The following is a letter I composed and wrote to the keeper of www.Jesus-Is-Lord.com. Special thanks goes out to Chairman Keel who helped me gather information concerning Biblical verses. Yay and stuff.... I know The Dogma has done other articles about Biblical verses, but this one's better, okay? Now read.
I stumbled across your site (the old one: www.jesus-is-lord.com) a time ago, and found some of the articles to be rather interesting. But through the wreckage of poor examples, incredibly flawed analogies, and makeshift arguments, I found an atrocious doctrine called Christianity with blind followers called Christians.
It is the ill portrait that you paint of Atheists and non-believers which comes at such a frighteningly disturbing level. Of what arrogance and ignorance - combined and mixed - you have, I cannot imagine. Christianity is - in itself - nothing but pure ignorance of science and folly of fact. You turn it into a cult, twisting facts, blatantly lying, and doing all that you can to make people dependent upon an this doctrine so that deconversion is impossible.
For example, in the beginning of your site, you quote Saint Thomas Aquinas: 'Though heretics (Protestants) must not be tolerated because they deserve it, we must bear with them till, by the second admonition, they may be brought back to the faith of the church. But those who, after a second admonition, remain obstinate to their errors, must not only be excommunicated, but they must be delivered to the secular power to be exterminated.' It is interesting that you put in parenthesis "Protestants" next to heretics. However, Saint Thomas Aquinas lived from 1225 to 1274. The first time the word "Protestant" was used was when Martin Luther came around, and that was in around the sixteenth century (oops... looks like you were caught being stupid). When Aquinas said what he said about heretics, there was no such thing as Protestants or Protestantism. Therefore, your twisting of words is equal to someone saying, for example, "Jesus is coming (so look busy!)." It's the mere twisting of words when, in fact, Aquinas was talking about people like myself: Atheists. I would be surprised if you were to change that quote properly and state, "Look at the uncaring and inhumane behavior that was rendered upon non-believers. Their pains, like our own, seethed as Catholics had burned them at the stake, much like our own Protestant ancestors would do to innumerable non-believers. Let us pray to god so that his infinite compassion and wisdom can forgive us of the sins of our fathers." Needless to say, and considering your bigotry, I honestly doubt that you are capable of such compassion and caring.
Of course, putting in the word "Protestants" into a quote is just simple stupidity, led by the staunch and infantile necessity to feel that you're persecuted, or feel that you need something to feel persecuted and then feel bad about yourself; perhaps Christianity itself has not filled that "void" in your soul and you just stuck in whatever mental baggage you could find: feeling persecuted, Jesus' love, etc., etc.. Yet, as I call you a bigot, your website has made responses to this, along the lines of "You're intolerant! No, the truth is intolerant. 2+2=4, not 5, not 11, not 213." Perhaps you used the word incorrectly. Perhaps your sentence doesn't make sense. Perhaps you're stupid. But whatever the reasons, I don't think you know what the word "intolerant" means. One web-dictionary has defined intolerant as "Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs." I seriously doubt that the equation of A+B=C has problems with Antisemitism. Your words continue, "The truth of God is offensive to the hellbound, sin-loving, want-to-believe-lies man." I think it would be better if your sentence was shortened to, "The truth of God is offensive." The truth of God - the Bible in your case - is full of cruel executions and inhumane behavior, committed by god and his followers.
One particularly amusing article was, "Atheists sure do talk big--even though there's no such thing as an atheist!" It states, "A lot of them [non-believers] come to this site and even link to us with derogatory remarks which is fine--they know they need Jesus, that's why they keep coming here." This is quite amusing, but not so much laugh out loud funny as so incredibly stupid and silly. Of course, perhaps someone goes to your site to laugh... you never know. Anyway, the article goes on to say that since an Atheist doesn't know everything, they can't know that god "doesn't exist," and therefore, ummmm don't exist and that's why you have your site up: "To fight things that don't exist." What's so hilarious is that you have several pictures drawn to help illustrate this fact. Drawing big pictures with little dots is no means for making a philosophical analogy in the realm of intelligent ideas. I hate to break this to ya', but opening up bitmap image, putting in a dot, and then putting that picture on the web does not prove that there's no such things as Atheists. If something is amoral, does it mean that morality doesn't exist? Certainly not. Amoral simply means "not having to do with morality." Now, being an Atheist, I simply "do not hold belief in the existence of god." This does not go to the point of denying the existence of god, but simply a declaration of possibility (god being improbable). Of course, perhaps you stole this argument from the guy who wrote, "God Doesn't Believe In Atheists." (written by Ray Comfort) Another hilarious book that made me laugh my ass off. Never did I think it was possible that a human being, "top of the food chain," could be so incredibly stupid. That man is a waste of genetic tissue and makes slugs look more honorable than humanity has ever been.
The article goes on to a part where someone says that hell is inhumane and resulting in fear. I agree entirely. And then you respond with some half-assed remark: "Oh so you want to continue in rebellion to your Maker? I see. And you got the nerve to think that you are automatically entitled to live in His home? Heaven is God's home and it won't be one evil, rebellious person living there. Either get washed in the blood of the Lamb or perish in the flames of hell." That's also incredibly amusing. I was threatened with your imaginary friend... I'll make sure not to lose any sleep tonight. And, "washed in the blood of the lamb"? Quite an odd phrase, but I was expectant. Christians have odd behavior. They EAT the body of their savior, DRINK the blood of their savior, and now they WASH in the blood of their savior. Odd indeed, but as Ingersoll said, "A baptism is good... with soap." And, apparently, you seem to think that if god lets a rebellious person into heaven, he'll "cause a ruckus." But if you can be a Christian, rape a million women, kill a billion men, and orphan a trillion children, and then go to heaven, how is this a good strategy for preventing a "rebellious person" from entering heaven? Actually, I can see your point, somewhat. Simon Bolivar was a rebellious person. He caused South America to revolt against Spanish rule and destroyed slavery there, and he was an Atheist. We can't have any Abolitionists in heaven! They're just way too rebellious. From another article, I see... "Your attitude has to be 'I don't care what you say, I believe in the Lord!'" Arrogance, of course. I could attack this little quote more, but it should be seething stupidity to even the most foolish individual.
Perhaps the greatest article I ever read of yours was...
Allow me to stand up and clap for this absolutely excellent and plausible argument. I mean, really... It's great. There are actually several points I must contribute to. First you say that Atheist's have a "religion" (the way you capitalize it, you make it look like a crime to have a religion). I don't play football; does that mean I'm engaged in the sport of non-football? I don't play soccer or basketball -- are these non-things sports? Perhaps in the crazy world of cultism Christianity, but in the real world where things must follow logical and reasonable laws, no, they're not sports. Neither is Atheism a religion, as Atheism is non-belief in the existence of god (not even religion... a non-believer of religion is a Materialist). Your analogy of an Atheist to "an ostrich-head-in-the-sand technique" is rather amusing. In fact, when I first read it, two possibilities came to mind: a third grader working on a school project or a bigot with access to the internet. (Perhaps I'll never know the real answer to that.) Your analogy fails because it is not exclusive. A Hindu could say the same about you and Vishnu. A Muslim could say the same about you and Allah. A Jew could say the same about you and Yahweh. Your third grade friend could say the same about you and her imaginary friend named John. It doesn't prove a thing. Perhaps it proved that your intolerance is incredibly, your foolishness infinite, and your arrogance unlimited, but if it proved nothing other than that, I'd be willing to bet my left testicle on it.
But just what version of the Bible ought we use? According to your site, we should use the KJV and all non-KJV Bibles are "satanically inspired" (the picture of the Pope, Rupert Murdock, and Satan standing together holding the NIV is humorous). What's most alarmingly amusing about this opinion about using KJV is that KJV is just an English version. What this deducts to, is that all non-English speakers are condemned to hell for not being able to read the King James Version. The those who speak French, Spanish, Italian, Latin, German, Russian, Portuguese, Vietnamese, and all the other languages around the planet, are all doomed to hell, unless they can learn English and read KJV. What's even more foolish about monopolizing KJV is that it has a couple mistakes (16th century scholars weren't too bright... nor were the kings who employed them). Right into the third chapter of Genesis, we come across "cherubims." (If you can speak Hebrew and English, you'll see why it's amusing) A cherub or cherubim is a winged figure. Plural is either "cherubs" or "cherubimis."
Aside from the most foolish decision to choose the KJV, an even more foolish and dogmatic decision was to choose the Bible. The Bible, itself, is the most profane and demonic text I have yet to read. Even though you have thoroughly proven yourself to be as bigoted as a KKK member, I'm sure that even you can refuse to accept much of what the Bible says. Consider the inequality of the Bible, the barbarities given to women...
-(1 Cor 14:35 NRSV) If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
No wonder all Feminists are Atheists. Susan B. Anthony was an Agnostic and Elizabeth Cady Stanton held contempt for the Bible. But that's nothing. A child should be killed if he curses his parents...
-(Exo 21:17 NRSV) Whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death.
Little Johnny says "bugger off!" to his mother. Aaawwww, too bad. Now let's chop him up into little pieces and praise the lord for his powerful mercy. What else comes from this god of love, one of whom love is the origin...
-(Numbers 25:6-9.) God kills 24,000 people by a plague because one of them brought a Midianite woman to his tent.
Is this Biblical god of love and warmth? Only a fool would say this. The irrational, the illogical, and the downright cruel will accept these verses as being divine from god. The man who finds it acceptable to killed 24,000 people because one of them brought a Midianite woman to his tent is a cruel, vindictive person. A man who finds this to be the inspiration of the divine is a fool. A man who does this is called god -the most loving and merciful - according to Christianity. But let there be no mistake when I say this. The doctrines as put forth by Moses and the prophets of the Old Testament are the most persecuting and horrid doctrines ever written. They are a code of conduct for barbarians, they are a procedure for abusing individuals, they are a method for causing unavailing and unrelenting amounts of suffering. When a man holds up his club to strike a slave, woman, or infant, and he does this in the name of Christ, there is only one Humanitarian and ethical decision: Christ is the most cruel and unrelenting figures, striking fear of hell into the hearts of blind followers as well as into the eyes of those abused by Christian Ethics and Christianity. The millions burned at the stake were burned for Christianity. The millions enslaved from Africa were enslaved because of the sanction of Christianity. The millions denied rights were denied rights because of the rules of Christianity. But from a solemn and aggressive crowd of what is Christianity, one man must stand up and say, "This is wrong." And with that, with the defiance of Christianity, civilization can make an onward march -- we may be soldiers in the army of progress and Humanitarianism. This man who fights oppression and intolerance -- dubbed the Anti-Christ by Christians -- is no doubt a hero among sheep whom have not enough wit to save themselves or think for themselves (but, then again, both are one and the same). This man, the Anti-Christ, who fights for equality of gender, of race, of species, this man who fights against the injustice of Christianity is, by and far, the most honorable man who has ever lived.
Needless to say, this man, these mini-Anti-Christs have come in various forms. Garibaldi Giuseppe was an Italian Nationalist who fought for justice -- he was not fond of Christianity. Lincoln, Ingersoll, and Paine -- the GREAT Infidels of the world -- have all fought for Abolition and freeing African humans. It was the infidel who broke the chains of the slave; the same chains that the church blessed! Stanton and Anthony, who fought for the equality of woman, went on and had to face oppression from Christians who were violent. Christian men so cruel and intolerant in their pursuits that they eventual came to the conclusion that to beat women who spoke out was the solution! Alas, I say boldly, these Christian men who beat women must have read the Bible to get their ethics! There is nothing more cruel than the Bible, nothing more stupid than to believe it, and certainly nothing more more combinely cruel and stupid than to claim it as the word of a god.
[NOTE: Special thanks to the one and only... Chairman Keel for the verses on the Bible.]