living God, and as Jesus said, God knows the numbers of hairs on our head, not to mention the thoughts that we think.

    And remember: I am not sharing these things as “evidences” to prove to you that God is real. Rather, I’m sharing them to say that I have ample reasons to believe — far more than I could document in a thousand blogs, and very clear evidence to me — and I’d have to be a fool to deny God’s reality. On your end, if you humble yourself and ask Him to make Himself known to you — and if you are sincere in your search — He will cause you to know the truth.

    As for the numbers game, check the context again and see what I even raised the issue. Your statements here, however, referring to “ancient superstitions that were rejected by philosophers as soon as they appeared ” are so over the top and gratuitous that they refute themselves. Moreover, on which of these ancient philosophers are you pinning your hopes? So many of their theories proved utterly vaccuous as well.

  42. Boris said

    Dr. Brown,
    I don’t have any hopes that need to be pinned on anything. You do. I don’t know what you are talking about exactly nor what philosophical theories you are talking about that have been proved vacuous. Would you like to name a few? Vacuous is a good word to describe theology which really doesn’t even qualify as a subject. Of course you are anti-philosophical because religion is in complete opposition to philosophy. Philosophy asks questions that may never be answered and religion gives answers that may never be questioned. Your absolutism, dogmatism and backward thinking have no place in a modern society.
    As for your arguments for God, I’ve heard them all before. If there is a God who wants me to know it exists or to behave a certain way, it can tell me. Until then I’m going to assume that even if there is a God it would prefer I not listen to any man-made rumors about it.

  43. Boris,

    I encourage you not to make assumptions. Perhaps the onus is on you to ask bigger, life-related questions rather than to assume that someone owes you something (like revealing Himself to you).

  44. Boris,

    One more question: What do you mean by suggesting that believers like me have no place in modern society? If you had the power to do something about it, what would you do?

  45. F. L. A. said

    Perhaps the Gods are not concerned with the value of your faith in them, Boris.As a rule, they seem to be an odd bunch.
    Anyway, I was wondering, how is it Boris that you can be a Jew and yet have no belief in the supernatural happenings and entities that are mentioned within the Torah of Judaism?
    Or, when you mentioned that you were a “Jew” were you instead referring to an ethnic origin?

  46. F. L. A. said

    Check this out…..

    In 1994 scientist at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base were assigned the task of creating non-lethal weapons that would effect enemy combatants but leave civilians unharmed.Among their ideas: a “gay bomb”. A powerful aphrodisiac would be sprayed on the enemy, who would become so overwhelmed with desire that they would drop their weapons, lose control of themselves, and start….uh,……eh…[snickersnicker] being an army of “one”.
    Perhaps they released a test sample in Key West Florida and San Francisco?[Ha!]
    The project died when scientists failed to find any chemicals or hormones that were strong enough to do the trick.
    Ahhhhh the creativity of the American military, eh?
    Your taxes actually payed for this[huge sharp-toothed grin].

  47. Tripp said

    Now, that has to be the funniest thing I’ve heard all day!

  48. John said

    Vacuous is a good way to describe theology? Why? Do you think that theology is so useless in this modern age? What about all of the goodwill that it promotes through the actions of charities and missions? What about the peace of mind that it brings to those grieving over the loss of loved ones? Why does theology “not even qualify as a subject” to you? I’m just curious. I am also wondering the same things that F. L. A. asked you about within post #45.
    I believe that theology and philosophy can go very well together.
    I wonder how Socrates would feel about this.He was religious, you know.

  49. Boris said

    You said: I encourage you not to make assumptions. Perhaps the onus is on you to ask bigger, life-related questions rather than to assume that someone owes you something (like revealing Himself to you).

    Boris says: You don’t have to encourage me not to make assumptions. My worldview is based in minimal assumptions that I recognize may need revision. You are the person who has made assumptions that you refuse to revise no matter what. I don’t believe there is a God that could reveal itself to me or one that owes me anything.

    You said: One more question: What do you mean by suggesting that believers like me have no place in modern society? If you had the power to do something about it, what would you do?

    Boris says: I’m saying your IDEAS have no place in a modern society. Fundamentalist Christians have marginalized themselves with their archaic and dogmatic ideas about politics and science. What would I do if I had political power to make changes? I’d make sure that things like this anti-defamation of religion act that the UN is considering put forth by this Islamic group of nations never became international law. Do you know that if this thing got passed Christians could be killed for telling someone what they believe or jailed for carrying a Bible? When you people can no longer share your faith I will no longer be able to mock and poke fun at you for doing it. Do you see my point?

  50. Boris said

    FLA,
    One of the myths of Christianity is that the Jewish people ever took these stories in the Torah literally other than a few orthodox Jews. Why do you think there have never been any Jewish creationists? Also, Satan is never mentioned in the Torah but only later in what are recognized as folktales like Job for instance. The New Testament writer’s interpretation of the friendly talking snake as Satan is ridiculous. The wily CREATURE is simply a friendly snake who happens to be the only character in the story who really knows what is going on, including Yahweh.

    I think I told Dr. Brown that my parents were Jewish but I like most people claiming Jewish ancestry that I’ve met, am a life-long atheist. Even the Jews that still go to temple are what they call themselves: “respectfully skeptical” and simply keeping the traditions of their ancestors so as not to lose total contact with their roots.

  51. Boris said

    John,
    The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.
    – Thomas Paine

    I think you are confusing theology which Mr. Paine so accurately described, superstitions which lead people to believe in an implausible afterlife, and the institution of religion which calls indoctrination of the ignorant “feeding the poor” all in one big mish-mash.

    Of course I think theology is useless. I’m an atheist. A philosophical worldview based on scientific humanism is a more logical way of looking at the world than a theological one.

    As for Socrates being religious Socrates is a fictional character. When we read dialog in ancient literature we should recognize what we are reading is fiction. Now go read your Bible carefully.

  52. Boris and others,

    I owe you each some posts, and I’m trying to get caught up here, so be assured that I’m not ignoring you.

    To briefly respond to your last post, Boris, let me say:

    1) You claim I’m making assumptions, based on your POV; to the contrary, I’m following much clear and indisputable evidence (only a drop of which has been shared here) coupled with ongoing, real fellowship with the Lord. No assumptions here!

    2) Thanks for clarifying your position re: claiming my IDEAS have no place in modern society. Thankfully, the reality is that the moral code laid out in the Bible remains the best way to live; God-sanctioned sex remains the healthiest; honesty and purity continue to be excellent virtues to cultivate. God’s ancient wisdom remains utterly timely, and to the extent we follow the principles of Scripture (out of relationship with God, not bondage), to that extent societies are blessed. To the extent we leave Him out and/or become greedy, materialistic, self-centered, carnal, over-indulgent, proud, etc., to that extent we hurt ourselves and those whose live we touch. Nothing archaic or outdated here! That’s why, as outlined by Alastair McGrath in his Twilight of Atheism, so many people are turning away from the lack of answers found in atheism, and as missiologists will note, more people have come to living faith in Jesus in the last fifty years than in the previous 1,900. And yes, they’re coming to this living, vibrant, life-transforming faith in the modern world.

  53. Boris said

    Dr. Brown,
    The moral code laid out in the Bible includes rules about selling ones daughter, keeping slaves, poisoning suspected cheating wives, violently taking land from unbelievers, lying to promote Christianity (Romans 3:2), bashing innocent children’s heads open on rocks, ripping open pregnant women and a lot of other horrifying “moral” guidance. You have a very perverted idea of morality Dr. Brown.
    “Born-again Christians worship the Bible and not God… Bible worship is nothing less than ‘having other gods before me…” – Carolyn Baker.
    The Ten Commandments only have three rules about morality all of which were part of civilization long before there were any Jewish people. The other seven commandments have to do with proper worship of a God who is addicted to the smell of burning goat flesh and the sight of a defenseless animals blood being splashed on an altar.
    McGrath is full of nonsense and is a proved liar. Atheism is growing faster than any other worldview especially here in the United States where 50 per cent of the people between 18 and 30 are now atheists. Christianity, on the other hand, is disappearing faster than the snow in Greenland. Go into any church, Protestant or Catholic and you will see that the average age in there is 50 years old. The 9-11 2001 tragedy has woke the world up to what religion is really all about. People can see that Christians and Muslims are cut from the exact same cloth.

    As for Greek philosophers rejecting religion:

    “Everything has a natural explanation. The moon is not a god but a great rock and the sun a hot rock.” – Anaxagoras (c. 500-428 BCE)

    “Living creatures arose from the moist element as it was evaporated by the sun. Man was like another animal, namely a fish, in the beginning.” Anaximander (c. 610-546), Greek philosopher, journalist, and media personality. Proto-Darwinaian of the Year 561 BCE.

    “Shrines! Shrines! Surely you don’t believe in the gods. What’s your argument? Where’s your proof?” Aristophenes (c. 448-385 BCE)

    “What sort of god is Zeus? Why spout such rubbish? There’s no such being as Zeus…. Just tell me – where have you ever seen the rain come down without the Clouds being there? If Zeus brings rain, then he should do it when the sky is clear, when there are no Clouds in view.” – Aristophenes (c. 448-385 BCE)

    That’s just part of the A’s Dr. Brown. I’ve got hundreds of quotes by ancients against any and all religions. You should read some ancient Pagan criticisms of the absurdities and things Christianity copied from the Pagan religions. A dying and resurrecting demigod who dies to pay for the sins of the world and resurrects on the third day was always part of Paganism long before anyone ever heard of Jesus Christ.

  54. F. L. A. said

    Errrr, Boris, all of those ancient quotes sound fine, as well as the challenge to study up on ancient Pagan information, but….all of this also sounds hypocritical and odd coming from one who in post#51 told John…”When we read dialog in ancient literature we should recognize what we are reading is fiction.”

    What test does one such as yourself use to determine which ancient literature is fiction and which is wisdom?

  55. Boris said

    FLA,
    By dialog I mean two or more people talking in a story setting, which was always fictional. This would describe, for example, Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey and Genesis through Kings and the Gospels as well as other parts of the Bible. The Epistles in the Gospels are a different kind of dialog as were the letters and books Pagans wrote about various subjects including the ones denouncing Christianity as a copycat religion. Do you see the difference?

  56. Boris said

    Epistles in the New Testament I mean.

  57. F. L. A. said

    Yes.

  58. Boris,

    I’m hoping to catch up on the posts I have missed in recent days, but for the moment, I’m wondering where the moral code of the Bible sanctions “ripping open pregnant women.” Please let me know when you can.

    One other note: I am struck by the amount of vitriol in your posts, as if you’re unable to state your point without adding in an insult (such as claiming that my morals are “perverted”). Is this the fruit of your atheism? Is this evidence of a superior morality?

  59. John said

    Dr.Brown, I believe that he is referring to the atrocities that were committed by the waring tribes of Moses against their victims.I don’t recall the exact Bible verses just right now, but perhaps you are familiar with those of which I speak[?].

  60. John,

    No such atrocities were committed by the Israelites or permitted by them, according to the scriptural record — the record to which Boris was referring. However, God does strongly rebuke other nations that did this very thing in Amos 1, so the Bible actually teaches the opposite of what Boris alleges here.

    So, back to Boris on this one.

  61. Boris said

    Dr. Brown,
    I know that you take these comments of mine as personal affronts and I expect that. But what they really are is a taste of your (you Christians, not you in particular) own medicine. Your claim that I have no basis for my personal morals and ethics or that it is somehow inferior to yours is the very same kind of insult. It’s just like saying that people who aren’t of your race have inferior morals. Let me give a clearer example. How does it feel to read this? Love the Christian, hate the Christianity. Christians have no idea just how offensive the things they say are to free thinking people.

    “They will perish by the sword, their little children will be dashed to pieces and their pregnant women disembowelled” (Hosea 14:1b NJB). Tthe Bible God always has people do these kinds of violent things to other humans for him. We are therefore not even a half-step away from believers killing (or ripping open pregnant women because it’s IN THE BIBLE) for their God because they think this is divine will that they NEED to carry out as history so very clearly shows.

    I don’t really think Christians will ever resort to this kind of behavior again, but they DID in the past, and based on the Bible too. This is because in most places Christianity has become a moribound and impotent religion, unlike Islam which is still very powerful, controlling, backward and extremely dangerous. Just like Christianity was in the Dark Ages. If say Martin Luther or Acquinas could come back today they would not recognize the religion called Christianity as it currently exists. They would wonder why unbelievers weren’t still being tortured and murdered and the pregnant ones disembowelled. They surely would.

  62. John said

    Are you sure Dr.Brown?
    It certainly reads as if Jehovah gave very unambiguous directions that Israel’s enemies were to be killed in the conquest of Canaan and in the later battles with the Philistines All women who had been with a man were put to the sword[the virgins were kept as spoils of war]. God not only seemed to sanction the killings, but also acted as an accomplice.
    Do you recall the scripture where Moses has a fit because some of his men and brother decided to spare a few lives, and God sends a few fiery serpents[and some form of a sickness too, I think] to punish the insubordinates, and God punished so many of them to death that Moses had to actually try and beg him to stop?

  63. Boris said

    How about when Yahweh himself was so horrified at his own savagery killing 70,000 for something he told David to do in the first place, take a census, that “Yahweh felt sorry about the calamity and said to the angel who was destroying the people, ‘Enough now! hold your hand! The angel of Yahweh was standing by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite (2Samuel 24:16).

    This story was so disturbing to a later writer, the Chronicler, that he blamed Satan for inciting David to take the census instead of God.

  64. Boris,

    There is a reason why true Christians have never sanctioned such barbarities, and that is because they read the whole of the Scriptures. You are free to pick and choose verses in ways that no Christian in his or her right mind would ever do, as if you have proven something, but the reverse is true. Take the Scriptures as a whole, and your attack vanishes into thin air. As for my point about personal attacks, I was not talking about your quoting of select verses but rather of the personal invective added in. Are you aware of that?

    As for the glories of atheism, atheists have shed far, far more blood than have Christians, just in one short century. Moreover, based on the aggressive language of many leading atheists today, one can only wonder at what the next wave of atheistic barbarity may look like — and with nothing within its system capable of restraining it.

    John,

    It is one thing for God to declare that horrible judgment will come on violent sinners as in Hosea 14. It is another thing entirely to claim that God’s moral code includes that His followers rip open pregnant women. If you want to quote the Scriptures, then do so holistically and, as I stated previously, your attacks on biblical morality will be removed.

  65. F. L. A. said

    “We can know what God is not, but we cannot know what He is.”-Saint Augustine,De Trinitate

  66. John,

    Responding to your post #37:

    1.Actually, if the only issue is coercion, then everything outside of that, as you almost admit, at which point morality goes out the window. Also, many pedophiles (or, at least ephebophiles) claim that their relationship with boys is consensual and even beneficial. On some levels, it was even a way of life in the ancient Greek world. So, the coercion argument is quite limited and hardly addresses many important moral issues and questions regarding sexual purity. Those who live by God’s standards know that His ways are best. The Creator knows what is best for His creation!

    2.It is very well documented that men who have sex with men have a far higher rate of STD’s than heterosexual men. This is hardly in dispute, one reason being that God did not design people for anal intercourse, hence many health-related problems that arise from that. Interestingly, some studies have also pointed to increased health risks for lesbians, but this is far, far less pronounced than the health risks of homosexual acts.

    3.I appreciate your irenic approach, and I’m not here to force my faith on anyone. (In fact, true faith cannot be forced on anyone). God in His Word gives an offer: Taste and see that the Lord is good! That’s what happened to me as a teenager, and I have not regretted that choice for one second in the last 37 years. I invite you to do the same.

    Having said that, because of time constraints, I’ll be dropping out of this blog shortly, but I’m glad there’s been opportunity to interact. You’re welcome to call into my program one night (7-8 EST, M-F) if you’d ever like to interact further.

    Blessings,

    Dr. Brown

  67. F. L. A. said

    Dr.Brown, in John’s post#37, #3. his analogy involving “food”, I believe that he was talking about homosexuality, not theology.

    I could not find the word “irenic” within any of our dictionaries. Hmmmmm.

    It was good having you here to give your input Dr.Brown.

  68. Boris said

    Dr. Brown,
    No blood has been shed by atheists who have committed human rights violations simply because they were atheists and disagreed with theism. Don’t be ridiculous. Past human rights violations have stemmed from the leadership’s power-mad political ambitions not an academic or philosophical conviction that religion contradicted the laws of physics.
    I’ve heard this absurd claim so many times and I will ask you now to produce the approximate figures, within a million or so, of just who was killed, by whom and for what reason and in what countries in the 20th century. FYI Hitler was a devout Christian who not only had willing German evangelical accomplices kill 6 million Jews but 5 million other non-Christians as well. Stalin only eliminated the competition for his particular sect, the Russian Orthodox Church, which flourished in the supposedly atheistic state of the Soviet Union. Mao was a Buddhist. So three of the four “atheists” you were about to mention you can forget about Dr. Brown. Now defend your accusation that atheists have committed atrocities with the details I asked for or apologize for parroting the insanity spouted by such liars as James D. Kennedy or “Little Hitler” as he is known among some atheists.

  69. John said

    He may be long gone by now, Boris. Time constraints, remember?
    That being the case then perhaps someone else here can please explain to me how and why those Bible verses mentioned by me within post#62 do not mean what they seem to obviously mean.
    They seem rather “cut and dry”.

  70. Boris said

    John,
    I notice that when fundamentalists get hit with a few tough questions they change the subject, make personal attacks or question a person’s motives or come up with an excuse to cut and run like “time constraints.” You had him there John and he knew there were other skeptics who had read the Bible carefully on this blog also. Theologians are really touchy when it comes to the atrocities committed by the Bible God and people under his direction. See, they know it is useless to defend them to skeptics because we don’t believe these things really happened anyway and they know it, so why bother, is what they think. They don’t have to defend these atrocities to believers because believers are mostly unaware of them and the ones that do know of some of them have rationalized that God and his followers can do whatever they want and it’s okay with them. And why wouldn’t it be? THEY themselves are one of God’s followers!

  71. John said

    Unless he comes back, eh? Well, it IS a touchy subject, one that must be approached with care and impartiality.
    Besides, I gave others reading here a plea for help in understanding, so let us all just wait and see what happens.

    I couldn’t find the meaning for the word “irenic” either.
    I hope that it means something flattering.

  72. Boris,

    For a little while, I actually thought you were being quite serious in your posts, but when you write that “FYI Hitler was a devout Christian” I must now wonder if everything you have posted was just meant to be meaningless bluster from the start. Really now, if you want to engage in serious interaction, then absolutely absurd statements like this — along with a number of others along the way, this, however being the most extreme — then you’ll have to exercise some intellectual integrity. Is that too much to ask?

    I still intend to respond to one of your longer posts which I missed earlier, time permitting, but I must urge not to disqualify yourself in the process with comments such as these. (BTW, I’m happy to back every comment I make with serious scholarship; I would hope you’re not relying on some sensationalistic internet claims or other pseudo-scholarship.)

  73. John,

    Irenic is not that mysterious a word:

    –adjective tending to promote peace or reconciliation; peaceful or conciliatory.

    Boris,

    Just looking at a few more of your posts, it actually appears that the more the discussion goes on, the more you agitated you get, not the reverse. As for my making some kind of quick exit or changing subjects, how about starting off by reading the 1,500 pages that I’ve written on Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus — not that it speaks to your own situation, but it certainly dispels the myth that I don’t believe in providing solid answers to serious objections. Or perhaps you should read my book Our Hands Are Stained with Blood, which details atrocities committed by professing Christians against Jews!

    I have not changed any subjects here; instead, I have not had the time to respond to every post (I do have lots of other daily responsibilities, which I hope you can understand), especially when several folks are asking me questions at the same time, and I have pointed out the personal attack common in your posts to illustrate the lack of personal ethic that your atheism produces, but I was hoping you would recognize this without me having to spell it out.

    In any case, I do hope to respond to the missing posts and then will definitely have to exit and get on with other things.

  74. Tripp said

    I wonder if Boris knows how to change the channel on the TV when he doesn’t like what he’s watching? Based on the evidence here I’d say no.

  75. F. L. A. said

    Thank you for that word’s definition Dr.Brown.
    I guess John just needs to buy a more modern dictionary, Hmmmm?
    It is good to have you back.

  76. Barney said

    Re: post 72

    What? Sensational internet claims? That’s your territory, isn’t it Dr. Brown?

  77. Barney,

    Is that the best you have to offer in defense of Boris’s indefensible Hitler claims? Well, at least you have a good sense of humor! 🙂

    In the slight chance that you were serious, please let me know about any “sensational internet claims” that relate to claims I have made, and I’ll be happy to respond to actual data. Fair enough?

  78. F. L. A. said

    No Christian has yet to try and respond with helpful advice to John’s post#69.
    It seems a reasonable request.

  79. F.L.A. and John,

    I’m happy to reply.

    First, the statement about God sanctioning ripping open pregnant women was completely false, as I pointed out, and that’s what started the specific discussion.

    Second, because of the severe degree of the sins of the Canannites, God commanded Israel to dispossess the land and kill them all. It was a one time command, quite extreme, but something that was waited for over a period of hundreds of years, as Gen 15 explains, Israel could not have the land until the sins of the inhabitants reached full measure. It would be like allied troops killing the Nazis during WWII.

    So, nowhere does the Bible give people the right simply to go around killing each other; on the other hand, God is the ultimate Judge before whom we will all stand, and He has the power and right to give life and to take life. Sometimes, during the history of Israel, He used His people to execute judgment, but that is a decidely OT concept, and it is never the calling of the Church, as the Church, to kill people in Jesus’ name.

    I hope that helps.

  80. John said

    Thank you for your response Dr.Brown.
    However I remain unconvinced that the act of genocide was justifiable. What sins commited by the Canannites where so evil that you felt it was necessary to compare them to Nazis? I know what is written within the Bible, but I would like to hear it from you, in your own words.
    Also, as these warriors of God were commanded to murder all women who had been with a man, is it not reasonable to assume that a good number of those women may have been pregnant?

  81. Boris said

    John,
    Dr. Brown is one of those Christian apologists who would have us look right at a Bible passage and then tell us it doesn’t really say what we can all plainly see that it does. “Samaria will pay the penalty for having rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, their little children will be dashed to pieces and their pregnant women disembowelled” (Hosea 14:1 NJB).

    The problem is that the Bible is a very violent, vile and disgusting book. There is bloodshed on almost every page and yet these mental midgets who believe these stories don’t see anything wrong with this violence because it was almost all done by and for their God. If it’s okay for God to kill then it certainly follows that it seems okay for people who believe in God to kill because they think he wants them to. The attacks on the Canaanites, the genocide, the infanticide and the taking of their land would be considered illegal by today’s standards and the UN would step in and destroy the Israelites for their indiscretions at the command of their God if it happened today. The fact is though that the Israelites were a peace loving and chickenhearted people who never conquered anyone until 1948 when their terrorism and violence drove the Palestinians from their land.

  82. Boris said

    Hitler Was a Christian

    The Holocaust was caused by Christian fundamentalism:

    History is currently being distorted by the millions of Christians who lie to have us believe that the Holocaust was not a Christian deed. Through subterfuge and concealment, many of today’s Church leaders and faithful Christians have camouflaged the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and have attempted to mark him an atheist, a pagan cult worshipper, or a false Christian in order to place his misdeeds on those with out Jesus. However, from the earliest formation of the Nazi party and throughout the period of conquest and growth, Hitler expressed his Christian support to the German citizenry and soldiers. Those who would make Hitler an atheist should turn their eyes to history books before they address their pews and chat rooms.

    Considering that Christianity has thus far been incapable of producing an unbiased, educated follower which speaks the truth, (I haven’t encountered any), I have been forced to dispel the myth by writing this essay. It is not until I bring up his speeches, my personal info on the Nazi regime and their tactics that a Christian will begin to question what their clergy told them. (I am the offspring of a German soldier. My Opa served under Hitler in WW2 and my father was raised during the time of the Nazi regime. This is important information to take into consideration for I am privy to some info that most Americans do not know. It is common for American media and education institutions to lie to their citizens concerning Nazi Germany.) So, in presenting this information I must break it into four parts: 1) Facts about Hitler and his involvement with the Church. 2) How the Church was the catalyst for anti- Semitism. 3) Facts concerning how the Nazi regime drilled these beliefs into Germanic society. 4) Quotes Hitler made which prove he had a disdain for atheism/occultism, upheld his Christian faith, and hated Jews due to his Christianity.

    Hitler’s involvement with the Church:

    a) Hitler was baptized as Roman Catholic during infancy in Austria.

    b) As Hitler approached boyhood he attended a monastery school. (On his way to school young Adolf daily observed a stone arch which was carved with the monastery’s coat of arms bearing a swastika.)

    c) Hitler was a communicant and an altar boy in the Catholic Church.

    d) As a young man he was confirmed as a “soldier of Christ.” His most ardent goal at the time was to become a priest. Hitler writes of his love for the church and clergy: “I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.” -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

    e) Hitler was NEVER excommunicated nor condemned by his church. Matter of fact the Church felt he was JUST and “avenging for God” in attacking the Jews for they deemed the Semites the killers of Jesus.

    f) Hitler, Franco and Mussolini were given VETO power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany, Spain and Italy. In turn they surtaxed the Catholics and gave the money to the Vatican. Hitler wrote a speech in which he talks about this alliance, this is an excerpt: “The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie.” Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party

    Hitler and the Popeg) Hitler worked CLOSELY with Pope Pius in converting Germanic society and supporting the church. The Church absorbed Nazi ideals and preached them as part of their sermons in turn Hitler placed Catholic teachings in public education. This photo depicts Hitler with Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in Berlin. It was taken On April 20, 1939, when Orsenigo celebrated Hitler’s birthday. The celebrations were initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) and became a tradition.

    Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send “warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany with “fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars.” (If you would like to know more about the secret dealings of Hitler and the Pope I recommend you get a book titled: Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, by John Cornwell)

    h) Due to Hitler’s involvement with the Church he began enacting doctrines of the Church as law. He outlawed all abortion, raged a death war on all homosexuals, and demanded corporal punishment in schools and home. Many times Hitler addressed the church and promised that Germany would implement its teachings: “The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavor to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of today.” –Adolf Hitler, on 26 June 1934, to Catholic bishops to assure them that he would take action against the new pagan propaganda “Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.” -Adolf Hitler, reportedly to have said in Berlin in 1936 on the enmity of the Catholic Church to National Socialism

    How Christianity was the catalyst of the Holocaust:

    Hitler’s anti-Semitism grew out of his Christian education. Austria and Germany were majorly Christian during his time and they held the belief that Jews were an inferior status to Aryan Christians. The Christians blamed the Jews for the killing of Jesus. Jewish hatred did not actually spring from Hitler, it came from the preaching of Catholic priests and Protestant ministers throughout Germany for hundreds of years. The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews and their Jewish religion. In his book, “On the Jews and their Lies,” Luther set the standard for Jewish hatred in Protestant Germany up until World War 2. Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther constantly quoting his works and beliefs.

    Now, you must remember before Hitler rose to Chancellor of Germany the country was in a deep economic depression due to the Versailles treaty. The Versailles treaty demanded that Germans made financial reparations for the previous war and Germany simply was not self sufficient enough in order to pay the debt. Hitler was the leader that raised Germany out of the depression and brought them back to a world recognized power. Due to his annulment of the financial woes of the Germanic people he became their redeemer and they anointed him as the leader of the German Reich Christian Church in 1933. This placed him in power of the German Christian Socialist movement which legislates their political and religious agendas. It united all denominations, mainly the Protestant/Catholic and Lutheran people to instill faith in a national Christianity.

    How the Nazi Regime converted the people:

    a) In the 1920s, Hitler’s German Workers’ Party (pre Nazi term) adopted a “Programme” with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a “positive” Christianity: “We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession…”

    b) The Nazi regime started a youth movement which preached its agenda to impressionable children. Hitler backed up the notion that all people need faith and religious education: “By helping to raise man above the level of bestial vegetation, faith contributes in reality to the securing and safeguarding of his existence. Take away from present-day mankind its education-based, religious- dogmatic principles– or, practically speaking, ethical-moral principles– by abolishing this religious education, but without replacing it by an equivalent, and the result will be a grave shock to the foundations of their existence.” – Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

    c) The Nazi regime began to control schools insisting that Christianity was taught.

    d) The Nazi regime included anti-Semitic Christian writings in textbooks and they were not removed from Christian doctrines until 1961.

    e) The Nazi regime having full blown power over the people began to forcibly convert all its military.

    Nazi Belt Bucklef) The Nazi regime forced the German soldiers to wear religious symbols such as the swastika and they placed religious sayings on military gear. An example here is this German army belt buckle (I believe my Opa had one) which reads “Gott Mit Uns”. For those of you who do not speak German it is translated as “God With Us”.

    g) The German troops were often forced to get sprinkled with holy water and listen to a sermon by a Catholic priest before going out on a maneuver.

    h) The Nazis created a secret service called the “SS Reich” that would act as spies on the dealings of other citizens. If anyone was suspected of heresy (Going not only against the Socialist party but CHURCH DOCTRINE) they would be prosecuted.

    Quotes from Hitler:

    Hitler’s speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of their faith So they try to pin him on other theistic views. The following words from Hitler show his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and reveal the strength of his Christian feelings:

    “National Socialism is not a cult-movement– a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship… We will not allow mystically- minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else– in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will– not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord… Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.” -Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept.1938. [Christians have always accused Hitler of believing in pagan cult mythology. What is written here clearly expresses his stand against cults.]

    “We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933 [This statement clearly refutes modern Christians who claim Hitler as favoring atheism. Hitler wanted to form a society in which ALL people worshipped Jesus and considered any questioning of such to be heresy. The Holocaust was like a modern inquisition, killing all who did not accept Jesus. Though more Jews were killed then any other it should be noted that MANY ARYAN pagans and atheists were murdered for their non-belief in Christ.]

    Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:

    “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.” –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

    “Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition.” -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)

    “The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.” -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)

    “With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people.” -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)

    “The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties– and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

    “…the fall of man in paradise has always been followed by his expulsion.” -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (See Genesis Chapter 3 where humankind is cast from Eden for their sins. Hitler compares this to the need to exterminate the Jews for their sin against Christ.)

    “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” –Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

    “The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (This quote is very interesting for it disperses the idea that Hitler raged war due to being an Aryan supremacist. He states quite clearly that he has a problem with Jews for their belief not race. That is why many German Jews died in WW2 regardless of their Aryan nationality.)

    “Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (Here Hitler is admitting that his war against the Jews were so successful because of his strong Christian Spirituality.)

    Quotes from Other Nazis about Hitler and Religion:

    “Around 1937, when Hitler heard that at the instigation of the party and the SS vast numbers of his followers had left the church because it was obstinately opposing his plans, he nevertheless ordered his chief associates, above all Goering and Gobbels, to remain members of the church. He too would remain a member of the Catholic Church, he said, although he had no real attachment to it. And in fact he remained in the church until his suicide.” (Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer page 95-96)

  83. John said

    Uhhhh, thank you for your efforts, Boris, but I think that Dr.Brown can answer my post for himself.I want HIS input on this topic.
    Thank you.

    Mr.Brown, the verse that I was referring to in particular came from the chapter of Numbers.

  84. Boris said

    John,
    Dr. Brown will not answer this question with his own thoughts on the matter. In my conversations with Dr. Brown I have learned that he gets ALL of his ideas about the Bible from other Christian scholars and thinks that I and everyone else should too. He keeps telling me to read what OTHER people say about the Bible and just blindly accept their views because apparently he thinks I can’t figure it out all on my own. Just because Dr. Brown gets his views on the Bible from other PEOPLE because he cannot figure it out on his own, doesn’t mean the rest of us need to get our ideas from others. The Bible is very easy to understand if one just ignores what believers say about it.

  85. John said

    Still, I would rather be gracious enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
    It cost nothing, and the rewards may be great.

  86. Boris,

    What in the world are you talking about? The vast majority of learning that I have done regarding the Scriptures has come through studying the primary texts firsthand as opposed to reading secondary literature. The fact is my schedule does not permit me to get extensively involved in these blogs — in fact, I went way beyond my normal time parameters in order to interact with you and others here — and when I am aware of a solid scholar who has written extensively on a relevant subject, it makes sense for me to refer people to the relevant sources. However, there’s nothing can I do when you refuse to read the writings of biblical and Semitic scholars who are widely respected by their peers, both liberal and conservative. And when I call other scholars in peer-reviewed journals in support of my position, you somehow mistake that for not having opinions of my own.

    This much is clear: When you speak of the ugliness of the Bible, you sound like someone referring to the ugliness of the sunset. There’s something wrong with the seeing, not the object itself.

    In any case, feel free to argue that Hitler was a devout Christian and that God’s Word is despicable, also slinging personal, unsubstantiated judgments as you go. It’s certainly poor advertising for atheism, in which case, I can only say: Keep up the good work!

  87. John,

    As always, I appreciate your gracious attitude. The Canaanites were guilty of all kinds of sexual sins, including incest and bestiality (see Leviticus 18), and based on the iconography of the gods they worshiped, their idolatrous beliefs were also of the basest kind. It also appears that they were guilty of child-sacrifice, burning their children in worship of idols. It’s hard to do worse than that! If the Israelites had intermarried with them, it would have spread the pollution through their nation as well, ultimately leading to their own destruction, in which there would not have been a chosen nation through whom the Redeemer could come, in which case we all would have been lost in our sins. That is the reason this one-time act took place, not to be repeated on a national scale with the surrounding nations again.

    So, the ultimate goal was the blessing of the entire human race, and this one-time, very harsh, radical act was necessary to bring this about. If you come to know and love the one true God, you will find Him to be the perfection of beauty and goodness, and you will read accounts like this with that understanding. If you stand at a distance from Him, none of this will make sense.

    I do not expect to be back here for some time, but if you are an honest seeker, then by all means, contact my ministry directly through revolutionnow.org, and we will be glad to help you.

    Boris and others can post as they wish and rail and attack, but it only exposes a tragic depth of spiritual blindness on their part, one that reminds me to keep praying for him and others who share his views. I’m blessed to be married to a former atheist, so I know there is hope. 🙂

  88. Boris said

    Dr. Brown,
    I know you have studied the primary texts of the Bible first-hand. So have I. So have a lot of people and their opinions on it are all over the spectrum. So studying the primary texts first-hand isn’t as important as knowing what you are reading. A person with no formal education who only reads the Bible in his native language but understands the basic stylistic differences between fiction and non-fiction is light years ahead in understanding the Bible than an orthodox Christian or Jewish scholar. People who study the Bible with preconceived notions are going to arrive at whatever conclusions they want to. The Bible is just ambiguous enough to allow people to get it to say whatever they want instead of what it really says.

    As far as the Bible being historical all I can say is the word history does not even exist in Hebrew. I look at the violence in the Bible the same way I do the violence in Homer. It’s fiction. I can’t imagine a God with the manners and morals of a spoiled child such as Yahweh of the Old Testament is actually existing.

  89. F. L. A. said

    Boris, perhaps it might make more sense for you if you thought of him as being a “young, new” God in the Old Testament. He was rather new at this role of being a Middle Eastern deity. He had to grow as a person, learn to interact with humanity, learn from mistakes. Even a deity can make some mistakes, you know.
    This view would certainly help to explain a lot of things……..

  90. F. L. A. said

    Competition from all of the other deities must have been fierce!

  91. Maz said

    F.L.A: #89. What mistakes did God make?

  92. ADB said

    A thought from another angle. The bloodletting in the OT and the rather sordid stories found throughout the Bible are a powerful evidence that they are indeed historical in some sense. David and Bathsheba (for a sermon I’m working on right now), the rape of Tamar, the devotion (“harem” in Hebrew) of entire towns for destruction during the conquest of Canaan, the frequent portrayal of the disciples as being disbelieving and slow in the NT, are just a few of the things that would definitely not pass muster if one were intentionally creating a fictional work to be the basis for a new religion. Those things that are sometimes “embarassing” to Christians are also things that no one in his/her right mind would create in order to support a religion, be it authentic or false. Hebrew may not have an equivalent to the english “history” as Boris points out, I haven’t taken the time to confirm or deny it. But it’s a moot point. Most contemporary Historians consider the Greeks Herodotus and Thucydides to be the forerunners of modern history. But, it is also true that to a certain extent the western view of history as being linear with a beginning and an end (instead of cycular for instance) is decidedly Hebraic as Cahill pointed out in “The Gifts of the Jews.” (an interesting read for anyone of Judeo-Christian origin or anyone interested in Western thought.)

    Best Wishes

  93. Maz said

    Just for the record, God made no mistakes…and HE never will.

  94. John said

    I think that may be a matter of personal perception, Maz.

    Thank you for your answers Dr.Brown, and I appreciate your theological invitation, but my deities are true enough for me and I am veeeeeeeerrrrrry comfortable with my belief system as it is.
    Thank you.

  95. Maz said

    John: Care to elucidate?

  96. F. L. A. said

    John is going out of town to visit people in Miami after work today and shall not return untill Sunday, Maz, so you’ll have to wait.

  97. Boris said

    Maz said: Just for the record, God made no mistakes…and HE never will.

    Boris says:
    This Maz person makes the most indefensible claims imaginable!
    “Yahweh regretted having made human beings on earth and was grieved at heart” (Gen 6:6).

    “But when the angel stretched his hand towards Jerusalem to destroy it, Yahweh felt sorry about the calamity and said to the angel who was destroying the people, ‘Enough now! Hold your hand! The angel of Yahweh was standing by the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite (Sam 24:16).

  98. Maz said

    Boris: God can change His mind, that does not make it a mistake.

  99. Boris said

    Maz,
    Why would God change his mind if he hadn’t made a mistake? Is God that fickle? Since God can change his mind and can clearly see that most of humanity is not receiving the Gospel message at all during their lives and therefore they don’t even get a chance to accept or reject it, why doesn’t he do something about this travesty? “If God’s love encompasses the whole world and if everyone who does not believe in him will perish, then surely this question needs to be asked: When, after two thousand years, does God’s plan kick in for the billion people he ‘so loves’ in China? Or for the 840 million in India? Or the millions in Japan, Afghanistan, Siberia, Egypt, Burma – and on and on?” – Charles Templeton

    If God can change his mind and doesn’t do something about his failed plan of salvation then why would anyone want to worship this immoral monster?

  100. Maz said

    Boris: If God hadn’t ‘changed His mind’ when Adam sinned, we would all be sent to hell with no salvation…….but He sent His Only Son to die for sinful man, so that they wouldn’t have to go to hell.

    You have no idea what it cost Jesus Christ Gods Son to take YOUR sin and take YOUR punishment on that cross, so that you wouldn’t have to suffer………all He asks is that you believe…..that’s it……but you won’t…….so who’s fault is it if you end up in hell?

  101. Boris said

    Maz said: Boris: If God hadn’t ‘changed His mind’ when Adam sinned, we would all be sent to hell with no salvation…….but He sent His Only Son to die for sinful man, so that they wouldn’t have to go to hell.

    Boris says: If God can see into the future he already knew Adam would “sin” (to Christianity curiosity and a thirst for knowledge is a sin of course) and therefore did not have to change his mind.

    Maz says: You have no idea what it cost Jesus Christ Gods Son to take YOUR sin and take YOUR punishment on that cross, so that you wouldn’t have to suffer………all He asks is that you believe…..that’s it……but you won’t…….so who’s fault is it if you end up in hell?

    Boris says: No one is asking me to believe this nonsense except other people like you who are desperate to substantiate their own beliefs by trying to get other people to accept them. If God wants me to believe something let him tell me himself. Your post indicate that you don’t know what you are talking about so why should I believe you or anyone else when they tell me about their particular God?

  102. Max said

    Boris says: No one is asking me to believe this nonsense except other people like you who are desperate to substantiate their own beliefs by trying to get other people to accept them.

    If I am desperate about anything, it is to see people come to know Jesus Christ and His love, not to substantiate my beliefs…….what’s the point in getting you to accept it? Just to prove I’m right?
    The whole point of telling someone about Jesus Christ and what He has done for them is so that they will come to know His amazing love and forgiveness and spend an eternity in Heaven with Him. If you only knew the love He has for you, how much He wants you to believe in Him……He went to the cross for you Boris….is that not enough for you? And you want Him to knock on your door and introduce Himself to you. That is arrogant and prideful.

  103. Maz said

    Max is Maz.

  104. Boris said

    Maz,
    I can’t talk to you anymore. I’m too tempted to insult you because the things you say are frankly so ridiculous and an insult my intelligence. Plus your constant threats that the boogyman of your particular superstition is going to follow me to my grave so he can punish me for not accepting YOUR particular brand of nuttiness is actually a verbal assault and I think the moderator ought to kick you off this blog based on that alone.

    I came on this blog after listening to Chuck Crismier for years because he consistently bashes his fellow Christians and pretty much leaves us atheists alone which I find both entertaining and enlightening. I was looking for intelligent conversation and there are some people on here who seem interesting. You and Bob Griffin on the other hand are as supremely BORING as watching paint dry, chanting the same debunked creationist mantras that were disproved over a century ago. I’ve heard it all before so pleas don’t direct anymore of your posting to me. I’d rather watch paint dry.

  105. Tripp said

    Oh my gosh, Boris and Maz:

    You are badgering each other to death. Why don’t you just agree to disagree and move on? It’s OK to not agree, but respect someone else’s beliefs.

    Get on with it, already.

  106. F. L. A. said

    [sinister laughter]
    And I’m goin to jump the gun and predict that Boris already “stole John’s thunder” in regards to Maz’s question for him.
    I like Maz and Bob.

  107. Maz said

    Boris #104; That’s fine with me. As you shall read on the other sites you are on, I have decided to take up your suggestion……to treat you as if you don’t exist….which is what you do to God.
    And I have been VERY tempted to say more than I have, and if I were not a Christian I could probably be as insulting as you have been, but I now live for God and resist such temptations!
    I certainly don’t want to tempt you to be offensive and verbally abusive anymore….and especially not to my Lord. I think He has heard enough from you aswell.

  108. Maz said

    Tripp: I agree! I have tried to put a reasonable debate on my own beliefs but Boris has been so abusive in his……..now is the time to put a stop to it.

    F.L.A: Thanks. We’ve disagreed a lot but atleast we can remain civil to each other. And I like you and John too. You are an interesting pair.

  109. F. L. A. said

    It is an easy thing to be interesting when one is so strange.

  110. Maz said

    F.L.A: It all depends what you mean by ‘strange’. Are you so different from eveyone else?

  111. F. L. A. said

    Yessssss.

    After reading my posts, and John’s for all this time, are you implying that we could actually be…..”normal” in some sense?

  112. Boris said

    I haven’t been verbally abusive to anyone on this thread. I have completely refuted every argument I’ve tackled and the various people who made them often got upset by that. Tough. Contrasting that I’ve been called a sinner and told by some people that if I didn’t adopt their particular brand of religion the God of the universe would follow me to my grave and punish me with unimaginable violence. Try this on for size: Love the Christian, hate the Christianity. How does that sound? Offensive? Guess what YOU sound like to thinking people then with your sinner remarks. You Christians have NO IDEA just how offensive the things you say to and about people really are because you live in a bubble.

  113. Maz said

    F.L.A: You really are quite mysterious….my imagination runs away with me…..as it usually does! 😉

  114. F. L. A. said

    That’s part of my job Maz.
    I help make your world a weirder place to exist, for better or for worse.

  115. Providential said

    I just stumbled onto this long thread. I must say this Boris fellow is quite the blasphemer. When a sinner descends to the level of railing at his Creator, rest assured that person is morally depraved. Boris has a problem with a Judge executing Judgment! He calls God, who when moved to judge men on account of their incessant wickedness an “immoral monster”. According to God’s Holy Word and human observation, people like Boris who have such blasphemy in their hearts are the real immoral monsters, and are capable of anything, including delusionally thinking they have refuted “everything”. Poor Boris. The speck is reviling the Creator, and the Creator has made it clear He laughs at you-Psalms 2.

  116. Hello Providential –

    We actually had to ban Boris from the site.

    Moderator (not Stu)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: