This Christian Group’s List of ‘Ingredients’ For Marriage Equality is Outrageous

Now that marriage equality has been signed into law in Illinois, the anti-gay-rights Illinois Family Institute is bored. Instead of redirecting their energy to a more worthy cause — like a political science class or maybe yoga — the nonprofit Christian ministry created a sloppy image attempting to satirize the state’s recent marriage victory.

Perhaps more than any other material they’ve ever produced, this graphic proves that IFI have no idea what they’re talking about. If this is the logic that guided their work, it’s no wonder they lost.

The fake label reads “Same-Sex Marriage: Emergency Energy for a Desperate Politician” and the product it’s selling is as like to convince you to oppose gay marriage as it is nutritious.

Here are their “ingredients” for same-sex marriage:

Artificial logic (processed in media bias), concentrated liberal left syrup, breakdown of family (no-fault divorce, abortion, sexual immorality) enriched corporate funds, unnatural biology, evaporated constitutional protections, free love color #1.

I’d appreciate some citations here. Also, properly placed commas.

Perhaps a breakdown of why our logic is so artificial? Or an explanation of how same-sex marriage will lead to abortion and no-fault divorce? How about some numbers illustrating enriched corporate funds? And for the love of Pat Quinn, WHERE can I get some lipstick in free love color #1?! (Which I’m sure the IFI will tell you is “Glitter.”)

Next, in the column where you’d read “Nutrition Facts” on your average Twinkie, the IFI lists “Social Cost Facts” for same-sex marriage (serving size: Illinois). A couple of these are simple regurgitations of your average mindless Christian rhetoric: Political Correctness 100%, Public Emotion 70%, Media Support 200%. That sort of thing.

Others, though, are more infuriating. A selection:

  • Tolerance for Opposing Views 0g, 0%. No. Intolerance is the unwillingness to accept beliefs or behavior that differ from your own. I disagree with you, but I’m not trying to take your rights away on the basis of your behavior. That’s what you’re doing to me. Go away.
  • Religious Liberties 1g, 2%. Again, no. Illinois’ marriage equality law, which is literally called the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act, is one of the most religion-friendly laws of its kind. Under the Illinois law, your church has no obligation whatsoever to participate in same-sex marriages if it doesn’t want to. It actually gets in the way of our ability to consider ourselves completely equal in the eyes of society. Quit your whining.
  • Interest of Children 0g, 0%. Excuse me?! There are 25,000 homeless youth in Illinois and another 17,000 in foster care. Look me in the eye and tell me the worst thing that could happen to these kids is to bring them into a loving home with two moms or two dads. Not to mention the decades of research proving that same-sex couples are just as qualified to raise children as your run-of-the-mill straight folks. But go ahead. Tell me my gayness is going to ruin a kid’s life.

(Hemant’s note: They would *totally* look you in the eye and tell you that. That’s how awful these people are.)

I love the summary, too:

  • Total Social Value: WAY Less Than Costs (Can I see your math?)
  • Morality: Less than OK (Speaking of artificial logic!)
  • Consequences: Uncalculable [sic] (The consequences do not exist!)

Reading this is exhausting! The kicker to the whole thing is at the bottom right: “Made on logic that also produces polygamy, polyamory, and pedophilia.” Actually, IFI, I’m pretty sure the Bible is all about pedophilia and polygamy, and polyamory is a perfectly legitimate practice that doesn’t deserve to be lumped in with the others. Not that you’ll ever take the time to learn that.

For the most part, there’s no use getting worked up over this. Marriage equality is legal in Illinois and the IFI can’t do anything about it; wahoo! Regardless, I extend a heartfelt thanks to the Illinois Family Institute for the laugh and for demonstrating how mindless the arguments against marriage equality truly are. If these are supposed to represent the best arguments the opposition can offer, the dominoes will fall in the other states in no time.

About Camille Beredjick

Camille is a twentysomething working in the LGBT nonprofit industry. She runs an LGBT news blog at gaywrites.org.

  • Guest

    ‘Free Love Color #1′

    Shouldn’t it be #2: you can get this color lipstick here:

    http://www.makeupalley.com/product/x_showreview.asp?page=2&pagesize=10&ItemID=124033&

    My favorite color is Tinkerbellcrack!

  • sam

    I’ve now realized that it wasn’t their complete absence of rational argument that prevented me from supporting opposition to gay marriage, it was that they weren’t using enough bitter snark to compensate. Now that they are sufficiently bitter, I now oppose same-sex marriage. Good job, guys!

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    All that’s left for the fringe element is preaching to their ever declining followers. If their actions are changing any minds at all, it’s away from their views, not toward them.

    When was the last time you heard of somebody who supports marriage equality changing their mind about it? On that matter, opinion is shifting in one direction only.

  • islandbrewer

    That’s funny, I think I’m overdue for an eye exam. Whenever I try to read things like that, all I can see is “Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!”

    • Artor

      No, you’re good. That’s all I see too.

    • Brent Futrell

      Hahaha… I’m told it says The Friendly Atheist, another person says Thienunaiheisl. I think I see Thienunaiheisl. What does that mean? What I do know is that as soon as the page opens I have to scroll down real fast so I no longer see it. It’s dizzing trying to figure it out. Not good marketing if you ask me.

      • skinnercitycyclist

        You’re a cute fuck, Brent.

        • Brent Futrell

          Who is talking dirty to me? Be careful, I might like it!!

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

    “Enriched corporate funds” is one of the ingredients? I would think that Republicans, who generally oppose marriage equality, would love that consequence, since they worship billionaires with far more passion than they worship Yahweh.

    What seems to be missing from the ingredients that are usually listed are breakdown of society, collapse of civilization, mass hysteria, and dogs and cats living together. (Unless that’s included under “unnatural biology.”) I have to wonder what bizarre fantasy that the loonies at IFI are thinking about when they use that phrase. …Never mind, I don’t really want to know.

    You’ve lost, IFI. This was your Waterloo. Enjoy your decline into defensive retreat, pathetic whining about the “good old days,” increasing irrelevance, and finally oblivion. I know I will.

    • https://soundcloud.com/eddieboydmusic flyb
    • cary_w

      Oh yeah, this is the downfall of society all right…

      • shuteme

        Now that’s just wrong and you know it! Please for the sake of the children no more immoral dog and cat pictures!

  • Brent Futrell

    I cannot decipher the banner, what does it say?

    • Alex Symczak

      You mean the red one at the very top? It says “Friendly Atheist.” But it’s written in a very stylized script so that if you rotate it 180 degrees it will read the same.

      • Brent Futrell

        Thank you, Alex. I suspected as much but I’ve tried and tried to see it, still can’t after you’ve confirmed it. I’ll try standing on my head to see if that works, I doubt it though.

        • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

          It says Thienunaiheisl just as clearly right side up or upside down. :)

          • cary_w

            HaHa, that’s how I read it at first too!

            It’s kind of like reading the Bible, you have to make a lot of assumptions and weird interpretations to get it to say exactly what you want it to say, but if you’re a “True Atheist” you will clearly see that it says “Friendly Atheist” :-)

  • katiehippie

    The no-fault divorce thing is so horrible. (in addition to the other things) They seem to actually want to keep one person miserable for the rest of their life. Whether it be either spouse, it’s despicable. Also dangerous if your spouse is abusive.

    • smrnda

      I, for one, consider no fault divorce a very good thing. I don’t get the value of commitment for its own sake. It just seems like the ‘sunk cost fallacy’ for marriage.

      • katiehippie

        I don’t know what it would have cost me in money and emotional blackmail if I couldn’t have no fault.

    • Randay

      Let’s mention “Free Love Color #1″. It seems vaguely racist. Is free love OK if it is between those of the same color, or only if it is between people of different colors?

      • John Small Berries

        Absent other evidence, I think it would be a bit hard to defend an accusation of racist motivations to the use of the word “color” in a clear reference to the artificial colorings frequently found in ingredient lists, such as “FD&C Yellow #6″. Especially in the context of something attacking marriage equality, which tends to have less support amongst non-white communities.

        I find the item more notable for its utter stupidity; free love is pretty much the diametric opposite of long-term monogamous marriage, so one would have to be possessed of breathtaking levels of idiocy to include it in a list of ingredients for marriage equality.

      • katiehippie

        It’s that pesky rainbow color. Where all colors sit side by side in harmony.

  • OhioAtheist

    So they see intolerance of their bigotry as intolerant? I’m OK with that. Sadly, to them, intolerance only counts if its intolerance of their beliefs.

    • Stev84

      There is also a new meme about it being just a “disagreement” and that it’s an issue where you can just have a different opinion about and go as it is. In reality, agreeing to disagree would mean them stopping to put their beliefs into law and just refusing to get gay married.

  • WingedBeast

    Do people who make and post such images fully realize that what they’re attempting to do is engage in nothing more than a content-free, sociopolitical circle jerk?

  • guest

    I don’t think this is a real attempt to engage in dialog. It’s an in-joke for them to sneer at and laugh over with people who agree with them.

    Meanwhile lots of gay couples are getting married and the world carries on just as before.

    • smrnda

      This seems to be most Xtian humor in the US. It’s all in-jokes mocking people being different from them.

  • RN from NY

    They are so right! Yeah, because gay people get abortions all the time. And once my male cousin married a guy, it totally made me divorce my husband and get into a polygamous relationship.
    Yup, totally logical! All the gay’s fault. No one is responsible for this own bad decisions, the gays made me do it! (Didn’t it used to be the devil made me do it? Where’s he been lately? Weaving a handbasket?)

    • RJ (TO)

      These people don’t realize they’re their own worst enemies. Their right to Free Speech seems to be their biggest liability.

    • Anna

      The devil’s taken up basket weaving? I’ll bet the gays have turned him gay, too.

  • Trickster Goddess

    On the plus side, you do get 4 Illinoises per container. That’s a good deal.

  • Mario Strada

    Somebody finally found a use for the copy of Photoshop 7 they didn’t open since 1999. And while they were at it, they threw every overused filter they could.

    At least this proves that atheist signs are not always the ugliest.

    • Jeff

      Damn, made me snort. Must admit, this is uglier than most atheist signs.

  • onamission5

    Hey, IFI, you know you’re on the losing side of a fight when your attempt at snark is utterly indistinguishable from a parody of itself.

  • paulalovescats

    There’s only one missing comma after the “sexual immorality” group. No misplaced. They go after the parentheses.

  • RJ (TO)

    After their huge (and undoubtedly humiliating) loss, the IFI’s little attempt at humor comes across more like losing a game of checkers and throwing the board and checkers across the room in a fit of petty sore loser-ness.

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    Just think: they think they’re the moral ones here. Camille, I’m so sorry you have to see this crap as much as you do. It seems very important to these jackasses to demonize and dehumanize gay people as much as they can–and to be morally superior to them as much as possible. Cold comfort, but perhaps a little comfort nonetheless, is knowing that least the more they talk like this, the more obvious their moral poverty becomes and the fewer people support their obvious cruelty and brutality. Soon, Camille. Soon. We’ll keep working toward the goal.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    Those ingredients look like they are part of a well balanced civil society. :)

  • Estelle

    Anyone noticed how these people completely forgot that LGBTQ* people were once children? Man, I sure didn’t come of out a female as a baby, I magically appeared naked on a shell from an ocean as an adult. Born to sin, pay taxes, tip graciously, and hope that I don’t get hit by the SUV with a community church sticker at the crosswalk.

    Think of the children, but not the LGBTQ* children since they don’t exist like Canada*. It’s like it never crossed their minds.

    *-that is a joke. Canada does exist and may not have beavers with unicorn horns.

    • Little_Magpie

      Damn, I’ve been wasting my whole life looking for those possibly non-existent unicorn-beavers! I haz a sadz.

      • Nikita Nugent

        Well maybe you just aren’t looking hard enough. Just because you don’t have evidence that the magical unicorn beavers exist, doesn’t mean they don’t! And get this: my friend’s cousin actually saw one. There. Third-hand eyewitness testimony. Can’t get much more conclusive than that.

        Now I’m off to do a little dance to celebrate another state wising up.

  • SeekerLancer

    I don’t often like going for personal attacks but there’s nothing I can really add to this conversation otherwise. The person who made that “list of ingredients” is a bigoted loon. That’s all there is to it.

    • Jeff

      Bet it was a committee doing a brainstorming session…

  • Rob P

    Actually the religious “exemption” in the Illinois law is unnecessary. Based on the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution (made applicable to the states by the 14th Amendment) no state has the right to tell a religious group who it must marry. The Catholic Church won’t marry a straight couple if one of them is divorced. It would be nice if all religious groups married same-sex couples, but it is not necessary for our rights or equailty.

    • smrnda

      And… most of us can give a shit about who their bigoted churches marry anyway. I mean, most churches won’t marry you unless your a member in good standing and submit to premarital ‘counseling’ offered by some nut with no qualifications whatsoever.

      • Jeff

        What do you mean “no qualifications whatsoever”? Who better to counsel a to-be-married couple than a celibate, usually over 60 year old male? What could go wrong?

  • Anna

    Interest of Children 0g, 0%. Excuse me?! There are 25,000 homeless youth in Illinois and another 17,000 in foster care. Look me in the eye and tell me the worst thing that could happen to these kids is to bring them into a loving home with two moms or two dads. Not to mention the decades of research proving that same-sex couples are just as qualified to raise children as your run-of-the-mill straight folks. But go ahead. Tell me my gayness is going to ruin a kid’s life.

    Like Hemant said, they’d be sure to tell you that. But their “logic” is messed up. Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with adoption. The religious right tries to conflate the two all the time, and sometimes even liberals seem to imply that there’s a connection. While it’s true that homeless teenagers and children in foster care need homes, they’d be able to go to families with same-sex parents regardless of whether those couples were legally married. There are many same-sex foster parents and adoptive parents in Illinois already. Even if the IFI got its way, denying marriage rights wouldn’t affect the existence of those families. It wouldn’t remove children from those homes.

    Which is why I’ve tried (in vain) to call these people out on their faulty arguments. They say there’s 0% concern for the interest of children, but how is prohibiting marriage in the best interest of children being raised in same-sex families? Those children exist no matter how much IFI or the Catholic church might not want them to. Thousands, perhaps millions, of children live in same-sex families. That’s a reality. How does denying them the same rights as children in other families benefit them in any way?

  • cary_w

    Now wait a minute… How the hell does gay marriage cause abortions? Wouldn’t the LBGTQ community have the lowest abortion rate of any other definable group of people? I mean it’s not like people are lining up for abortions when they can’t even get pregnant without medical interventions! If fact, wouldn’t they actually be PREVENTING some abortions because, for many of them, adoptions is the only way for them to have children? THINK OF THE CHILDREN! As abortion rights are eroded in this country there are going to be more and more unwanted children, and SOMEBODY needs to adopt them!

    • TCC

      You’re looking in the wrong section: Abortion is listed as an ingredient (read: cause) for same-sex marriage, not as a consequence.

      • cary_w

        OK, so how the hell do abortion cause same sex marriages? Is getting an abbortion going to turn me into a lesbian??!?

        • Gaiuse Strome

          Even thinking about abortion – or contraception – will turn you into a lesbian.

          • cary_w

            Ahhh… I get it now, TCC was using a lot of big words, but you’ve summed it up perfectly!

        • TCC

          Follow the slippery slope carefully: abortion (among other things) contributes to the breakdown of the family, which leaves a culture in such a moral morass that same-sex marriage could even be considered. (Note: None of this is my belief; I’m just telling what their argument would probably be.)

        • baal

          It’s the ‘culture of death’ they used to argue back in the 80′s. The argument was that being gay will kill you fast since AIDS isn’t a disease (viral infection) as much as it’s divine retribution and the ‘gay lifestyle’ with anal sex, drugs and other super duper dangerous acts was ever more deadly. Abortion kills children! so it too is part of ‘the death culture’.

          Thankfully, these formations are rarely used now. Instead what we see are vague statements like ‘the gay lifestyle is bad for society”. Note that they never say how and they always use ‘bad’ instead of ‘harmful’.

  • Richard Thomas

    I used to have no desire to force churches to perform gay marriages. Freedom of religion and all that. But you know what? If my tax dollars are subsidizing these churches then they can damn well obey the law of the land and marry whoever is legally allowed to.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Though I don’t agree with their views, I found that graphic hilarious as hell.

    • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

      The graphics may be hilarious, but not in the way they intended.

      We do not even need to assist them in their self-mockery.

      Did Andrew Schlafly think this up?

      .

  • Lance Christian Johnson

    I, for one, am sick of all these abortions that gay men are having.

  • LDavidH

    1) I thought atheists had a sense of humour? This is obviously meant to be funny, and I
    doubt it’s meant to convince anybody. It’s aimed at people who already agree
    with it; just like funny atheists memes and the “Jesus and Mo” cartoons are
    meant to support and encourage existing atheists (I hope nobody seriously thinks
    a cartoon would shake my hard-won conclusions and convictions?!)

    2) Even if it’s not meant for you, I’d hope you would try and understand it
    before you criticise. The ingredients list abortion, divorce etc – this means they came
    before SSM, not that SSM will result in abortions (how could it –
    same-sex marriages are by definition infertile).

    3) I do agree that lumping polygamy and paedophilia together with SSM is
    not very clever. OTOH, claiming that the Bible is “all about pedophilia and
    polygamy” seems equally mistaken – what Bible do you read? I can’t think of any
    instance of paedophilia in mine! Polygamy does feature in the OT (and yes, a lot
    of Christians are unaware of this!) but is never held up as an ideal. And the
    Bible is “all about” what God is doing to rescue humanity, not what we humans do to necessitate the rescue in the first place.

    • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

      LDavidH,

      1. This is obviously meant to be funny, and I doubt it’s meant to convince anybody.

      It’s a joke. How can anyone not laugh at the hilarity?

      2. I’d hope you would try and understand it before you criticise.

      It’s serious and you need to understand just how thoughtful it is. Put your thinking cap on and squint real hard!

      3. 3) I do agree that lumping polygamy and paedophilia together with SSM is not very clever. OTOH, claiming that the Bible is “all about pedophilia and
      polygamy” seems equally mistaken – what Bible do you read?

      How did that straw man get in here?

      Pedophilia comes up in discussions of Catholics protecting pedophiles from consequences for their actions, pretending that pedophilia does not exist, and allowing pedophile priests to continue to rape little boys.

      I have not seen anyone claim that this is because of any Biblical enticement to pedophilia.

      What other mentions of pedophilia have you seen?

      And the Bible is “all about” what God is doing to rescue humanity, not what we humans do to necessitate the rescue in the first place.

      If your God were real, is he really such an insecure jerk that he needed to order the slaughter of people for not worshiping him?

      Does such a God deserve any respect?

      Why does God approve of slavery?

      We need protection from those spamming for God (the Greatest Sadist of All Time).

      .

      • LDavidH

        Quoting the original article:

        “Actually, IFI, I’m pretty sure the Bible is all about pedophilia and polygamy”

        If that was a joke, I’m sorry I misunderstood, but somehow it didn’t strike me as such.

        As for the slaughtering, well, it’s great to see that you’ve really taken the trouble to try and understand what the Bible actually says… it’s not the lack of worship that brings on punishment, but the lack of repentance for sins like egotism, greed, sexual immorality (including paedophilia – the Catholic church has a lot to repent of!), etc. God doesn’t want to punish anyone, but he is a God of justice, after all, and can’t let selfishness reign forever.

        • Neko

          deleted

        • DavidMHart

          An omnipotent god of justice wouldn’t need to punish – it could simply set things up so that everyone knew that the negative consequences of greed and selfishness outweighed the benefits, and then everyone would freely abstain from selfishness. No violation of anyone’s precious free will need be involved – the god could just appraise us fully in advance of all the necessary information we would need in order to make the ethical choice.

          The only kind of god that would need to engage in spectacular revenge smitings is (1) a petulant, tantrum-prone toddler deity that needs to show off how powerful it is, or (2) a deity that is as omnibenevolent as you like, but is simply unable to prevent (or unable to foresee) destructive behaviour before it happens. Neither of these fits the traditional Judeo-Christo-Islamic omni-max deity.

          • LDavidH

            I’m glad you realise that neither of the two versions you offer fits the biblical God!

            It’s always amazing to see how people – ordinary humans like you and me – assume they can know how things look from God’s perspective, and what they should have done in his shoes. How do you know that your scenario is at all possible? I think I’d call that “blind faith” if I didn’t know that atheists don’t believe in blind faith… so you have presumably taken all possible factors into consideration?

            Seriously, I imagine that’s exactly what he’s done; anyone who thinks about the possibility of there being a God of justice will realise that doing good is better than doing wrong. All school children know that it’s better to do your homework and go to school; some still play truant and leave homework undone. Everybody knows that unprotected sex can give you AIDS or make you pregnant; people still have unprotected sex. Knowledge alone isn’t enough to prevent harmful behaviour. We’re broken & twisted, and don’t always want to do what’s right or consider the possibility of God’s judgement – and any attempt from God’s side to force us to do just that would indeed violate our free will.

            Granted, you probably disagree with the notion that humankind is “broken” anyway; but that’s part of the biblical world view, which has to be taken as a whole.

            • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

              DavidMHeart offered an explanation of the problem of evil. Even the Greeks knew that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient god was logically impossible. Your god cannot exist.

              “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
              Then he is not omnipotent.
              Is he able, but not willing?
              Then he is malevolent.
              Is he both able and willing?
              Then whence cometh evil?
              Is he neither able nor willing?
              Then why call him God?”

              Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

              • LDavidH

                That’s strange, seeing as I talk to him every day!

                And that old chestnut has been answered so many times, I’m surprised anybody still bothers to bring it up. An omnipotent God can choose to voluntarily limit his power, in order to allow forces of nature and decisions of humans to run their course. From his perspective, allowing free will is apparently better than limiting it. It would be rather arrogant to say that we know better than him…

                • DavidMHart

                  That would be an example of a god voluntarily refraining from exercising its power. That is not the same thing as giving it up. Is you god capable of relinquishing some of its power in such a way that it could never later reclaim it if it wanted to? If not, you’re still dealing with an omnipotent deity, just one that happens to have decided not to flex its supernatural muscles right now.

                  And why would it be arrogant of us to say that from our perspective, allowing us to choose cruelty and inflict it upon each other is a bad bargain? He could by definition have made us capable of understanding why it is a price worth paying if he wanted to. If instead he decided to make it utterly mysterious, then the most parsimonious explanation (apart from the obvious one that he doesn’t actually exist) is that he is a douchebag deity, which is incompatible with the ‘omnibenevolent’ thing.

                • LDavidH

                  “Is you god capable of relinquishing some of its power in such a way that it could never later reclaim it if it wanted to? If not, you’re still dealing with an omnipotent deity” – well, yes! That’s the whole point. Of course he can decide to exercise the full force of his power – but I don’t think we’d like it if he did…

                  “why would it be arrogant of us to say that from our perspective, allowing us to choose cruelty and inflict it upon each other is a bad bargain?” Simply because we have no idea what the alternative would look like. And I don’t think he “decided” to make it mysterious, any more than I’ve “decided” not to let my cat know why he can sometimes sleep on our bed and sometimes not. He’s not capable of understanding human life; neither are we capable of understanding the universe from God’s perspective.

                • DavidMHart

                  Wait – are you seriously suggesting that we wouldn’t like it if an omnibenevolent god were to start intervening in human affairs so as to prevent us from causing harm to each other? How can you possibly make that claim unless you’ve lived in such a universe? At face value, it sounds far preferable to a universe in which an omnibenevolent god sits back and does nothing while assault, rapes, murders wars and genocides rage on.

                  And here –

                  He’s not capable of understanding human life; neither are we capable of understanding the universe from God’s perspective.

                  So you are admitting that your god is not omniscient (and therefore not omnimax) after all? In that case I’m glad to hear you’ve finally seen sense on that question.

                • LDavidH

                  If God intercepted you every time you were thinking a selfish / lustful / greedy thought? If God caused your car to stop every time you were thinking of going somewhere he didn’t want you to go? If God caused your computer to freeze every time you wanted to look at something dodgy or unwholesome?

                  He can’t just intervene against the things you think are wrong; he either has to allow a lot of bad stuff, or intervene against everything that violates his wishes (and me wasting my time on atheist websites might be one of those things that he would stop if he hadn’t given me free will…).

                  And I meant my *cat* isn’t capable of understanding human life. God is more than capable; he’s been human himself, you know!

                • baal

                  “God is more than capable; he’s been human himself, you know!”

                  Indeed. I once turned into an amoeba. What? I got better.

                • Neko

                  God is more than capable; he’s been human himself, you know!

                  Neither the authors of the synoptic gospels nor Paul assert that Jesus was “God.” They thought he was the Messiah.

                • DavidMHart

                  Well, firstly you are conflating thinking thoughts with carrying out actions that cause harm to others. In the real world we tend to consider those to be morally distinct. If we lived in a universe where, if every time you went to punch someone, your fist would just deflect harmlessly off them, if every time you went to defraud someone, they would magically discover that the money or goods had been transferred back to them etc, how would that be worse than the world we are in? Or rather, what evidence can you produce that that would be worse? Thinking ‘lustful thoughts’, on the other hand, does not cause anyone any harm (unless, of course, one tries to put such thoughts into action without the consent of the other person, but that’s not the sort of scenario you were talking about).

                  Re the cat: Oh I see. So your god could have made us capable of understanding everything from his perspective, but decided not to? In which case, he cannot blame us for being the way he made us – and cannot with any justification punish us for being the way he made us. And we cannot be faulted for thinking that that was a jerk move on his part – after all, there is no good that he could accomplish by making us unable to see things from his point of view that he could not have achived while giving us that broader perspective, making him – yet again – a douchebag deity.

                • LDavidH

                  *We* separate thoughts from actions; God doesn’t. Jesus says looking lustfully at a woman equals committing adultery with her; hating somebody equals murdering them. It’s not just the consequences of our actions that count, it’s the mentality / personality / human nature behind them that’s the main issue. If (say) you were very hateful, but every time you tried to kill or hurt somebody your fist would deflect or turn rubbery or something:
                  a) you would still be the same hateful person, possibly even worse since you’d now also be frustrated!
                  b) it would leave us in an unpredictable world, where you never know what will happen next. I think that would be highly frustrating!
                  And again, it only “works” with a limited understanding of what’s “wrong”.

                  And no, I don’t think God could have made humans with divine understanding, any more than he could make cats with human minds. They wouldn’t be cats, and we wouldn’t be humans.

                • baal

                  “*We* separate thoughts from actions; God doesn’t”
                  Again with speaking on god’s behalf. You don’t have a small ego do you?

                • LDavidH

                  Did you notice that I was actually quoting Jesus?

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  LDavidH,

                  Did you notice that I was actually quoting Jesus?

                  Quotes from fictional characters do not make your point.

                  I can quote Harry Potter, but that does not make magic real.

                  Stop providing excuses and provide evidence.

                  .

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  LDavidH,

                  *We* separate thoughts from actions; God doesn’t.

                  It is OK for you to pretend that you understand how your God thinks, but others may not.

                  Brilliant.

                  Where is your evidence that your fairy tale is real?

                  Stop providing excuses and provide evidence.

                  .

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  LDavidH,

                  You keep pretending that your fairy tale is real.

                  Stop providing excuses and provide evidence.

                  .

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  LDavidH,

                  How do you know what your cat is capable of understanding?

                  Nobody needs to understand a God who does not exist.

                  The Bible is just the pathetic ramblings of hallucinating people who were superstitious of everything.

                  The motivation of a fictional character only needs to be explained as a literary device, but not as an excuse for gullibility.

                  Back to your claim of scientific evidence –

                  Stop providing excuses and provide evidence.

                  .

                  .

                • baal

                  “It would be rather arrogant to say that we know better than him…”
                  It’s somewhat arrogant of you to presume that god must be voluntarily choosing to limit his power. If you can speak for him, then we can as well (since we’re both making it up).

                • LDavidH

                  Except I’m basing my suggestion on what God has chosen to reveal to us; you are basing yours entirely on your own presuppositions and understanding of what is right and reasonable.

                • DavidMHart

                  To be fair, what we have here is stuff-made-up-by-Baal versus stuff-made-up-by-the-people-who-wrote-and-compiled-the-Bible (and subsequently by the custodians of Catholic theology down the ages). The fact that the contents of the Bible weren’t made up by you personally doesn’t make them any less mythological.

                  Of course, if you are the first person in history to discover good evidence that the Bible isn’t just a collection of literature composed by ordinary humans with no more supernatural input than any other book, then your place in history awaits.

                • LDavidH

                  Difference is, the people who wrote the Bible claimed to have met and experienced the living God; millions have since followed in their footsteps and discovered it was true. I’m by no means the first to discover that; every day people get to know God through Jesus and discover that the Bible is true. Some of them have examined the evidence scientifically and written books about it, so I won’t labour the point here.

                  And FYI, I am not Catholic and do not care much for the Catholic church; it has strayed far from what Jesus intended.

                • Neko

                  The anonymous authors of the gospels wrote decades after Jesus’s death and almost certainly were not eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. Paul never knew the man Jesus.

                • baal

                  “Some of them have examined the evidence scientifically”
                  No they have not. Science has never proven the supernatural exists.

                • LDavidH

                  No, but a scientific study of the New Testament points decisively towards the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead.

                • Neko

                  No, but a scientific study of the New Testament points decisively towards the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead.

                  Whaaa!

                • baal

                  ” scientific study of the New Testament points decisively towards the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead”

                  No. They have not. Science has never proven that people rise from the dead.

                • LDavidH

                  That’s not what I said. I said, studying the NT documents in a scientific way will indicate that the most plausible conclusion is that Jesus rose. I never said “people rise”, I said “Jesus rose”. It’s called a “miracle” precisely because it doesn’t happen naturally. Science can only tell us that this doesn’t happen naturally; it can’t tell us God couldn’t do it if he wanted.

                • baal

                  I’m saying you can’t use ‘science’ like that. The term simply does not apply to biblical literally analysis as you’ve used it. You’re trying to steal the authority of the word ‘science’ or you’re tying to drag down the authority of science via misapplication. Stop it. It is dishonest of you.

                • LDavidH

                  Looking at ancient manuscripts and analysing the literary content isn’t scientific? Comparing manuscripts to find the best text isn’t scientific? Studying first-century culture and seeing how the narratives fit in isn’t scientific? That’s what literary science does all the time with other ancient literature; why should the NT be treated differently?

                • Neko

                  It’s called textual, literary and cultural criticism, not “literary science.” Any Biblical/NT scholar will tell you that what they do is not science.

                • LDavidH

                  OK, but even if it’s not classified as a “science”, they use scientific methodology, sifting evidence and drawing logical conclusions based on the evidence. Same difference!

                • baal

                  No. it is not the same difference. I will not allow the misuse of the word ‘science’ to stand. Really, it is offensive that you have no idea what science actually is but are more than happy to steal it for your ends. Quit it!

                  ‘real’ science is an iterative process when you take testable (falsifiable) ideas, test them, and then adjust your ideas until they match reality.

                  One of the really neat things about well tested scientific theories is that they start to get predictive power about the actual nature of reality. Matter is made from atoms! That idea fueled the chemical revolution. The concept of atom splitting gave us nuclear energy. Understanding DNA and cell biology gave us genetic engineering.

                  Reading the bible doesn’t do anything similar and doesn’t give you similar predictive power. You could use hints in the bible to find ancient villages and I think I’ve even seen credible TV shows to that effect. I’ve also, however, read speculative fiction books that name real places and where they are located.

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  LDavidH,

                  Stop providing excuses and provide evidence.

                  .

                • LDavidH

                  Lee Strobel, ex-atheist, has written several books providing the evidence; The Case for Christ is the one I’ve read. Just been reading another one called Magnificent Obsession, a response to Ch Hitchens’ God Is Not Great (which I have also read). How about Antony Flew’s There Is a God (another ex-atheist), or Peter Hitchens The Rage Against God.

                  The evidence is there; you just don’t want to see it.

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  LDavidH,

                  This is just typical apologetics.

                  The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus

                  The title makes it clear that it is not evidence but a personal search for evidence by a non-scientist journalist.

                  Why would anyone serious waste their time on this?

                  This is not any better than the I died and went to heaven books. It is not evidence.

                  If it is proof, then why is it ignored by so many people?

                  Apologetics is nothing new.

                  Once people started writing Christian gospels, excuses had to be made for them.

                  There is a big difference between apologetics and evidence.

                  Evidence comes in research papers that are criticized by others in the field.

                  Apologetics is attempting to make excuses for the ridiculous aspects of religion.

                  Why is your God so incompetent at providing valid evidence?

                  All of the other Gods are just as good at providing valid evidence.

                  In other words, all Gods are equally incompetent.

                  .

                • LDavidH

                  Just a few quick words as I’m on my way home…

                  “Apologetics” is meant to point people to the existing evidence – maybe not “proof” in the scientific sense, but accumulating “evidence”. In a murder mystery, there’s never absolute “proof” of the murderer’s identity, unless they’ve been caught on camera in which case there’s no mystery. But the sleuth collects evidence, different pieces of info that point conclusively at the identity of the murderer. Same with those books: they collect various bits of evidence and draw conclusions.

                  Strobel’s book title, as you quote it, tells you he investigates the evidence before him (it doesn’t say “personal search for evidence)”. You may not like to see it as evidence, but he’s claiming it is.

                  And it’s very different from the “died & went to heaven” books, which I also don’t give much attention or credence to.

                  As to why God doesn’t provide “valid evidence”, may I suggest a) that millions of people feel he has; maybe it’s your definition of “evidence” that’s faulty? b) that if he did, what would happen to free will? When if you’re still alive when Jesus comes back, you will see him with your own eyes – full proof, but it’ll be too late then. He wants us to choose to follow out of love and trust, not from compulsion.

                  But if you have already made up your mind that there is no God, I don’t expect any miracle or any logical deductions will change your mind… So I’m quitting this discussion. I’ve pointed you to books where you’ll find the evidence outlined much better than I can do in these comments. Please do your research; you might discover something you didn’t expect!

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  LDavidH,

                  Strobel’s book title, as you quote it, tells you he investigates the evidence before him (it doesn’t say “personal search for evidence)”.

                  Personal search and personal investigation are the same thing. This is the title – The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus.

                  Why do so many Christians have so much trouble with English?

                  Is this literacy problem related to the gullibility?

                  -

                  You may not like to see it as evidence, but he’s claiming it is.

                  I could tell you I was resurrected.

                  You might doubt me.

                  You may not like to see it as proof that I was resurrected, but I am telling you I was.

                  -

                  And it’s very different from the “died & went to heaven” books, which I also don’t give much attention or credence to.

                  It has the same quality of evidence as the died and went to heaven books.

                  It is just as incredible.

                  -

                  As to why God doesn’t provide “valid evidence”, may I suggest a) that millions of people feel he has;

                  Ignorance of what valid means does not make the evidence valid.

                  -

                  b) that if he did, what would happen to free will?

                  You consider the evidence to be valid.

                  What happened to your free will?

                  How do you come up with such foolish arguments?

                  -

                  He wants us to choose to follow out of love and trust, not from compulsion.

                  Evidence is not compulsion.

                  Threats of Hell are.

                  -

                  I don’t expect any miracle or any logical deductions will change your mind.

                  Miracles are not real.

                  Logical deduction is real, but it requires that you use logic, not logical fallacies.

                  Please provide some logic.

                  -

                  Please do your research; you might discover something you didn’t expect!

                  Research often leads to discovering the unexpected.

                  Since the God of the Bible is an evil, rapist, slaver, murderer, slaughterer of races, why do you want him to exist? Are you jealous?

                  Research of the Bible leads to atheism.

                  .

                • LDavidH

                  In my grammar, “search for evidence” means “I don’t have any yet, I don’t know if there is any, so I’m looking for it”. “Investigation of the evidence” means “the evidence is there, and I am investigating it – studying it from various angles, checking its reliability and origin, comparing it with other information etc.” Definitely not the same thing – the sleuth starts by searching for evidence, then he investigates what he’s found. Maybe it’s not me that has a problem with English?!

                  As for logic, Strobel’s book is full of it. In short: Jesus was executed, Jesus was buried, Jesus’ tomb was empty; Jewish authorities didn’t have it; Romans didn’t have it; disciples were prepared to die for their claim that he was alive so they obviously didn’t have it; what happened to it? Logically, resurrection is one obvious possibility.

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  LDavidH,

                  As for logic, Strobel’s book is full of it. In short: Jesus was executed, Jesus was buried, Jesus’ tomb was empty; Jewish authorities didn’t have it; Romans didn’t have it; disciples were prepared to die for their claim that he was alive so they obviously didn’t have it; what happened to it? Logically, resurrection is one obvious possibility.

                  I agree that the book is full of it, but I do not mean logic.

                  Your example is not logic.

                  Where is there any valid evidence that resurrection can actually occur?

                  If a body leaves the morgue and is unaccounted for, is resurrection really a possibility?

                  Are we overrun with zombies outside of fiction?

                  Yet you only go as far as stating that it is just a possibility, not evidence that it happened.

                  Vague memories from decades earlier. Did they see Jesus resurrected or thespirit of Jesus?

                  A tsunami hit the Fukushima nuclear plant.

                  Using your logic, the tsunami being caused by Cthulu rising from the deep is one obvious possibility.

                  Why is the world ignoring this obvious possibility?

                  The books were not written until decades later, so we should expect it to be a while before any Cthulu Gospels appear.

                  Provide valid evidence.

                  .

                • RowanVT

                  Even if you know, for 100% certain, without any question, that God exists there would not be anything *making* you worship him. I know, for 100% certain, that flu shots exist. I didn’t get a flu shot this year. I know, for 100% certain, that the president of the united states exists. Sometimes I think he is a complete idiot. I know, for 100% certain, that the pope exists. I don’t follow a thing he says.

                  Therefore, your argument that proof would negate free will, is false.

                  Also, Adam and Eve supposedly saw God all the time and they still had free will. So your own holy book proves your argument is false.

                • baal

                  I didn’t say it was impossible to study the bible for history but that the conclusion that the supernatural is real (even for just 1 person) is not a scientific conclusion.

                • LDavidH

                  Why not, if that’s where the evidence is pointing? I don’t think the idea of “multiple universes” sounds particularly scientific either, and it’s surely unprovable; but great scientists seem to believe in it anyway!
                  Science can never say “the supernatural doesn’t exist”, since science is defined by the natural.

                • RowanVT

                  The supernatural has no measurable impact upon reality therefore even if it does exist it is powerless.

                • baal

                  The ‘evidence’ of the bible points to it being a story book which mentions real places names and some people who likely did exist in history. It’s also an interesting window into the thoughts of some history of the middle east and the tribes who lived there. It does not prove the supernatural.

                  I’m not set on the multi-verse theory being true. I don’t think the case is fully there. Even so – the proponents of that theory don’t yet have a good explanation on how we’d see impacts from other universes on this one. Similar to your god idea, unless you can point to real physical impacts in some way, your god is indistinguishable from every other imaginary being (mythos, pantheon etc).

                  Science has yet to show a single case where the supernatural was the right explanation and every single time science has investigated a testable supernatural claim, the claim has fallen. If you have one that stands up to testing, the James Randi Foundation has a 1 million dollar pot of money waiting for you.

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  LDavidH,

                  Science can never say “the supernatural doesn’t exist”, since science is defined by the natural.

                  Then stop claiming that there is scientific evidence for the supernatural.

                  Stop providing excuses and provide evidence.

                  .

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  LDavidH,

                  That’s not what I said.

                  It was a direct quote of what you wrote.

                  I said, studying the NT documents in a scientific way will indicate that the most plausible conclusion is that Jesus rose.

                  Where did you write that? Did you delete that part?

                  Show us the scientific evidence.

                  No, but a scientific study of the New Testament points decisively towards the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead.

                  Stop providing excuses and provide evidence.

                  .

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  baal,

                  Science has never proven that people rise from the dead.

                  Actually, I do raise people from the dead.

                  CPR and defibrillation do work.

                  If I were to try it after three days, it would be a waste of time.

                  Dead is dead and the stench would be more than a little annoying.

                  .

                • baal

                  With apology, I meant the very dead and w/o medical intervention. I should have been more clear ;p.

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic
                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  LDavidH,

                  No, but a scientific study of the New Testament points decisively towards the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead.

                  Please provide this evidence.

                  God would be mad at you for hiding evidence of his work.

                  .

                • Spuddie

                  Now that is a great example of Christian humor!!

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  LDavidH,

                  Some of them have examined the evidence scientifically and written books about it, so I won’t labour the point here.

                  Please, provide scientific evidence for your fairy tale.

                  You cannot come close to belaboring the point by just mentioning this as real, but not providing evidence.

                  Provide what you claim is scientific evidence and we will point out the flaws.

                  .

                • baal

                  Well, “the nameless city” was published in 1921 so I had some help in the making it up. True that it wasn’t blessed or ritualized or translated for two millennia.

                • baal

                  Shh, the ghosts whispering in my ear (or was it the subtle echos of the vocalizations of Abdul Alhazred
                  “That is not dead which can eternal lie.
                  And with strange aeons even death may die” )
                  tell me your revelation is bunk and mine is the true one. This makes me totally right and reasonable and you the presuppositionalist.

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  LDavidH,

                  Except I’m basing my suggestion on what God has chosen to reveal to us;

                  You are basing your suggestion on a fairy tale.

                  Do we need a Little Red Riding Hood religion, with everything as allegory for how to treat others?

                  The only difference is the number of people who believe the Bible does not mean what it states, except when it agrees with the readers prejudices.

                  .

                • Stev84

                  And if anyone else heard voices in their head, they’d be committed to a mental institution.

                • DavidMHart

                  I think there’s a subtle difference here: LDavidH claims to be talking to a god; he isn’t actually openly claiming that that god is talking back to him. As the old saying goes, if you talk to God, you’re religious; if God talks to you, you’re crazy.

                • Neko

                  The free will argument is not a satisfactory solution to that old chestnut, if you insist on a just god, because not all evil in the world is a consequence of human decision-making. Both Jesus and Paul believed that only a spectacular intervention by God could bring justice. They were confident it was imminent. But God remained aloof, and the only justice in evidence is rudimentary human justice.

                  What is “God’s justice”? The crucifixion reveals the gist of the problem with salvation history: that either God is a monster who abided his “beloved son” to be tortured to death, or God is so abstract as to be insensible of a man’s cry in agony of “Eloi Eloi”!

                  The only way salvation history makes sense is as a story about humans. It’s untenable as a revelation of an almighty, just person-god.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  I see. So God is a-ok with the free will of the rapist, but doesn’t give a shit about the free will of the victim. It doesn’t limit free will one bit to, say, let the rapist decide to rape and then cause a random event to prevent anyone actually getting hurt, chalking up the attempted rape against the rapist’s score.

                  Still not good. Not good at all. The only way you could argue that your god was omnibenevolent was if this was the best of all possible worlds, and clearly, it’s not. If I had the power to prevent rape, murder, the death of children by disease, I would. I would do it in a heartbeat. The fact that your god has that power and doesn’t do it means I’m better than he is.

            • DavidMHart

              Of course I disagre with the notion that humankind is ‘broken’. That would imply that we were once ‘unbroken’ or ‘perfect’ or what-have-you, but there is not the slightest shred of good evidence in favour of that hypothesis. What we are is evolved – animals that have been shaped by natural selection (including, perhaps, memetic selection) to be good enough at accurately understanding reality and figuring out how to get along with each other to get where we are today, but not perfect at it, because the selection pressure has never been that strong.

              I would also disagree that you have to take the biblical worldview as a whole. I would even disagree with the idea that you even can take ‘the’ biblical worldview as a whole, since the Bible contradicts itself in so many ways, but the point is there is absolutely no reason at all to think that the Bible doesn’t get some things right and other things wrong, just like any other sprawling compilation of myth, legend, history, legislation, superstition and philosophy would.

              But to the main point. What I was saying is that a genuinely omnimax god – one that was truly all-loving, all-knowing and all powerful would be able to grant us the ability to always accurately recognise our own long-term best interests, and act accordingly, without needing to be coerced. The fact that your god apparently makes some of us (or indeed all of us some of the time) unable to do that consistently, proves that it cannot be omnimax.

              • LDavidH

                God didn’t make us that way – we did when we rebelled against him.

                And when you say that God “would be able to grant us the ability to always accurately recognise our own long-term best interests, and act accordingly, without needing to be coerced”, you are basically saying that God should have made us gods. That definition requires divine-level knowledge, unselfishness and self-control; but chose to make us humans, not semi-gods, in order for us to learn responsibility and to practice making difficult decisions. You can’t learn to resist temptation if you’re never tempted!

                • DavidMHart

                  Well, you still can’t get out of the problem. Why did your god set us up to have to learn the hard way (and indeed, set us up for some of us to fail to learn at all) how to make difficult decisions, when he could by deifinition have gifted us from the outset with that ability, without having to drag us through the mill of a world of natural calamity and human cruelty? Why is it necessary to learn how to resist temptation, when we could have been made immune to temptation in the first place?

                  An omnipotent god is by definition capable of achieving any good without having to inflict cruelty as part of the process – therefore any time that he chooses to make cruelty part of the process, he does so not because he has to, but because he wants to – making him, like I said, a douchebag deity.

                  Also, the whole ‘we brought it upon ourselves’ thing is a collosal double standard. If you believe we were consciously designed and built by an omnipotent god, then he designed and built us with the susceptibility to rebelliousness, when he could by definition have built us otherwise – and (because he is allegedly omnipotent) done so without violating your free will thing.

                  Just because you personally are unable to imagine how a god could make us morally perfect from the outset while still possessing free will*, does not mean it is impossible to a god for whom all things are possible.

                  *Not that the traditional Christian notion of free will is even a coherent concept anyway, but that’s an argument for another time.

                • LDavidH

                  No, I don’t think he could have (maybe the only thing impossible to God, apart from making a square circle?). If we had been made unable to rebel, we would have been like the Stepford wives – nice and obedient, but not quite human. I don’t think either of us would prefer that…

                • baal

                  Personal preferences don’t trump omni-illogic.

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  LDavidH,

                  Why couldn’t God have made the Garden of Eden and left out the Tree of Knowledge?

                  Why did God make us curious?

                  That God has all the maturity, but none of the wisdom, of a drunken frat boy.

                  .

                • Neko

                  when we rebelled against him

                  How so?

                • baal

                  By being human.

                • Neko

                  Exactly!

                • LDavidH

                  Genesis 3: humanity decided to disobey God and make its own rules. We’ve been a mess ever since.

                • Neko

                  You read Genesis 3 literally? Consider that it might be an allegory of the dawn of human consciousness.

                • LDavidH

                  I don’t think a writer some 3000-3500 years ago would have been interested in “an allegory of the dawn of human consciousness”, even if he could have understood what it meant.

                • baal

                  Why not? The pre-christian Greeks did.

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  LDavidH,

                  I don’t think a writer some 3000-3500 years ago would have been interested in “an allegory of the dawn of human consciousness”, even if he could have understood what it meant.

                  It is good that you realize that the Bible is not well thought out.

                  .

                • http://allweathercyclist.blogspot.com/ JethroElfman

                  The story of man’s rebellion and expulsion from Eden makes it seem that God is shocked that His created people turned out to be evil. Why is God is too stupid to anticipate what the beings created in his image would do? He baked a cake, burned it, and instead of enjoying what’s left, He throws the cake on the floor and stomps on it. Then pours gasoline and sets it on fire.

                  You know what? It’s not such a bad cake after all. People can be selfish and greedy and hurtful. They can also be loving and kind. If the God who created people can’t put up with the blemishes, that’s His problem. It’s not mankind that’s broken here, it’s God. We are not as evil and twisted as Christianity says we are.

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  LDavidH,

                  God didn’t make us that way – we did when we rebelled against him.

                  Here is your life of ignorant bliss.

                  You don’t understand, but just do what I tell you to do.

                  If you eat from that tree, you will surely die.

                  A serpent points out that eating from the tree will allow them to understand God.

                  Since God created them as curious people, he knew this would happen because of his design flaw.

                  They ate from the tree and realized that God is a petty tyrant.

                  They stopped being God’s little pet playthings.

                  God was no longer able to pretend that he was smarter than everyone else.

                  It was just God’s first week on the job and this Sorcerer’s Apprentice already had already screwed up massively.

                  This is God’s incident report of his malfunction at work.

                  22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.Genesis 3:22

                  All of those Gods must have been mad when God submitted that incident report and told them that he idiotically left the tree of knowledge of being a God right there for Adam and Eve to eat.

                  Clearly, the bragging about planning on god’s resume is a lie.

                  This is the same guy who decided to use a flood to cover up another of his mistakes.

                  The God of the Bible is just Homer Simpson with power.

                  Of course, that is if you believe the fairy tale used to explain human life to people too ignorant to understand evolution.

                  .

            • RowanVT

              The biblical god is an asshole.

              He torments thousands of people and animals because one person isn’t doing what he wants, culminating in killing *infants* because of that single indivudual… whose free will he took away by “hardening his heart”.

              He saves a man who would offer his daughters up for gang rape, but kills his wife for looking on her town.

              He drowns hundreds of thousands of infants and all the animals of the world because he made something imperfect (which means, by definition, that God isn’t perfect).

              He sent bears to kill 42 kids for teasing his prophet.

              He ruined a man’s life and killed his family all for the sake of a *bet* with satan, and then at the end offered him new kids as if that would make up for killing the first batch.

              He orders the slaughter of towns, but also commands when/if to keep the virgin girls.

            • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

              LDavidH,

              I’m glad you realise that neither of the two versions you offer fits the biblical God!

              Everything fits the Biblical God.

              -

              It’s always amazing to see how people – ordinary humans like you and me – assume they can know how things look from God’s perspective, and what they should have done in his shoes.

              I do not care about the perspective of an imaginary creature who apparently claims that the end justifies the means and that free will requires toleration of evil.

              Why is your God so incompetent at communication?

              God’s followers have so many different interpretations of the Bible that God has to qualify as the worst communicator in history – if we include fictional characters.

              .

            • Frank

              The ignorance is strong here. Keep speaking the truth.

              • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                Frank,

                You are defending a book of fiction, not as well written as Harry Potter, as factual.

                You are impeaching your earlier claim of factual.

                Brilliant.

                .

                • Frank

                  I have been reading your posts here. Speaking of lack of brilliance. Well done!

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  Frank,

                  Provide evidence to support your claims.

                  You are good at whining, but you haven’t provided any evidence.

                  .

                • Frank

                  Poor guy. Caught is a fool loop.

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  Frank,

                  You can blame others for your failures, but that is not mature.

                  Stop making excuses and provide evidence to support your claims.

                  .

                • Frank

                  As I said a fool in a loop. Good luck with that!

                • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                  Frank,

                  You can blame others for your failures, but that is not mature.

                  Stop making excuses and provide evidence to support your claims.

                  .

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Jews don’t have an omni-max deity. He isn’t all-powerful and he isn’t all-good. “I, the Lord your God, am a Jealous God” he says at least twice, and substitute ‘angry’ for ‘jealous’ and that comes up to.

            Abraham argues God down in the Sodom/Gomorrah situation. God actually straight up says he made an oopsie in the Noah story. He also admits messing up with the Adam thing, not realizing Adam needed a partner until Adam brought it up (ie, humans know their own needs better than God does).

            No, the Jewish version of God is kind of a jerk. And we know that. He’s good to us if we follow the rules, but … well, he’s kinda like a stereotypical older brother. He gets to beat us up, but he’ll protect us from everyone else and we get to feel special about his divine attention.

            I am so tired of Judaism being pulled into Judeo-Christian and “Abrahamic” conceptions of God. There are similarities (one god, lots of power, etc), but there’s a lot of differences too.

            • DavidMHart

              Okay, fair point. I just like to use the phrase ‘Judeo-Christo-Islamic’ when talking to the people who tend to use the phrase ‘Judeo-Christian’ (which is quite a lot of Christians generally). I’m just trying to get into the meme-o-sphere the point that you can’t justifiably jump Judaism in with Christianity and not lump Islam in as well. But if you’d rather I not use the phrase at all, then please say so and I shall try to cut it out.

              • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                I appreciate the explanation. I get annoyed by Judeo-Christian mostly- usually the people using it mean Christian, they’re just trying to sound more inclusive. I honestly don’t know enough about Islam to know if Allah is supposed to be triple-omni or not!

                By the way, I totally go with Option 1 above.

        • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

          LDavidH,

          If that was a joke, I’m sorry I misunderstood, but somehow it didn’t strike me as such.

          You also stated that you thought the ingredients label was funny, so we may just have different interpretations of funny.

          -

          As for the slaughtering, well, it’s great to see that you’ve really taken the trouble to try and understand what the Bible actually says…

          Are you claiming that the Bible does not actually include God endorsing the barbaric behavior I mentioned?

          -

          God doesn’t want to punish anyone, but he is a God of justice, after all, and can’t let selfishness reign forever.

          Your petty little God is incredibly selfish, but at least you recognize his flaws.

          The point is that you need to pick and choose to find good in the Bible.

          You can find passages to support whatever biases you have.

          If you want to sacrifice and help others, with no consideration of who those others are, the Bible supports that.

          If you want to sell your child into slavery, the Bible supports that.

          If you want to promote hatred of any group you are not a part of, the Bible supports that.

          The Bible can be used to justify mistreating others, because every One True God religion can always justify abusing others and finding justification in their One True God.

          The Bible is just a Rorschach test.

          There are no wrong answers – everything is in there – good, bad neutral.

          The Bible is the Book of Ultimate Relativity.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test

          .

    • baal

      700 wives and 300 concubines for Solomon. It’s part of the description of how great and beloved of god he is. He isn’t the only one.

      • LDavidH

        Thing is, Bible never approves of that.

        • RowanVT

          The bible approves of multiple wives, and wives using their slavegirls as surrogates, in quite a few different places.

          • LDavidH

            I think you’ll find, in most of those places, that “accepts the existence of” is different from “approves”. The Bible is realistic, and tells it as it is. People made mistakes; Abraham shouldn’t have sired a child through Sarah’s maidservant, the text makes it quite clear that it was a mistake. Polygamy was accepted, but there’s not a single instance where it’s seen as preferable, or encouraged.

            Just like you could say that today, God tolerates capitalism; but I don’t think you’d find many Bible verses that support it.

            • RowanVT

              So… why didn’t God make rules about only one spouse? Or rules about no slavery? Or rules about not raping other than “kill her if she didn’t yell loudly enough” or “marry her to her rapist if he pays her father”?

              Why does God say that mixed fabrics are bad? Why is eating the fatty part of meat an abomination forever?

            • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

              LDavidH,

              I think you’ll find, in most of those places, that “accepts the existence of” is different from “approves”.

              12 Anyone who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the Lord your God is to be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel.

              This is just one example of God’s approval of barbaric behavior.

              But this is not just approval.

              This is an order, which must be followed if one is to obey God.

              Approval would be – I like the way you killed those heretics.

              Accepts the existence of would be – You killed those heretics, but you don’t need to be so insanely violent just to make me happy.

              God of the Bible does not condemn real evil.

              God condemns what makes him jealous.

              .

    • baal

      “1) I thought atheists had a sense of humour?”
      Only when the something is funny. The humour in the IFI masturbatory graphic is in how awful and over the top the conservative christians are.

    • Anna

      Even if it’s not meant for you, I’d hope you would try and understand it before you criticise. The ingredients list abortion, divorce etc – this means they came before SSM, not that SSM will result in abortions (how could it – same-sex marriages are by definition infertile).

      Considering that abortion and divorce have both been around since antiquity, it’s kind of hard to figure out why they think either is linked with same-sex marriage. Unless they are just fixated on current laws surrounding them.

  • Fallulah

    I too would KILL for Lipstick shade Free Love Color 1…..MUST HAVE ITEM OF 2014!

  • Frank

    While its not the way i would go the label is factual.

    • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

      Frank,

      You demonstrate your ignorance of the appropriate use of the word factual.

      • Frank

        Look true to me. Try again.

        • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

          Frank,

          The label supports your prejudices.

          That is not what factual means.

          If you want to claim that it is factual, provide evidence to support the claims on the label.

          .

          • Frank

            Look around. Its absolutely an astute observation based on facts.

            Try again.

            • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

              Frank,

              If you want to claim that it is factual, provide evidence to support the claims on the label.

              You provide excuses, but fail to provide any evidence to support your claim.

              .

    • Spuddie

      Frank, when did you decide to be straight?

      • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

        Spuddie,

        Maybe he had his sexual orientation forced on him by a baker.

        It’s a Christian thing.

        .

  • kenofken

    Things like this label are perfect, because they show the anti-SSM movement for what it really is. People support same sex marriage because they have had 40 years to take the true measure of the arguments and the spirit behind both positions. In all that time, the anti side has failed utterly to bring any rational, secular, evidence-based argument to bear. They have also revealed a stomach-churning viciousness and ugliness of spirit. They try to package their arguments as Christian love and dispassionate defense of religious freedom and Biblical proscriptions. But sooner or later, the mask always slips, and they show us their true face. Their anger rises in the face of certain defeat, and so the mask slips almost to the point of discarding it. If we want to hasten the nationwide adoption of gay marriage, we should direct all of our donations to the “save marriage” movement so that they will increase their visibility!

  • John Perkins

    I’m so happy that polyamory got a fair deal in this article.

    • cyb pauli

      As a poly… me too! They distinguished me from a polygamist!!!!

  • Nemo

    Wait, how does two guys in bed with each other lead to abortion? Can these people at least try to make sense?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X