Zombie Christ

Halloween’s approaching!

Jesus warned:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

How have things changed? Those Jesus was talking to thought they were doing good. Can we hear the warning?

What you see in this graphic cartoon is the version of Christianity that believes we have been commissioned to go into all the world and make everybody just like us. Like zombies, it is a mindless and inhumane affair, obsessed with consuming everyone in its path.

(NOTE: I’m toying with the idea of doing a whole graphic novel around this theme.)

Acquire the original drawing.
Buy a print of this cartoon.

(Download my ebook “nakedpastor 101” for .99¢.) To download the ebook, –> click here! <–

Order your hard copy:

You may also like...

104 Responses

  1. Bev says:

    My, oh! my!!! This is gruesome but then … it is!

  2. sam scoville says:

    You make them all look so hideous, NP. So none of us will identify with them. Make them look nice, goodies, well-intentioned, making the whirl a better pace. Who amongst us identifies with the Bad Guys, raise your hand. Throw the first stone. (oh , and maybe you’d be interested in attending our First Church of the Crippled and Lame Shall Enter First. (No Goodies need apply. We exclude them.)

  3. nakedpastor says:

    they’re zombies sam. they don’t look nice.

  4. sam scoville says:

    Exactly my point: who’s going to identify with the zombie-within when the image without is so
    repulsive? Oh, I can see how the image represents them OTHERS (bad guys of all sort, proselytizing, self-promoting, — just follow one of your threads down the line & see how we work to convince, convict: us the living dead) But I have to make an effort to identify with your bad guys in all your cartoons–even as I know that’s where the significance of your “vision” lies. Man in the mirror deal. Narcissus looking in the pond image and thinking: them bastards! not knowing it’s his own face he’s facing. It’s a hard lesson. Don’t we resist it?

  5. I love this comic. But I’m going to be lame and give a link as it reminds me of my sermon last Easter Sunday – Jesus Vs. the Zombies. Here you have Jesus as the Zombie, my point is that we turn Jesus into the Zombie when all we care about is that Jesus rose from the dead.

    http://independenceumc.blogspot.com/2011/04/easter-sunday-message-jesus-vs-zombies.html

  6. Hugh says:

    I think my friends at Stuff Christian Culture Likes (here http://www.stuffchristianculturelikes.com/ and here https://www.facebook.com/stuffchristianculturelikes) will get this straightaway.

  7. kormosendre says:

    yes! graphic novel! yes! please!

  8. sam scoville says:

    See, what I’m saying NP? Bring on the graphic novel and maybe a movie and folks will unite AGAINST the living dead: hideous bastard propagators, enemies of our goodness, health and wholesome happiness: clueless how it is US that we are looking at, grotesque grimacing, wild-eyed, fanatic; spreading our word and whine…

  9. nakedpastor says:

    ask them to post my Zombie Christ on their page!

  10. sam scoville says:

    Yes: let’s get this Zombie Christ Image propagated: go & make disciples: “Those Jesus was talking to thought they were doing good. Can we hear the warning?” Walking Dead? Have I got the church for you! Not a zombie? Never mind. Go and don’t do like wise.

  11. Doug Sloan says:

    …and how do Zombies survive?

    By eating your brains!

  12. sam scoville says:

    Do you know any, Doug? Ever eaten any yourself (so to speak, in manners of speaking?) Sorry: I’m always trying to bring these toons close to home, where charity is said to begin. It’s always David’s Bad Guys that strike me as the ones needing my identification and incorporation. The victims are a piece of cake. We all feel for the underdogs.

  13. I think your comments indicate a lack of understanding about the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). It’s not about making them like us, it’s about helping them to be what God intended THEM to be, and helping them to obey what Christ taught us. Think about how much of a better place this world would be if we were all following Christ’s teachings.

  14. With due respect Dr. Mansfield, I think David’s comic is descriptive, not prescriptive. It’s not that making disciples always means making Zombies, but too often that is how it approached. We don’t encourage people to use their own minds and find their own connection to God, we instruct them in the proper ways to think and make them say or sign oaths indicating their conformity. At one local mega church in the Cleveland area, they actually have a minister in charge of assimilation. That is a zombie making ministry, not a Jesus following one in which the incredible diversity of God’s created people is respected and loved.

  15. nakedpastor says:

    Dr. I am a Christian. But one could also say, “Think about how much of a better place this world would be if we were all following the Buddha’s teachings.” Could we not?

  16. sam scoville says:

    “All Cretans are Zombies”
    says Epiminides, the Cretan.

    We could say the world would be a better place if we were all following the sacred teachings of any of the sacred teachings. And as it seems to be the case “we all” are not–then it’s always open season on US to shake our stick at Them Others (bad guys of course, bullies, manipulators.

    If Only….

    Call me Zombie. Living Dead. I’ll eat your brains if I can. Accuse. Antagonize. Me: crippled and impoverished. Pathetic. A monumental conviction of sin (es esse: essence, being). We might could fellowship together: if you’re a zombie too? (No Goodies need apply)

  17. Matt Oxley says:

    This is gonna piss some Christians off.

    but you should have a text bubble that says “souuuuulls” coming from one of them.

  18. Brilliant. I see this applying to some atheist sites/groups as well. Echo chambers of the far-left, where anyone who expresses the slightest dissension is ostracized for not being in line with the rest of the “progressive” herd on all sociopolitical issues.
    Atheism is simply non-belief in the supernatural, but so many have hijacked it to make it seem to be so much more. No wonder we so often repel more than we attract.
    Dogma is dogma and mindless zombies are mindless zombies.

  19. nakedpastor says:

    maybe you could get some of the atheist sites to post it TGM?

  20. I’ll give it a shot. 🙂

  21. Brigitte says:

    Yes, and take the head off Christ and make it Dawkins’.

  22. @np,
    I’ve hooked you up as best I could.

  23. @Brigitte,
    Honestly, this whole Dawkins thing is tiresome. I can think of a gazillion other atheists that fit the image of dogmatic jerks, but Dawkins isn’t one of them. Dawkins simply isn’t dogmatic. Brash and perhaps even rude? Oh, you bet. Dogmatic? No way. He is as self-correcting a human being as you will EVER find on this planet. I’ve read his works and I’ve read what he thinks about his degree of certainty that there is no god or gods. You are way off base on the man. Way off.
    Disagreeing with someone and finding them unpleasant does not make them dogmatic. You can call him an irascible ass and you’d find many atheists who will agree with you, but not one who knows him or his work would agree that he is dogmatic.

  24. Keith says:

    I think Sam has a point. In the GN, you should have the zombies out there doing their thing, but only relate them to the xian fundies at the very end, kind of like a “surprise twist”. Start with them destroying human kind, then travel back to their origin through out the GN, until you finally reach the most evil, zombie-generator of all. I think that would be appropriate. 🙂

  25. Brigitte says:

    Godless Monster, you may chose any other prominent atheist you like.

  26. @Brigitte,
    “Godless Monster, you may chose any other prominent atheist you like.”
    Why? Are you implying that all prominent atheists are dogmatic?

  27. Keith says:

    @doc Robert – Yes, we should all be like jesus. We should be delusional about our belief system. We should lie and steal whenever we want something. We should condemn people based on what tribe they were born in. We should condemn marriage and family, forsaking everyone and every thing to worship an imaginary sky-fairy. We should judge and condemn on whim. We should give conflicting messages to people who trust us. We should preach that our own tribe is the “chosen” and everyone else are nothing but enemies that need to be brought under heel.

    Ya, we should all be like jesus. What a wonderful world it would be! Right.

  28. amazonfeet says:

    Jared, that’s a great sermon you posted the link for…my family has a lifelong friend who is a United Methodist minister, so I posted it on my Facebook in hopes he might see it. Thanks! 🙂

  29. Brigitte says:

    Godless Monster, I don’t know very many atheists. I do have a couple in the in-law relationship and they speak vociferously about how they can be good without God. Some of us have yet to meet people who are “good” with or without God, so in my mind they are missing the point.

    To unfortuantly belabor the point, you may “choose” yourself, anyone you think would fit the bill, if Dawkins is getting tiresome to you. Unfortunately, he has a book out aimed at children and he is not really going away.

  30. Jacqualine Marie says:

    I am enamored with Zombie Christ. Probably because these are some of my relatives. Nice to see them again. It’s been awhile – we’ve been estranged somewhat because of their relentless pushing and assumptions. Christ would have approached things differently. Christ would have shown some love and perhpas even made coffee and put out the welcome mat. Lots of folks wanting to expand their number of followers – Christians, Buddists, Jehovah W’s – drill you to the wall with fear. Not all, but lots (pardon my sloppy grammar). And the assumption that I/we are not believers because we have not “followed” is one of the biggest and most offensive examples of arrogance I have seen. So, David, thank you…..we love this!

  31. nakedpastor says:

    thanks TGM. let’s see what happens.

  32. @Keith,
    I’m on my way to take my pregnant wife to the hospital or I’d write something longer.
    I’m not of the opinion that it is productive to deride these people’s beliefs…IN THIS PARTICULAR VENUE. Folks like us are guests here.
    Even those whom I disagree with are genuinely nice people.
    We’ll get more with honey than vinegar.
    Wish us luck, all!

  33. nakedpastor says:

    is she DUE NOW?? TGM?

  34. Keith says:

    @GodlessMonster – I can appreciate that. I do tend to get annoyed when someone spouts something that is completely baseless or not thought through at all. I guess pointing out that, based on the bible that these people supposedly read and follow, the jesus these people worship was a thief and liar and condoned slavery, brutality to and murder of children, animals, other tribes, and people of other beliefs is “bad form” is certain circles. But then, how are people ever going to see the truth if we don’t expose it to the light?

    I have never said that there weren’t some awesomely good people that hold to the delusion of xianity. My bother is one. He and I get along great. He’s very straight-forward in proclaiming that he would never force his religion onto anyone else and that he believes in freedom for all. Of course, he then turned around and voted yes on Prop 8 because of his wonderful “belief system and conscience”, but other than suppressing the rights of people that do things that are none of his business, but that he disapproves of anyway, he’s a wonderful human being. It’s only his religion that gets in the way of him being an even better person.

  35. Keith says:

    @Brigitte – Seems more like you are missing the point. Maybe you don’t understand what the word “Dogmatic” means? In our context, I think the best description is “Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.” The key words being “unproved or unprovable”. Nothing that Dawkins says (nor Hitchens, nor Harris nor any of the “prominent” atheists, for that matter) would fall under that category. Atheism, by definition, is simply the lack of belief in something that is unproven. To say that I believe that no god exists is not “dogmatic” because there is not a single shred of evidence that any do or ever have is completely erroneous. One cannot say that it is “dogmatic” to assert that god doesn’t exist because it hasn’t been *proven* that god doesn’t exist, any more than someone can say its dogmatic to assert that elves, fairies, Santa, the Easter Bunny, or leprechauns don’t exist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not the other way around. Just because the claims of xians that god does exists is dogmatic, doesn’t mean that anyone who doesn’t follow that superstition can be said to be dogmatic, simply because of that lack of belief.

  36. nakedpastor says:

    Keith: I appreciate your input in this dialog. But I’m not sure I agree with your definition of “dogmatic”. Let’s say a certain country, a superpower, is the most powerful county in the world. It really is. What if the citizens of this country were authoritative and arrogant about asserting its power? I think that’s dogmatic as well. So the problem is with the dogmatic mindset… the attitude… not the ideas that nourish it. IMO.

  37. Keith says:

    nakedpastor: I’m not sure what definition of “dogmatic” could be applied to your scenario. The word “dogma” means “A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true”, but as I’ve mentioned, this is specific to “UNPROVEN or UNPROVABLE” assertions. It seems to me that the terms “dogmatic” and “faith” are fairly synonymous in that they describe holding beliefs regardless of lack of evidence supporting such a belief. You are right in that it is a mindset. That is what makes religion dogmatic and prevents atheism from being dogmatic. When someone is presented with evidence disproving something yet they hold onto that belief despite the evidence, that is being dogmatic. When someone is open-minded, yet skeptical, refusing to believe something until it at least has SOME evidence supporting it, but also does not have evidence that actually DISPROVES it, I just don’t see that as “dogmatic”. That is where we atheists stand. We do not believe because we have never seen any evidence supporting the existence of a god, and we have evidence (although, granted it is circumstantial, but most people assert that you can never have “concrete” proof that something does not exist) disproving the existence of any god conceived so far.

  38. nakedpastor says:

    Keith. I somewhat agree. And as much as I love atheism and many of its spokespersons, I somehow still suggest that it can be dogmatic in its attitude and expressions. Even the expression “I am absolutely certain that I am right and you are wrong!” is a dogmatic one that can be said by the religious and non-religious alike.

  39. Keith says:

    Absolutely true. The only thing I would add to that is that atheists, as a whole, are not trying to force everyone to be atheists. We can all live in a secular society and, if fact MUST all live in a secular society. All we want to to not to be forced to live in a theocracy. Since nothing of any religion has ever been justified in any way, we wish to live our lives without it. That does not, in any way, force the religious to live without their religion. We (as a whole) do not advocate the burning down of all churches. If people wish to go to church and believe in their particular deity, that is perfectly acceptable.

    The reason that most atheists attempt to show theists that their religion is not valid is simply to try to explain why we wish to live without it. Most of us could really care less what others believe, fallacious or not. Is it really a mystery why we would be outspoken about why a set of beliefs are completely nonsensical when people are trying to legislate those beliefs down our throats?

    I have had a lot of religious people ask me why I care. Why can’t I just let people believe what they want to believe? Why can’t I let people believe something, ridiculous or not, if it makes them feel better? My answer is always this: I can. I am happy to. But let’s turn that question right back around. Why should I allow those beliefs to be forced upon me and my family, if I know for a fact that they are fallacious? Why would you fight against teaching the Egyptian mythology or the Greek or roman mythologies in schools as if they were actually just as valid as the xian mythology? Because you don’t believe they are true, and you don’t want those beliefs forced on your children. And for good reason. And they are the same reasons I don’t want xianity forced on me and my family.

  40. Keith says:

    One thing I’d like to add to the conversation is that being dogmatic does not make you right or wrong. Using the argument that “atheists can be dogmatic, too” doesn’t mean that we are playing on the same field. No matter how assured you are that you are right, the truth still lies in the evidence. Trying to justify your position by saying that someone else has faults is, I have to say, a very childish assertion. That’s like trying to start your car with a house key and when someone points out that you can’t do that, arguing that the person that is telling you that is ugly. It doesn’t change the facts. It doesn’t change the evidence. Even if nakedpastor is right and being dogmatic is actually synonymous with arrogant (which is still don’t agree with), it doesn’t mean the arrogant person is wrong. We must still follow the evidence to tell us what is truth as far as we can perceive it. If you can’t provide evidence of your position, you shouldn’t expect anyone to have to bow to your beliefs.

  41. fishon says:

    The Godless Monster
    October 28, 2011 | 11:22 am

    @Brigitte,
    “Godless Monster, you may chose any other prominent atheist you like.”
    Why? Are you implying that all prominent atheists are dogmatic?
    ———Name some and back it up with proof. You make the assertion, now prove it.

  42. Keith says:

    @fishon – The problem here is that the definition of “dogmatic” is not being used in a standard way. Brigitte is basically claiming that anyone who can provide evidence that her beliefs are nonsensical, and publicly does so, must be, by her definition, “dogmatic”. Another problem is that, based on her beliefs, since someone who provides that evidence is, to her, “dogmatic”, that somehow justifies her dogma. It is a game that people use to derail the real meat of a conversation, in this case are her beliefs justified enough to force them onto other people or are they just mindless ramblings passed from one “zombie” to the next?

  43. fishon says:

    Keith
    October 28, 2011 | 3:32 pm

    Absolutely true. The only thing I would add to that is that atheists, as a whole, are not trying to force everyone to be atheists.
    ——Untold millions have been subject to just that very force. Mao and Stalin and their followers comes to mind.

  44. fishon says:

    Keith,
    Yes, it does seem like a game.
    So to take your question on: Why should I allow those beliefs to be forced upon me and my family, if I know for a fact that they are fallacious?
    —-I will ask the same quesiton of the atheist teacher in my son’s/daughter science class, math class, German class who says there is NO god. Why should I allow that to happen? For my position that there is God is just as valid and provable as your position that there is no god.

  45. Steve Martin says:

    The great commission is not about HELPING anyone do anything.

    It is about saving people from the eternal darkness that is unbelief.

    I know a great many don’t believe that.

    That’s nothing new.

  46. @fishon,
    Hey. What assertion are you referring to?
    @NP,
    No, she just had a scheduled amniocentesis and ultrasound. So far, so good. And…we just found out…it’s a boy!
    @Keith,
    Yep, I get your frustration 100% brother.

  47. @fishon,
    The Mao and Stalin thing is a nonsense argument. They killed nobody in the name of atheism but in the name of totalitarianism and communism.
    These were evil men who happened to be atheists. If indeed your argument holds true, please explain all the atrocities committed by non-atheists throughout history.
    If you really want to hold your own in these exchanges, please spend some time understanding what atheism is, who we are and why we are atheists in the first place. Guys like Keith and myself have done that, why don’t some of you folks make a similar effort for us?
    Intellectual laziness is not going to get you anywhere but spinning in circles endlessly.

  48. Keith says:

    @fishon – First, I agree. The teachers in school should not be talking about god, one way or another. HOWEVER, this is only an issue because people are trying to force god into the school rooms. When your child argues that evolution is not a scientific fact, and the teacher corrects them, it is not the teacher’s fault that you interpret that as “there is no god”. If a teacher exposes students to facts and those facts contradict your religious superstition, that is not the fault of the teacher. Teachers should not be placating to superstitious delusions. That is what your church is for.

  49. Keith says:

    @fishon – Oh, and if you COULD “prove” that your deity exists, you would be the first. I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the bible is nothing but a bunch of fairy tales written by uneducated, superstitious barbarians. I can prove that anything that has to do with the supernatural is completely fantastic (as in based in fantasy). I can show that the bible has hundreds of contradiction, inconsistencies, logical fallacies and very little of it is based in any sort of reality.

    If you could “prove” that your god does exist, let’s see the evidence. If it were true, you would be on every TV show Faux could get you on. And you would have a one-up on every preacher that has ever been in any debate in history. But let’s start small. Present your evidence here and we’ll see how well it holds up.

  50. Sarah says:

    TGM- Congratulations 🙂 !!!

  51. @Sarah,
    Thanks!!! We’re so excited!

  52. Steve Martin says:

    People who have had their lives change know.

    Millions of us.

    Many will just not hear the gospel, and will not come to faith.

    There’s no proof that will make people believe. The gospel is what makes people believe.

    They looked at Jesus. Saw Him heal the sick, and raise the dead. And still they did not believe.

    That’s just the way it is. Mature Christians realize this and do not get exercized over it. They just move on for “the harvest is great and then workers are few.”

  53. nakedpastor says:

    YES!! Congrats TGM. It’s a miracle!! No! Wait. It’s science. But it FEELS like a miracle!!

  54. Matt Oxley says:

    @TGM

    You aren’t gonna eat it?

  55. @Matt Oxley,
    “You aren’t gonna eat it?”
    Ah, but that would make me the monstrous god (Cronus)instead of the Godless Monster.
    Besides, I’m trying to cut down. 🙂

  56. @NP,
    Actually, it does feel miraculous sometimes. She couldn’t conceive naturally, so she had to go IVF with all the cards stacked against us. It took the first try without a hitch. 🙂

  57. nakedpastor says:

    oh wow. i have many friends with whom it failed. so congrats!! in my thoughts for sure.

  58. nakedpastor says:

    Keith: You aren’t suggesting that some atheists don’t have an agenda. It has been made quite clear by Hitchens and Hawkins, as well as Harris, that there was at least the hope of an agenda to succeed in influencing the public. Whether good or bad… I wouldn’t say it is force, but it does imply the desire for influence. I guess it is a subtle distinction.

    Without a doubt there are brands of religion, including Christianity, which does desire to exert influence on the whole public. I’m not sure all atheism is free of this charge.

  59. Doug Sloan says:

    Keith,

    Are facts the only form of truth?

  60. Keith says:

    @Doug: Facts are not a “form” of truth. Examining facts are, however, the only way to learn truth. Feelings and wishes do not create or establish truth. Wishing something does not make it so.

    @nakedpastor: I have never claimed that Hitchens and Hawkins don’t have an agenda. All teachers have agendas. Every person has agendas. it is the nature of us as beasts. But this is just as fallacious an argument as them being “arrogant”. Them having an agenda does not detract from their message, nor does it lend credence to the message of the religious. Their conclusions comes from evidence. The religious evidence comes from preconceived conclusions.

    @Steve: A lie is a lie. Truth is not a democratic process. It doesn’t matter if 1 person believes a lie or a million or 6 billion. A lie is a lie. The number of people that believe it gives it no credence. Under your argument, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Islam are just as valid and xianity, and just as real. After all, there are almost as many people who believe in those myths. All of those things that you mentioned are just part of a myth. Stories passed down from superstitious primitive peoples that were try to make sense of a world without science. It is just as documented that there were dozens of other people who performed the exact same “miracles”. Why don’t you worship Buddha? There are myths that he did the same things. Mature people don’t believe in Santa. It is just a story for children. There is just simply no evidence that any of those stories are true. And, since it can be proven beyond doubt that the bible is full of nonsensical, fallacious stories, there is no reason for “mature” people to lend it any credibility at all.

  61. Keith says:

    @Steve: By the way, I fully support your right to believe whatever you want to believe. However, I DO NOT support your right to force your nonsense onto me and my family either through the school system or legislation. And that is what really matters. I don’t mind your desire to “expose” people to your superstitions, but if people choose to follow evidence and not get sucked in, that should be as far as it goes.

    As soon as you feel the right to express your beliefs, why shouldn’t I have the right to express why there is no reason for us to believe? You mention that there are “millions of believers”. Why do you think, if atheism were a religion (which it is NOT), it is the fastest growing “religion” of all time? The more the religious try to force their beliefs on others, the more people follow the evidence to realize how nonsensical those beliefs are.

  62. fishon says:

    The Godless Monster
    October 28, 2011 | 5:47 pm

    @fishon,
    The Mao and Stalin thing is a nonsense argument. They killed nobody in the name of atheism but in the name of totalitarianism and communism.
    —–That is a most idiodic thing I read from you so far. They were atheists first and formost. Study a little history.

    These were evil men who happened to be atheists. If indeed your argument holds true, please explain all the atrocities committed by non-atheists throughout history.
    ——That is easy in many cases. They killed for religious reasons. What, did you think I would try and duck and run from that like you do with your first arguement.

    Mao and Stalin killed Christians because of their atheist beliefs. History shows that clearly, just as many religious leaders killed non-believers and those who didn’t believe like them. Unlike you, I am not afraid to stick with the true, wherever it takes me.

    If you really want to hold your own in these exchanges, please spend some time understanding what atheism is, who we are and why we are atheists in the first place. Guys like Keith and myself have done that, why don’t some of you folks make a similar effort for us?
    ——Hey know it all. I was an ATHEIST for 33 years. Grew up in an atheistic household. If you think I say that for sake of arguement–check with David. He knows my history. So hotdog, I do understand–I was there.

    Intellectual laziness is not going to get you anywhere but spinning in circles endlessly.
    ———What a clown you are. All that blather and not dealing with the issue Keith and I were talking about.

    Hey man, why do you waste your time with we who are intellectually lazy? I would think one as intellectual as you would not waste time–well, maybe you think you are our teacher?

  63. fishon says:

    Keith
    October 28, 2011 | 6:14 pm

    @fishon – Oh, and if you COULD “prove” that your deity exists, you would be the first. I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the bible is nothing but a bunch of fairy tales written by uneducated, superstitious barbarians. I can prove that anything that has to do with the supernatural is completely fantastic (as in based in fantasy). I can show that the bible has hundreds of contradiction, inconsistencies, logical fallacies and very little of it is based in any sort of reality.
    ——–No Keith, you just think you can.

    If you could “prove” that your god does exist, let’s see the evidence
    ———-You just don’t accept the proof. Untold million have accepted the proof as evidence. And the guy that said this:::”Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind,” well, if it was good enough for him, it is for me.

  64. fishon says:

    Keith
    October 28, 2011 | 6:07 pm

    @fishon – First, I agree. The teachers in school should not be talking about god, one way or another. HOWEVER, this is only an issue because people are trying to force god into the school rooms.
    ——Sorry Keith, a little study of history will show you that God has ALWAYS been in the class room. Our founding fathers saw to that. Yes, yes, the ACLU trys hard to overcome that, but it is history.

  65. sam scoville says:

    I imagine the following statement could get the same treatment as “dogma” and “dogmatic”–round and round it goes. “Words are so inadequate,” my students say, as it to dismiss efforts to express. And sentences. Metaphors. Disciplines. Traditions. Always a gap. Inadequate. Otherwise we wouldn’t enjoy the back & forth generated by David’s vision of Zombies as metaphor for True Believers and their desire to Improve the Whirl.

    Science Never Proves Anything
    by Gregory Bateson

    Science sometimes improves hypothesis and sometimes disproves them. But proof would be another matter and perhaps never occurs except in the realms of totally abstract tautology. We can sometimes say that if such and such abstract suppositions or postulates are given, then such and such abstract suppositions or postulates are given, then such and such must follow absolutely. But the truth about what can be perceived or arrived at by induction from perception is something else again.

  66. sam scoville says:

    Prove or Disprove THIS:

    The “Conviction of ‘Sin'”
    (I.E. esse: “essence,” “being”)
    an immaculate concept
    flying in on the wings of a dove,
    say: certainly nothing
    one would conjure up without
    the help of Goedel’s Theorem,
    might as well ask Joe Fish to
    define wet let alone conceive
    of dry: it makes no common sense.
    Amniotic. Hysterical.
    (Notes from Alma Matrix)
    Congratulations to The Godless Monster and
    Wife–the success of their maculate conception:
    bundle of joy.

  67. @fishon,
    Your last comments show you for who you are, a spiteful, uneducated and mentally unbalanced moron and a lying, childish, ignorant, ranting TROLL. I don’t feed trolls. I’ll be ignoring ALL future comments from you except to call you troll.

  68. @sam scoville,
    thanks buddy. 🙂

  69. Doug Sloan says:

    Keith,

    So there is no validity in wishing, fantasizing, dreaming, planning, conceptualizing?

    So there is no validity to emotions, poetry, music, the visual arts?

  70. THE TROLL says:

    The Godless Monster
    October 29, 2011 | 10:51 am

    @fishon,
    Your last comments show you for who you are, a spiteful, uneducated and mentally unbalanced moron and a lying, childish, ignorant, ranting TROLL. I don’t feed trolls. I’ll be ignoring ALL future comments from you except to call you troll.
    —Darnest bunch of labels I’ve seen in a while. Guess I got ya to stoop to my level. But that rant does not faze me, for this ‘unbalanced moron’ is quite happy in his skin.

    Now to my last comments that set you on fire.

    1. You played the old, ‘you don’t understand’ card:::If you really want to hold your own in these exchanges, please spend some time understanding what atheism is.———-What was it about that that offended you. Oh, maybe it was that I do understand.

    2. So you don’t think the religious murdered for religious reason? Maybe you are a closet Christian and you don’t like that pointed out. No, wait, you defended Mao and Stalin as murderers, not because they were atheist, but because of their politics. Which way is it. Religious kill for religious reasons; atheits don’t kill because of their religon of atheistism??

    3.YOU WROTE: Intellectual laziness is not going to get you anywhere but spinning in circles endlessly.
    —ME: Hey man, why do you waste your time with we who are intellectually lazy?

    I am glad that I was able to further your education. I see that you have taken my teaching and advice to heart and will not be wasting your time communicating with the “intellectually lazy.” I feel honored that I [as you put it] and uneducated, intellectual moron was able to point out something you obviously didn’t know. DON’T TALK TO TROLLS.

  71. Keith says:

    @Doug: Nice try in completely missing the point. I didn’t say any of those things, or even imply them. If you want to derail the issue, you will need to work much harder.

  72. Keith says:

    @fishon: I don’t know if I would accept the “proof” or not, because none has ever been presented.

    As for the validity of bible stories, let’s take a look at “the great flood”, shall we? For the sake of conciseness, I’ll keep the explanations very brief. Let’s break it into its base components:

    The flood: It would take about 4 times more water than what is currently on the earth to flood the earth. Where did the water come from? Where did it go? In order to flood the earth in 40 days, it would require that it rain over the entire earth at a rate of 5 inches per MINUTE. That friction would heat the earth to 1800f. Lead melts at 700f. Nothing living would have been able to survive. The ark would have been disintegrated under that much heat and pounding of water. Plus, it would literally be impossible, since the water wouldn’t have been turned to steam before it even reached the surface. There are lots of other physics that disprove the possibility of this, but I think this is enough to seriously put it in question.

    Next, let’s look at the ark. Noah as 700 years old or so? He gathered all the animals, 2 by 2. How did he get all the animals from the other continents? If they could have swam the ocean to get to him, why can’t they do so now? Why would they need the ark in the first place? So, noah spent hundreds of year gathering animals, built an ark that couldn’t have possibly floated (you’d have to understand shipwrighting to understand why, so we’ll just allow you to gloss over this point) all by himself at the same time. How many hundreds of years were put into this project? Anyway, the ark is 150 yards long, by 50 years wide, by 3 stories of 10 feet tall each. And noah put 2 of every animal on it. Millions of animals on an ark that size? Plus food for at least 6 months for every animal? Actually food for several years, since having salt water flood the earth would have caused the death of almost every plant that most of those animals could have eaten as well as damage the earth so the crops wouldn’t have been able to come back for years.

    So, basically, every single aspect of this story is completely impossible without adding magic. And that is the problem with the bible. Every single story is impossible without adding extra story and extra magic. In that case, you can do the same to every other fairy tale known to man. I say this is clear evidence that the bible is completely invalid.

    However, as I’ve said over and over. If you want to believe fairy tales, more power to you. Just don’t try to legislate your delusions into my laws.

  73. Keith says:

    @fishon – “Sorry Keith, a little study of history will show you that God has ALWAYS been in the class room. Our founding fathers saw to that. Yes, yes, the ACLU trys hard to overcome that, but it is history.”

    I am well aware that xians have been indoctrinating school children for decades in the schools. There are several reasons, but the primary is because science was almost unheard of back in the 1800s. Second because if people stood up and said that the religious were delusional, they were persecuted and often times hung. Third, often that was the only book that people brought with them on their journeys (because they were superstitious and thought that they had a personal deity that looked over them, even though they died by the thousands, PROVING they didn’t have anyone looking over them). And the biggest reason is that they didn’t have anyone that could stop them from indoctrinating innocent children into their delusion. That’s the biggest problem with the US today. Too many children get so indoctrinated that they can’t see the truth from the fiction. That is how you can say “You just don’t accept the evidence” when you don’t present any evidence. That’s because there is no evidence for you to present. All you can do is say “well, a lot of people believe” like somehow that lends credence to the belief. You completely ignore my response to that in that billions of other people believe different things. You dismiss THOSE beliefs out of hand, yet expect people to take your seriously. The mind is an amazing justifier.

  74. Keith says:

    @sam: ya, science never “proves” anything. That’s why you don’t have a computer to work on. That’s why you don’t have a TV, or radio, or a cell phone. That’s why there are no satellites. That’s why GPS is imaginary.

    It’s funny that every single aspect of your life is based in science. Your CHURCH was built with science. Your cloths, the roads you drive on, the food you eat. And yet, the contemptuousness nature that the religious expresses toward science just goes to show how delusional they really are. We have worked with science since the first time we picked up a rock to break open a nut.

    And the ironic thing is, you don’t even understand what “science” is. Science is the process of learning. Period. Science doesn’t “tell” us anything. It is a way for us to understand the truth around us. If religion were true, the process of science would easily prove that. You could use SCIENCE to prove your side. Science doesn’t have sides. There is no grand scientific conspiracy. There is no anti-religious agency that sends out memos to all the scientists telling them what to report. If that were true, all the (very few) scientist that actually accept that god exists would have gotten those memos and the cat would be out of the bag. It’s really not that hard of a concept, guys.

  75. nakedpastor says:

    I think that we all agree that both the religious and atheist groups have agendas. I think we can also agree that it wouldn’t be fair to lump all religious into one categorical group. The same with atheists. Both harbor great diversity. And I think we can all agree that there are both agreeable and disagreeable types in all camps. I am interested in those who are willing to communicate and even dialog, as well as trying to find creative ways to involve those who refuse to dialog. All for the sake of peace. I don’t mean an empty peace where some have a voice and the others are silenced, but the kind of peace that breathes diversity. in my mind, religion and science don’t necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. i am passionate about discovering how.

  76. THE TROLL says:

    nakedpastor
    October 29, 2011 | 3:24 pm

    I think that we all agree that both the religious and atheist groups have agendas. I think we can also agree that it wouldn’t be fair to lump all religious into one categorical group. The same with atheists. Both harbor great diversity. And I think we can all agree that there are both agreeable and disagreeable types in all camps. I am interested in those who are willing to communicate and even dialog, as well as trying to find creative ways to involve those who refuse to dialog. All for the sake of peace. I don’t mean an empty peace where some have a voice and the others are silenced, but the kind of peace that breathes diversity. in my mind, religion and science don’t necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. i am passionate about discovering how.
    —–David, I applaud your determination. However, I am not sure, in fact I am sure what you desire can ever be accomplished on this earth.

    As long as you have “a spiteful, uneducated and mentally unbalanced moron and a lying, childish, ignorant, ranting TROLL” like me on this earth, it can’t be done. I might add, that as long as you have someone on this earth that considers others discribed above, it ain’t going to happen.

    David, some differences are so diverse, so far apart, so emotional that there can never be union between us. David, you believe homosexuality is normal and it is not an issue with you. I on the other hand believe it is killing America. Tell me, how can we possibly come together in diversity and get along. How can I get along with someone who has made it their mission that all children are taught in schools that it is normal and that we who believe differently are bigots, intolerant, evil?

    I only use that issue to make my point–and in this particular post of yours, I will not get into the issue with anyone in this instance.

    Though you and others disagree, I and millions of others thing that issue is a life and death issue and there is no room for diversity. Now you may not agree with our position, but you can not ignore the outcome or lack of outcome [your dream] that happens because of our belief.

    Of course there are any number of issues that bring passions into play that make civil communication not possible, at least for some people.

    I am afraid you will take your passion about your dream over this issue [dialogue among passionate diversity] to your grave. There will alway be Hitlers, Maos, Pol Pots, Godless Monsters, and Jerrys in this world. Heck, my friend, you couldn’t get the monster or me to sit down and get along, civilly.

  77. Keith says:

    @David: I am afraid that The Troll is correct. As long as there are bigoted, intolerant, evil people who think it’s their mission to invade other people’s lives, just because of some perceived “sin” by their superstition, we will never have peace. People who are, for example, prejudice against same-sex relationships are a perfect example. They, personally, find it “distasteful” (although it is AMAZING how many prominent anti-gay people end up being exposed as gay), and, because they can use their delusion to justify such an inhuman and anti-American stance, they feel the need to force their stupidity on everyone else. There are those of us who will not stand for that sort of ignorance to be pushed on us through our government.

  78. THE TROLL says:

    Keith
    October 29, 2011 | 8:22 pm

    @David: I am afraid that The Troll is correct. As long as there are bigoted, intolerant, evil people who think it’s their mission to invade other people’s lives, just because of some perceived “sin” by their superstition, we will never have peace. People who are, for example, prejudice against same-sex relationships are a perfect example. They, personally, find it “distasteful” (although it is AMAZING how many prominent anti-gay people end up being exposed as gay), and, because they can use their delusion to justify such an inhuman and anti-American stance, they feel the need to force their stupidity on everyone else. There are those of us who will not stand for that sort of ignorance to be pushed on us through our government.

    ———-SEE DAVID; HERE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF A CHRISTAPHOBIST, BIGOT, INTOLERANT, PUSHER OF HIS DEVIANT BELIEFS UPON PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE LIKE ME. AND HE EVEN CALLS ME UNAMERICAN. HE EVEN CALLS ME STUPID.

    NOW TELL ME DAVID, HOW DO WE HAVE A CONVERSATION IN OUR DIVERSITY?

  79. Keith says:

    Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

    Stupid: 1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
    2. Tending to make poor decisions.

    Intolerant: Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.

    The highest American value is “freedom”. If someone professes to suppress the rights of others simply because they are left-handed or black, or asian, or middle-eastern, or has some other natural trait that is “disliked”, then yes, I would consider that person to be UNAMERICAN.

    However, since my best friend, bother, and one of the loves of my life are all xian, and I have other friends that are muslim, gay, asian and black, I wouldn’t consider myself xiaphobic, intolerant, or bigoted. I also in no way am trying to “push” my “beliefs” on anyone. Standing up against someone who is trying to push THEIR beliefs on me does not make me “intolerant”. I also wouldn’t say that saying that people don’t have the right to force their fairy tale-based, delusional superstition on other people is a “deviant belief”. To say that people have the right to live their lives as they see fit without the interference seems to be to be very tolerant, understanding and pro-American.

    Too bad there are people here that are so self-righteous that they are completely blind to what is humane and decent.

  80. nakedpastor says:

    ya i agree with all that keith

  81. Doug Sloan says:

    Keith said, “Facts are not a “form” of truth. Examining facts are, however, the only way to learn truth. Feelings and wishes do not create or establish truth. Wishing something does not make it so.”

    Doug asked, “So there is no validity in wishing, fantasizing, dreaming, planning, conceptualizing?

    So there is no validity to emotions, poetry, music, the visual arts?”

    Keith replied, “Nice try in completely missing the point. I didn’t say any of those things, or even imply them. If you want to derail the issue, you will need to work much harder.”

    Doug asks, Where did I get off the track? What point did I miss?

  82. Keith says:

    Doug: “So there is no validity in wishing, fantasizing, dreaming, planning, conceptualizing? So there is no validity to emotions, poetry, music, the visual arts?”

    Oh, so you were being serious. Sorry, I didn’t realize that you weren’t just throwing nonsense out for argument’s sake.

    It is a fact that people wish for things. It is a fact that people fantasize, dream, plan and conceptualize. It is a fact that people have emotions, write poetry, music and produce visual arts. It is a fact that people have emotions, and those things have the potential to impact people on an emotional scale.

    Why would any of these things be invalid? What could I have possibly said that would give you the idea that I believed such a thing?

    People can shape the world around themselves with their hopes and dreams and planning (as long as they put those conceptualized ideas into actions). As far as understanding the reality around us, people must dream in order to come up with hypotheses (this is what a lot of xians mistake for “theories”). These hypotheses are then tested against reality. That is how science works. That is how we realize the truth of the world around us. However, wishing something were true when it is not does NOT create a reality. You can wish and pray that you get the next lotto numbers, but your chances are no better than anyone else. If you wish that a 1 gallon bucket would hold 2 gallons, that doesn’t change the reality that the bucket only holds 1 gallon. If you “visualize world peace”, that has no effect whatsoever on the middle eastern conflicts. Wishing that any given deity exists doesn’t make it a reality, either. In the really real world, it either it does or it doesn’t. In the case of yahweh, no evidence has ever been presented that it exists, other than the wishful hopes of people. However, there is a reality around us that proves it doesn’t exist. It has conflicting characteristics. There is no such thing as a round cube. If someone says there is a light shade of pure black, that is nonsense. Most concepts in xianity are very much the same.

    For many xians, science is a wonderful tool, as long as it appears to confirm their beliefs. Science was great back in the early 1900s when archaeologist in the middle east thought that their digs were confirming bible stories. Science became a “force of evil” only after the evidence clearly showed that many of the biblical stories didn’t have any basis in history after all. Science only becomes distasteful when it disproves their beliefs. This is called “emotional evaluation”. This is not limited to religion.

    The First Rule of Logic is that people will believe anything either because they desperately want it to be true, or fear that it is true. Gun control laws are a good example. The facts clearly show that the more gun control that is imposed on a society, the more violent crimes are committed. However, because people either fear guns or desperately want violent crimes to be reduced and see guns as their cause, they will still believe that gun control laws will actually protect them, as fallacious as that idea is. These people are making decisions based purely on emotional evaluation. Religion is also based on emotional evaluation. People see “god’s miracles” because they want to. People hear “god’s voice” in the head, because they want to believe it’s true. It doesn’t matter that the voice doesn’t impart any wisdom or knowledge that the person didn’t have in the first place.

    Those of us who are not sucked into the delusion of religion evaluate it on empirical evidence, not emotional evidence. That is why islam is such a popular religion; it is very emotional. People get sucked up in the belief so intently that no logical argument can bring them out of it. That is why evangelical xianity has become so popular as well. It plays heavily on people’s emotions. People get sucked up to the point where they can’t step back and look at it logically and without emotion. When they do, they realize that it is all a sham, a house of cards that, once you realize the basis is completely bogus, nothing else makes sense, either and the whole thing comes tumbling down.

  83. THE TROLL says:

    Keith
    October 29, 2011 | 10:18 pm

    Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
    ——-That most certainly discribes you with your own words and definition of Bigot, “intolerant of those who differ.”

    It was you who discribed me as::: “you are, a spiteful, uneducated and mentally unbalanced moron and a lying, childish, ignorant, ranting TROLL.”—-Yahoo, that is very tolerant of you, I must say. Nothing bigoted in your remarks——and interesting that you would agree with that in a second hand way, pastor.

  84. Keith says:

    Um, no. That wasn’t me. You might want to try to read the posts again. But nice try.

  85. sam scoville says:

    “Neither logic nor sermons convince,” says Whitman.

    Keith: the “Science Never Proves Anything” quote comes from Gregory Bateson–(his father a British biologist coined the term “genetics” and raised his family to be intelligent & not fuzzy-minded atheists). Gregory was a biologist, anthropologist, cybernetic, systems and information theorist: studied communication of dolphins, schizophrenics, addicts.

    http://effortlessacquisition.blogspot.com/2004/10/science-never-proves-anything.html

    I would descrobe this thread (and all the Naked Pastor threads) as generated by our irrationality: emotion, feeling, conviction, bias, prejudice, belief, our rationality (such as it is) is in the service of our irrationality. But I expect immediate objection, qualification, modification, semantic re-adjustment, O no you dint, YES, BUT’s and other opposition.

    In the ongoing natural war of ego and mind-set, words & images are necessary but insufficient. Sentences too. Metaphors Disciplines. Traditions. Always so much-left out begging to be included–the poor we have with us all ways. .

  86. Keith says:

    @Troll – “HERE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF A CHRISTAPHOBIST, BIGOT, INTOLERANT, PUSHER OF HIS DEVIANT BELIEFS UPON PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE LIKE ME. AND HE EVEN CALLS ME UNAMERICAN. HE EVEN CALLS ME STUPID. ”

    Actually, this statement in itself causes me to want to ignore any more of your comments. You don’t seem to understand (or at least refuse to admit to understanding) the basics of normal human conversation.

    A “phobic” tends to refer to someone who is irrationally afraid of something based on its nature. Having “arachnophobia” is being irrationally afraid of spiders. Being “homophobic” is the irrational fear of gay people (that would be what you have). I do not have an irrational fear of xians. I detest their delusional belief system, perhaps, and I fear the damage to our freedom based the lunacy that they try to force onto other people, but there is nothing irrational about it.

    The term “bigot” tends to refer to someone who expresses hatred toward another group of people based on their nature or something that they have no control over. A good example of this is your bigotry toward gay people. These people have no control over who they are attracted to and their personal lives are absolutely none of your business. To say that gays will “destroy the fabric of America” is an outlandish, childish, ignorant statement almost beyond compare. It is the same sentiment that bigots had (and I suppose still have) against the “niggers” and the “chinks”. Your attitude is no different from theirs. You have absolutely no ration basis for your open hatred toward a group of people that you are in no way connected to (unless you are actually a closet queen and you hate them because you hate yourself, which is a distinct possibility), and you feel the need to express that negativity despite what your religion actually says about it. Oh, did I mention that? There is actually no basis for your animosity in the bible, you just interpret it that way because of your blind prejudice.

    As for the “uneducated and mentally unbalanced moron and a lying, childish, ignorant, ranting…” part (which, as I’ve mentioned, I never said, although I am in fair agreement with), that is based on the fact that the best venom you can through out there is just parroting what people say about you, without even understanding the basics of what it entails. Someone is not a “bigot” simply for pointing out that you are a bigot. Someone is not suppressing your civil rights, simply by not allowing you to suppress the rights of other and enslaving them. Just because people fight you forcing your religion down their throats does not make them “intolerant”. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you and points out that you are intolerant, does not make them a hypocrite. Just because someone points out how ignorant, bigoted, prejudice, and blindly arrogant a statement like homosexuality “is killing America.”, doesn’t mean that any of these terms apply to them.

    Its amazing how such a ludicrous and amazing stupid statement can come out of an adult. You would think that someone who had any rationality to them at all would be focusing on real issues, such as stripping away of our civil liberties, or the ongoing wars that actually cost this country billions of dollars and hundreds of lives, or the trillions of dollars in our deficit. But no, you focus on one of the few issues that actually ISN’T founded in reality. And you wonder why people make fun of and express animosity toward you?

    That being said, unless and until something rational comes out of your posts, I think I’m done with you. You can call me a coward and say I “ran away” or whatever your malicious, childish mind wants to make up to make yourself feel better, but I prefer to actually have adult conversations with rational people who can articulate their opinions based in reasonable, rational thought. If you care to express just HOW you think homosexuality is “killing America” without the BS, double-speak of the ignorant, such as “it’s a SIN!” or “it’s deviant behavior”, then we can continue the conversation, but basically if all you have is that you, personally, don’t approve of it, then you are not worthy of having conversations at the adult table.

  87. sam scoville says:

    IT’s never just about what-it’s-about.

    Throwing rice at rhinos. Reciprocaton.

    Keith: did you check out that Bateson article
    I lined for you above? Taking IT back to the
    science and prove (science probes, not proves, says Bateson)
    No matter what the token topics are: it’s the argument-going-on that’s most interesting and maybe most edifying.

    NO, it’s the topics, Sam.

    Etc.

  88. Keith says:

    @Sam: interesting, but I disagree with the author of that article. Science CAN “prove”. What he is talking about is the limit and edge of our understanding. Given all of the information for a specific problem, science works just fine. He gives the example of predicting the next number from the sequence 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12. If that is a complete sequence, and there is no other information, the next number is, indeed 14. If the number is not 14, then all the information is not known. Here’s a much better example: if I have a cylinder that is 3″ ID, and 10″ long, science (using the discipline of mathematics) can tell me what the volume of that cylinder is. It is only fallible if there is information that is unknown, such as the cylinder walls are not actually straight or some other unknown factor. True, there are some things that science is fuzzy about, and we constantly test our established laws against new information, but that is not a flaw of science. It is a strength. It means that we are traveling closer and closer to pure truth. Ignoring science is turning away from truth and ignoring reality. Yes, it is based on our “perception” and yes, it may be imperfect at times, but that is the only thing we have. To not use it is to turn our backs on reality itself.

  89. @Keith,
    I have very bit of confidence that you’ll soon come to the same conclusion I did about fishon aka The Troll.
    This is a guy who laughably tries to establish “street cred” by stating he used to be an atheist and a substance abuser and that his daughter was a prostitute. All it tells me is that he’s incapable of making good life choices and was an abusive, terrible father. If someone has a history of making poor life decisions, why should any of us believe he was making a good decision when he became the fundamentalist jackass that he is today? He found one drug to replace another, yet this one has the added benefit of giving him a sense of inflated self-importance and a vehicle by which to promote his hatred and bigotry.
    He’d like us all to believe that religion has changed all that and made him a much better person. If his comments here are any indication…well, you do the math.
    Fuck him, he’s a troll.

  90. Keith says:

    @TGM: Oh ya, I easily came to that conclusion as soon as he started to parrot back the words that describe him. It’s one of the oldest (and lamest) tricks in the debating book; as soon as you are exposed, quickly claim that your opponent is whatever you are to divert the conversation and try to put your opponent on the defensive. The problem is, it doesn’t work with reasonable, rational people. Just like religion, it is based in emotions, so if your opponent doesn’t get emotional about it, it backfires horribly (as it just did with Troll). When you have to explain the basics of human communication to someone, you know you are in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

    And I know that no one will ever be able to change his mind. Anyone who is that blind to their own bigotry, who is that narrow minded and holds that much hatred and contempt for other people, just because of who they are, can’t possibly come to their senses in a short blog conversation. However, I think it is important to stay calm and rational. That way when someone like Troll goes off the handle like he has done several times, our “audience” can see just how bug-fuck crazy someone like that is. They can see how irrational religion can really make someone. I could just envision him red faced, pounding on his keyboard as he writes his posts in all capital letters, screaming at the computer monitor in frustration that he got called out on his bullshit. Too funny, it makes me laugh every time I think about it. Who knows? Maybe the world will get lucky and he’ll have an heart attack or stroke during his rantings. It would certainly increase the average IQ of our country.

  91. @Keith,
    Yes, I normally maintain a modicum of calm when dealing with trolls, but once the conversation devolves into vicious ad hominems without any provocation from my side, then I say what needs to be said without pulling any punches and move on. Some call it swatting flies with a sledgehammer, but I always give my targets plenty of opportunity to redeem themselves before it reaches that stage. I know how his kind thinks and operates. In this particular case, the Troll likely saw my willingness to admit to being wrong in another post as a sign of weakness. Instead of using this as an opportunity for further dialogue, he chose to capitalize on this perceived weakness by going on the attack on this post. I’ve never given bullies any quarter and I’m not about to start now.

  92. nakedpastor says:

    in fishon’s defence, he is not always a troll. once in a while he might act like one, like others who appear on this blog. also, the choices our children make do not always necessarily reflect on our qualities as parents.

  93. Well I guess that’s MY cue…

  94. nakedpastor says:

    lol what do you mean? i’m not pointing fingers.

  95. nakedpastor says:

    I apologize everyone for not being more involved in this discussion. I’ve been busy all weekend, including taking a trip to see my daughter at university. I’m back, but there’s so much to catch up on.

  96. THE TROLL says:

    nakedpastor
    October 30, 2011 | 7:40 pm

    in fishon’s defence, he is not always a troll. once in a while he might act like one, like others who appear on this blog. also, the choices our children make do not always necessarily reflect on our qualities as parents.
    ——–True and kind words, David. I suppose I could brag on my son, a retired Army officer, and a contractor for the Army now. And I could speak of my daughter in law who attended a meeting in the White House Friday. Or I could tell of the victories my daughter has had in life. Or on and on. Again, thanks for the kind words.

  97. Keith says:

    @Troll: Thanks for not “bragging”. haha Congrats to your son. I had crappy parents myself, but managed to serve honorably in the Marine Corp and become a programmer making a 6-digit income. Isn’t it great when kids succeed despite their parent’s best effort to screw them up? Oh, and nice job taking credit for the success of your daughter-in-law.

  98. fishon says:

    Keith
    October 31, 2011 | 10:16 am

    @Troll: Thanks for not “bragging”. haha Congrats to your son. I had crappy parents myself, but managed to serve honorably in the Marine Corp and become a programmer making a 6-digit income. Isn’t it great when kids succeed despite their parent’s best effort to screw them up? Oh, and nice job taking credit for the success of your daughter-in-law.
    ———–Just can’t stay away, can you. You need to see someone about your obsession with me. Guys like you come and go on this blog site, but I’ll be here long after you leave. You will search out another site to lay your anger, bigotry, and your intolerance on someone else you disagree with. You won’t last. You have no passion for the issues; you have no stake in them, so you will fly away on your broom eventually. Just a matter of time.

  99. Keith says:

    LOL Nice deflection! Well, not really. Actually it is pretty obvious. But I guess it was the best you could come up with.

    You are hilarious! 🙂

  100. Luke says:

    I’m fascinated by this brand of Christianity. Jesus wanted followers who thought for themselves, who lived outside the boundaries of the day. Yet I see more and more mindless conformity.

    Someone recently wanted to have an alter call during a funeral and i stated that this wouldn’t happen. first it’s not our tradition and second, it would be hitting people in their lowest state, akin to a kick in the stomach while they’re down. That’s not Jesus. Jesus offers them comfort and a hand up during these times. Our goal is service, not conversion.

  101. fishon says:

    Keith
    October 31, 2011 | 12:03 pm

    LOL Nice deflection! Well, not really. Actually it is pretty obvious. But I guess it was the best you could come up with.

    You are hilarious!
    —-i’ll let your own words deal with your accusation of deflection.
    Keith
    October 31, 2011 | 12:03 pm
    That being said, unless and until something rational comes out of your posts, I think I’m done with you. You can call me a coward and say I “ran away” or whatever your malicious, childish mind wants to make up to make yourself feel better, but I prefer to actually have adult conversations with rational people who can articulate their opinions based in reasonable, rational thought
    =========Apparently, since you are still addressing me, I must be “adult” in my conversation and displaying rational thought. Lest wise, according you your OWN WORDS, you would have been “done with” me. Deflection, I think not–however, it is obvious you speak “double-talk.”

    Keith, you can’t help yourself. I know, I understand. It is in your bigoted and bully nature to threaten but no follow through. Hey Keith, you so adult, how does it feel to be brought down to my level???? You just had to say more. Hehehe!

  102. fishon says:

    Luke, I see you are United church of Christ. I am Church of Christ “Christian.” We are polar opposites I suspect in most things, but on the funeral thing, we agree. I will steal how you explain it; you do it much better than me.

  103. Luke says:

    Hey fishon!

    Yeah, I always chuckle when people confuse our denominations. Glad to see we could see eye-to-eye though! Peace to you!