Love Wins!

Friday June 26th, 2015 was a historic day here in the USA. The Supreme Court finally made the ruling that made same-sex marriage legal nation-wide. Because, you know, people should have to go through years of court cases in order to gain equal rights in a country that claims to guarantee it's people equal rights...

While this was a huge victory, it wasn't long until I saw people with their underpants in a knot because gay marriage clashes with their personal religious beliefs. Well there is an easy solution to that... If they don't believe in gay marriage, don't get gay married.

Then there's those that claim this is a religious rights issue, or claim that the government is now telling churches that they have to perform same sex-marriages. This is simply false. Churches did, and still do, have the right to not perform marriages that clash with their religious beliefs. If they want to, they can marry same-sex couples, but they aren't forced to. Legal and religious marriage are two very different things. But some people just don't want to hear that.

There are those that also cry that marriage is being redefined. They pretend that Christianity invented marriage, and that biblical marriage has always been one man and one woman. I simply ask those people to actually read their own damn holy book.

The fact that my wife and I got married (not same religion) means that marriage has been redefined.

The fact that people of different races can get married means that marriage has been redefined.

If you don't think a man can just give a woman's father some goats and a cow and now have a wife, you've redefined Christian marriage.

If you don't think a man should be able to rape a woman and then just pay the father and marry the rape victim as punishment, you've redefined Christian marriage.

If you don't think a man should have to marry his brother's wife should he die before she birthed him a son, you've redefined Christian marriage.

If you don't like polygamy, you've redefined Christian marriage.

If you don't think woman should be taken as wives as prizes of war,  you've redefined Christian marriage.

If you don't think a man should keep sex slaves as well as a wife/wives, you've redefined Christian marriage.

If you don't view marriage as a property transaction between a father and husband to be, you've redefined Christian marriage.

I could keep going, but it should be clear by now that 'Christian marriage' is a concept that is far from as clear cut as some would have you believe.

Then some ask, "What about polygamists?", "What if someone wants to marry a horse or a dog?" For the first one... I actually don't have a problem with people being in a relationship with multiple wives or husbands if it's all consensual. Obviously, this requirement would block the religious cults where the leader takes multiple child brides and the like. It's also ironic that these are also the biblical marriage types, yet they aren't aware that polygamy is biblical.

As for marrying an animal... I don't know what's worse. That the person making this argument doesn't know how bad it is, or that they are at least subconsciously equating homosexuals to the same status as other 'lower' animals. But lets get back to the obvious problem with this absurd argument. A horse can not consent to marriage. There are obviously other issues, but this should be an argument that gets stopped before it even starts. But some seem to let their hate run their mind rather than logic.

But luckily sanity prevailed, and marriage equality is now a reality across the United States. Love won. And that's what marriage is really about. Love. Nothing more, nothing less, and isn't that really enough?

-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Break Time?

Last week I posted only one blog, and other than this update there probably won't be any this week. The most immediate reason being that I am dealing with a strained and stiff right hand due to what was apparently too much yard work. So the entirety of this had to be typed only using my left hand.

Other than that though, I haven't really been feeling up to writing much lately. My job has been stressing me out beyond belief. Despite not having a very physical job, I find myself coming home exhausted most night. This means that the weekends end up needing to be a time of recharging rather than one of enjoyment for the most part. Considering the fact that I write these almost exclusively on the weekends, these tired weekends have left me without the time or desire to write like I used too.

So I surmise that I will have to scale my posting back even further (my book remains nameless and coverless, but at least it is at the waiting for edits stage...) , or even take a break. How long this will last is anyone's guess because, quite frankly, I hate my job. I dread going in each day. The environment is beyond toxic. The stress, stupidity, and incompetence I face regularly have left me feeling empty on any given work day (possibly even entering depression at times). Sadly, I can not afford to just leave, and there are no viable alternatives for me to move on to in this area. Two years looking, and I'm still there...

But then this all gets more complicated. I hate my job, but this job has caused me to no longer enjoy the career that I once loved. There is no more drive or desire left in the tank when I think of the projects I once loved undertaking. Just the other week I took on what used to be by far my favorite task. But it was just another job that felt like work. This was a realization that answered a question I've been asking myself for a while. Do I just hate this current situation, or is it more than that? The sad answer is that the passion is now gone. The career I choose over more lucrative paths due to the enjoyment factor is now nothing to me.

So I guess now not only do I need a new job, but a new career. That only complicates things so much more since I can't afford to go back to school. That's it I guess. Unappreciated, underpaid, and stressed the hell out... Now if you see me not posting as much, or not at all, you know why. But  while you're here, anyone know any minimum 50k dollar jobs a fast learner can jump right into without having to go back to school?

-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Secular Creationist Museum?

One News Now ran a story claiming that atheists got a school trip to a secular dinosaur museum canceled. That claim seemed very odd and unusual to me, so it's a headline that certainly stood out on my google alerts list. But was there any truth to the headline?

The Glendive School District has bowed down to threats by the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AUSCS), which argues that allowing students to take the secular tour at the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum violates the alleged separation of church and state clause of the U.S.

Constitution.

That just doesn't sound right at all. Atheist groups are all for preserving the secular nature of our government and schools. So this claim seems very odd and off the wall to me... Something just doesn't add up. 

The museum, the second-largest dinosaur museum in Montana, is the only one that teaches the biblical account of creation. Operated by the Foundation Advancing Creation Truth (FACT)...

Well there's your problem. A biblical creationist museum is not even close to being secular! Also, I love the irony of the parent organization being called FACT since creationism isn't at all related with the term...

the museum offers public schools a "secular" tour that doesn't promote a biblical account and religious views. This differs from the private sector tours that include teachings on a young Earth, the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans, biblical history and Noah's Ark — all represented through various displays.

Huh, maybe I spoke too soon. So does this museum have a separate religious wing and a scientifically factual wing? If that's the case, maybe there really isn't an issue. (more on that later)

Lincoln Elementary School principal John Larson says the field trip to the museum has been held annually over the past several years with virtually no complaints.

The number of complaints doesn't matter. Illegal is illegal.

 "[The museum gives] a different point of view than kids are exposed to in school," expressed Larson, who noted that even though he never attended a school tour, he has visited the museum and trusts his faculty's professional judgment. "This presents an alternative idea to what kids are going to hear throughout the curriculum. I guess, personally, I'm okay with that."

So Larson is fine with his students receiving information that isn't rooted in fact during school hours? Why is this? Is it because this 'museum' is teaching his personally preferred brand of superstition? Sorry, but a person who can say that they are fine with his students being taught false teachings that are counter to the curriculum as part of a school trip is not fit to be the principal of a public school.

FACT vice president Robert Canen could not understand why the district caved to the atheist group, especially considering the museum has gone out of its way to customize its tours to not promote a biblical worldview.

"[We are] disappointed for the students of our school district," Canen told The Christian Post. "While our museum is based on biblical history and all of our exhibits are set in that context, we provide a tour that focuses on the fossils displayed in the museum and the characteristics of those fossils."

Wait, wait, wait... So the 'secular' tour uses the same exact displays as the religious tour. The students are surrounded by signs and displays promoting creationism and they somehow think this makes it a secular tour? Sorry, that doesn't cut the mustard. Everything is still right there for the kids to read. The placards openly contradict what the children are being (rightfully) taught in the classroom. Standing students next to a large image depicting Noah's flood claiming that it totally happened but

This shit never happened!

stopping just short of pointing it out to the kids does not a secular tour make.

Canen states that the museum based in Glendive, Montana, is careful to not attack the problematic theory of evolution or stress the scientific biblical account.

Um, evolutionary theory is not problematic at all. Maybe Canen's understanding of evolution is problematic. But evolution is about as close to a scientific certainty as is gets. I often find that those that contest evolution are usually those that understand it the least.

"We mention complexity and design, but we stay away from any discussion of the Bible for public school tours," Canen continued. "We understand that our signage refers to special Creation and the biblical timeline, but we don't draw attention to those signs for public school tours."

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge... We have these signs everywhere that promote what we aren't allowed to promote on a  secular tour. But simply not reading them to the kids makes it all okay? What if this school was to hold an art show in a mosk and go there for a fiend trip. The mosk still displays all the usual Muslim displays. Qur'ans are left open and accessible to be read... I can guarantee that most of these Christian parents would be up in arms about that trip, yet the situation is no different than this museum's tour that they hilariously claim to be secular.

"In the past, the Glendive schools have brought students with little or no complaint," Canen contended. "We would encourage people to come to the museum to learn about the message we present and how the fossils fit into the biblical timeline."

Again, the number of complains isn't what matters. It's what's legal that matters. Oh, and how do the fossils fit into a Biblical timeline? If you are using the honest facts, the truth is that they don't come close to fitting into the biblical timeline at all.

AUSCS claimed that a school-run event visiting the creation museum violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Because it does...

teachers explicitly teach Darwinian evolution as the sole explanation for the creation of the universe.

Someone is either quite confused or has been misquoted, because evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Evolution is all about the change of, and diversity of life. Universal origins are in the realm of the Big Bang.

"If evolution makes a claim and the claim is refuted by science, then I have no problem saying that, because that's the truth," Kline informed to the Gazette. "We don't make things up here."

This is a fairytale, not science!

Actually, you are making things up. First, evolution has not been refuted or even threatened by science. The more science looks at evolution, the more it is being found to be supported by an unquestionable mass of evidence. Furthermore, creationism has been thoroughly refuted by science, so where is the consistency? Kline is super eager to embrace science threatening evolution, but when it comes to the fact that science has refuted his, and his museum's beliefs/teachings he just looks the other way and ignores the science. To me, that's just dishonest.

Kline says the alternative tours for public schools strictly stick to scientific fact — not religious teaching — but emphasizes that he doesn't lie to students when secular geologic records declare that all animal species appeared at once or that life is simply too complex to be created by chance.

What is this man on about? No secular geological records claim that all species appeared at once, nor do they claim that life is too complex to occur naturally! It sounds to me like Kline is certainly lying to students, or is very very poorly educated on the topics that he is talking about...

Kline explains that he only mentions the biblical account if students directly ask them about topics that can't avoid it — such as fossil ages, which can be explained by a global flood.

Sorry, I don't buy it. In my experience, I've found that creationists of Kline's ilk are all too eager to shoehorn their beliefs in whenever they get the slightest chance... Especially when it comes to trying to convert or recruit new believers. As for the claim of fossil ages being explained by a global flood. This is again completely false. And any attempt to do so requires completely ignoring all the factual evidence that we already have at hand.

"It's perfectly legitimate for me to do so, because it's not the teacher who asked me, it's not the bus driver who asked me," Kline said. "The student is not a representative from the school."

Wrong again buckaroo! By leading a school field trip, Kline is acting as a representative of the school. As a representative of the school, you must also abide by the standards of the curriculum. If leading a school field trip and sticking to the facts is a problem, then Kline shouldn't lead these tours.

"Apparently, a few disgruntled individuals in our community have precedence over your permission for your child to attend," the faculty's letter reads. "Big city issues have come to Glendive."

To borrow a line from the amazing movie Hot Fuzz, "With respect sir, geographical location
shouldn’t factor in the application of the law." Also, no one is saying that children can't go there, just that the school can't take them. If a parent wants to take their child to a terrible museum on the weekend, these parents are perfectly able and allowed to.

So the answer to this whole issue is very simple. Follow the law. If they want to take their kids on a fun trip to learn about dinosaurs, then just take them to the another museum. There are several dinosaur museums in the state, and there is even another one in the same town for crying out loud!

-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Billy Graham: Science and God

DEAR REV. GRAHAM: As far as I'm concerned, religion is based on superstition and myth. I think people dreamed up the idea of "God" just to help them deal with their fears. Now that we have science, we don't need God. Why should we keep believing in something that doesn't exist?
-- R.H.

The answer is really very simple. We shouldn't believe in things that don't exist. Yet for a myriad or reasons, many people do.

DEAR R.H.: Let me ask you a question: If we no longer need God because of science, then why do so many scientists and other intellectuals still believe in Him? Some don't, of course, but over the years I've been privileged to meet many who do -- and who not only believe in God but are also committed Christians.

Yes, plenty of scientists are believers. But a 2009 study found that while 83% of the general public believe in God, only 33% of scientists do. So that right there tells you that scientific knowledge can and does erode the need for belief. But why is the number 33% and not 0%? Well that is due to a few reasons. Many still believe due to emotional reasons. But the most important factor is compartmentalization. Religious scientists tend to not subject their religious beliefs to the same rigorous scrutiny that they apply to their scientific work.

In fact, many of these men and women have told me their scientific investigations actually had led them to faith.

Billy must not talk to very many scientists...

As they studied the world around them, they realized it was far more logical to believe in an all-wise Creator than to believe everything happened by chance.

Or apparently any good ones either. The conclusion that 'magic' is a more logical conclusion than the scientific one that is rooted in evidence is not logical, and is not good science in the slightest.

They also began examining the life of Jesus Christ and weighing carefully His claim to be God in human flesh, sent from heaven to save us and change us. As they did, they came to realize He was not a myth, but that in Him alone "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3).

So they studied all the evidence for Jesus' existence (that is none by the way) and concluded that a magical man that left no evidence of his existence wasn't a myth? Right... Sorry, but this is either a case of scientists that were believers first compartmentalizing, if he's actually talking about actual scientists at all.

I suspect your real problem is that you want to run your own life, without God to interfere with whatever you might want to do.

I love how Billy loves to throw this gem around. "You just want to run your own life." His reasoning presupposes that we do believe in God but are acting in defiance. But here's the thing, if we did believe, we would know he is all-powerful and that the price is steep. We would know that if God (being all-powerful) wanted us to do X, Y or Z, there's nothing we could do about it anyway. We would also believe that we are going to Hell because of our actions. So who would believe in God yet consciously choose to pointlessly try to defy this all-powerful being, and choose the outcome of eternal torment?

The real answer is really much simpler. We actually don't believe in God, and it's usually because there is no good reason to believe in a God that is not evidenced in the least.

-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Billy Graham: Religion and Prosperity

QUESTION: I saw a survey the other day claiming that some of the most prosperous countries in the world are also the least religious. Do you think that’s true? Why is it? – Mrs. J.U.

For the most part this is very true. The main outlying exception being the USA. Why is that? There are a couple main reasons that I suspect this is the case.

ANSWER: I don’t know how accurate a survey like this is; I certainly can think of some exceptions, including the United States. Although secularism and materialism have made serious inroads into our society, the majority of Americans still believe in God and regularly attend a place of worship.

Sorry to burst your bubble Billy, but America isn't facing secularism making inroads into society. America was founded as a secular nation for crying out loud. And while America is the one obvious exception, a closer look will show that America may be rich overall, but is actually a bad example when we look on a more individual basis.

As for the accuracy of these studies, I have found that they are usually done with a large sample size and are actually pretty accurate. A 2014 study ranked the top most prosperous countries as such:

1) Norway (22% believe in God)
2) Switzerland (44% believe in God)
3) New Zealand (43.47% Christian)
4) Denmark (28% believe in God)
5) Canada (67% Christian)
6) Sweden (18% believe in God)
7) Australia (61.1% Christian)
8) Finland (33% believe in God)
9) Netherlands (28% believe in God)
10) United States (70.6% Christian)

But why do I feel the fact that many of the least religious nations are actually more prosperous that the USA? Education. Our education system is woeful, and further behind other nations than it really should be. For some reason , it seems our lawmakers typically want to take money away from education rather than trying to address the problems that cause us to usually rank around the 27th position in national rankings against the rest of the world.

And one thing that many statistics have shown is that the more educated a person is, the higher the likelihood is that they don't believe in a god. If the lest educated believe the most, that should really tell you something about that belief.

Earlier I mentioned that the USA isn't that great of an example. Why is that exactly? Income equality. Let's take a look at the GINI coefficient of that top ten again. 0 = total equality and 100 = total inequality.

1) Norway (GINI of 25)
2) Switzerland (GINI of 29.6)
3) New Zealand (GINI of 36.2)
4) Denmark (GINI of 24.8)
5) Canada (GINI of 32.1)
6) Sweden (GINI of 23)
7) Australia (GINI of 30.3)
8) Finland (GINI of 26.8)
9) Netherlands (GINI of 30.9)
10) United States (GINI of 45)

What this shows us is that while the USA may be prosperous as a nation, there are many many more individuals that are not prosperous than in the other nations in the list. So if countries that believe in God less tend to be more prosperous and more equal, while the most religious parts of the USA are also the most impoverished, either God has terrible aim when he's smiting, or not believing just got even more attractive.

-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Billy Graham: God's Mug Shot

DEAR BILLY GRAHAM: What does God look like? My sister tried to draw a picture of God once, but my parents said they weren’t sure if she got it right. She made him look kind of like the sun. I am 9 years old. — Z.H.

You have to love kids sometimes. Nine years old and what is the pressing matter that ZH writes in to the newspaper about? 'Is my sister's drawing of God accurate?' The funny thing is that his sister did kind of get it right though, so long as she was trying to draw one of the many solar deities.

DEAR H.N.: God isn’t like anything we will ever see around us, because he doesn’t have a physical body or a physical nature. Instead, God is a spiritual being, and he is everywhere. (This is one reason the Bible commands us not to make idols.) Jesus said, “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

So wait... is the kid ZH or HN? Also has Billy ever read his own Bible? Because some of what he just said is contradicted by his very own holy book. For example, Genesis 1:26-27...

Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

But here's the thing. If God doesn't have a physical form, then there was no 'image' for him to fashion mankind after. Also what about when God shows himself to Moses in Exodus 33:18-23?

And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

So according to this not only does God have a form and a face, but he also set it up to moon Moses in some sort of divine peep show.

And on the idols bit... That was actually more about worshiping other gods. But Christianity pissed all over that commandment anyway what with every church being filled with statues of Jesus, Mary, saints, etc...

Does this mean we can’t know anything about God, since we can’t see him? No, not at all. God made us, and he loves us and wants us to know what he is like.

How the Bible says he's like, or how the evidence says he's like? Because the Bible shows him to be a murderous, genocidal, sadistic, egomaniac. And the evidence simply shows no trace of his existence at all. 

So was this little boy's sister's drawing accurate? No. In fact her drawing was already more accurate before she ever started. That blank page was already a perfect representation of God. This is because the absence of the drawing perfectly mirrors the high likelihood that he doesn't exist. Likewise, the second pencil meets paper she, like people throughout history, started creating her own god. All gods are human creations that have traits given to them by their creators. Just like we create the drawing, we have also created our gods.

-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/billy-graham/article22597176.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/billy-graham/article22597176.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/billy-graham/article22597176.html#storylink=cpy

Atheist Babies Have a God?

Rev. Christopher Benek wrote a piece for The Christian Post titled "Babies Are Not Born Atheist". Seeing as his title is factually false, I don't have high hopes for the contents of his article, but lets have a look anyway...

Can I interest you in a used car? Take a look at
this fabulous '88 Chevy. They don't get any
batter than this beauty!

It is a popular claim by Atheists that eventually science will somehow eliminate the need for religion. Many even argue that, in our present age of exponentially advancing technology, we are already beginning to see the numerical decline of religious persons in the United States.

It is true that science has been steadily showing that the claims of many religious are false. It has
replaced incorrect religious explanations with ones rooted in fact and backed by evidence. Science has been able to explain happenings that were once assigned to a supernatural deity, and reveal what is actually going on. So yes, as religions and their claims have been show time and time again to quite simply be wrong, it has resulted in some leaving those religions.

This, they claim, is evidenced in such studies as the Pew Research Center's recent Religious Landscape Study. I disagree with such assertions. What we are actually seeing isn't the initial stages of the demise of Christianity. Instead, what we are witnessing is the reoccurring periodic rise of societal arrogance and immaturity.

Already with the name-calling? We don't agree with you so we are automatically arrogant and immature? Personally, I consider that reply rather immature. Furthermore, how can Christian's of Chris' ilk call anyone arrogant. I'm going to go out on a limp and say that he would probably say that there is absolutely no chance he could be wrong about Jesus, or that he would never even consider changing his mind. That is pure arrogance. Yet most atheists (like myself) am always open to being wrong. I don't think that I am, but if you can show that I am, I will listen.

Also, what Chris is arguing can be said of every time people started leaving one faith for another. The Jews probably said that this Christianity will never catch on. The Catholic church would have said that there new Protestants won't go anywhere. While these religions didn't disappear, they were still quite wrong in regards to the new upstarts. But go back further and there are religions that faded completely. Will the same happen with Christianity? Perhaps, but it will take a while if it does. But the fact is that the trend shows that the 'rise of the nones' isn't a trivial one.

American Christians seem to be baffled as to how "nones" - those persons who identify themselves as religiously unaffiliated Atheists, agnostics or "nothing in particular" - have grown in number so rapidly in the United States.

Probably because religions and their claims have often been found to be wrong. The fact that being religious doesn't statistically make one a better person than they already were, or the big fact that there is no proof that these religions are at all rooted in actual verifiable proof.

We are quick to blame politicians, celebrities, technology or even other Christians with whom we disagree theologically for this increasing trend. But as I see it, the problem resides not with the "nones" but with the church universal's growing lack of religious formational training and nurture.

Or maybe because there's no proof! And seriously... Chris is opining that the church isn't being vocal enough? I have churches come to my door pretty regularly, mass-mail cards, hand out papers at events, and basically make themselves seen and heard anytime they get a chance.

At a very rudimentary level we as Christians seem to be growing increasingly dismissive of our children's religious developmental needs.

So you're going to stop forcing kids to go to church and allow them to make up their own mind instead or brainwashing them and asserting that the child is a Christian from birth? That would be awesome!

It might serve us well to remember though that babies are not born atheists. 

Actually that's incorrect. An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in God(s). Babies haven't learned about God yet, so they lack belief. By definition they are atheist. Atheist by default, but still atheist.

Furthermore, if we push the point, there really is no such thing as an atheist because technically everyone has a god.

How can everyone have a god when no god has ever been shown to absolutely exist? And if Chris means 'believe in a god', than that's outright false since atheist don't believe in any gods.

While this may seem an unfamiliar concept to some, by definition, a god is just "a person or thing that is excessively worshiped and admired; an all absorbing passion, pursuit, or hobby - something idolized." Since an excess of anything is simply "an amount or quality greater than is necessary" and worship, in its most basic form, means "to have an ardent devotion, or adoration for something" - one must simply have actual or substantial concern for a passion, pursuit, or hobby that is slightly more than needed for it to be considered a god. It thus quickly becomes evident that, although it may not be personified, everyone has a god.

 Sorry, but this is simply false. A god is defined as...

1) (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2) (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

What Chris is doing here is actually quite dishonest. He's attempting to arbitrarily redefine words to fit his claims as he pleases. That's not the way it works!

But what if we grant Chris' claim. In that case, he's screwed because that would mean that almost everyone would have multiple gods. And God demands that you have no other gods, so Chris' claim would actually damn everyone.

This fact that people aren't born atheists matters when we consider our religious development because it suggests that we are biologically oriented toward embracing religious training and nurture.

Yeah, babies aren't born atheist at all... As long as you have no clue at all what 'atheist' actually means, that is!

When babies are born they understandably worship the source of their basic needs – such things as their mother's milk, their parents, or a maybe even a favorite toy. But as a child grows older, and develops as a human being, their needs evolve and expand and their focus of worship then changes. 

None of this makes babies believers in God though. At that age they can't even consider the concept, let alone conclude that they believe in Jesus. The only way this means what Chris is claiming it means is to dishonestly try to redefine terms on a whim to fit his needs.

Like Chris' definition for 'god'...

Whether or not a child matures into understanding that it is more logical to worship a God who champions love, peace, compassion and justice as opposed to a deficient idol usually has less to do with the child and more to do with how those who are caring for the child model behavior for them.

Wait... So Chris wants children to grow up to believe in a god who 'champions love, peace, compassion and justice'?  It's kind of odd hearing a Christian wanting children to not become Christians. But okay, works for me.

Of course, capital "A", Atheists – those who lack belief in a supernatural or personified God or who, more likely, have critiques of the misappropriations of organized religion - do exist.

Actually, it's 'atheist', not 'Atheist'. The word is not a proper noun. So Chris is now claiming that only miss-spelled atheists exist? Just for the record, all atheist lack belief in God, not just some. Additionally, most atheist do have critiques on religion, but that isn't necessary to be an atheist.

But, divergent from popular opinion, their critiques of the church also are not what ultimately convince persons to leave organized religion.

Yeah, usually it's because there's no proof of religion's claims, or that science has all too often proven religious claims wrong.

To the contrary, it is our failure as Christians to humbly hear and respond to constructive criticism that demonstrates to the younger generation that we aren't really willing to work for Christ's redemptive purposes.

At least he got the 'humbly respond the criticism' part right. All too often I've witnessed religious people simply shout down any criticism or questions. Critiques  that are very valid, yet the believers have no good answer to. This fact alone should raise even more questions.

And often times, instead of repenting from our failure to guide our children into religious maturity as human beings, we shift the blame to others for our irresponsibility and arrogance.

Wait, wait, wait... irresponsible and  arrogant for not doing a better job of blindly brainwashing your kids to think exactly like you instead of for themselves? I think Chris has that backwards.

Put succinctly, it isn't science or technology that is dissuading persons away from God. Nor is it politicians, celebrities, Atheists or persons who hold fringe religious positions.

Its the seemingly wholesale failure of religion.

It is each of us who confesses Jesus with our words and then denies him with our lifestyles. Our large-scale idolatry of self-arrogance and religious immaturity is growing the population of "nones" whose primary hope is simply that there is a better way of living than what we are modeling. Fortunately for them, and us, there is a better way. It is in and through the person of Jesus Christ.

We already have a way better than the horrible book called the Bible. A free secular society that grants the people amazing and oh so valuable rights. A system that could use improvement in some details, sure. But one that is sadly under threat from those that would like to replace it with the terrible and barbaric Bible.

-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

(Hide and) Seek the Truth

The Jehovah's Witnesses left another pamphlet in my door Saturday. This time it posed a simple question and an invitation to a gathering they are having. I wish they had come by when I was home, because I could have offered an answer to their question...

Why did Jesus come to Earth?
To save the world?
To rule the world?
To conquer the world?

None of the above! The obvious answer is that he came to Earth to become the undisputed hide and seek champion.

Think about it... Two-thousand years later and people are still asking random strangers if they have found Jesus. (Is someone offering a reward?)

There are people who have claimed to have found Jesus, but none have ever been able to prove it.

In fact he's so good at hide and seek that he hasn't even left any historical records behind to prove his existence or provide a clue as to just where he's been hiding.

But in all seriousness, the real question shouldn't be why did Jesus come to Earth, but did he ever come to Earth at all? After all, there isn't any actual proof for his existence, so that certainly is a fair question to ask.

-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Billy Graham: Living Together

QUESTION: I want to get married, but my boyfriend says we need to live together to see if it’s going to work out. He says all our friends do it, and I guess he’s right, but I’m not sure I want to go down this road. What is your advice? — K. McG.

In my opinion, what your friends are doing doesn't really matter. But with that said, I agree with K's boyfriend. Marrying someone is a big decision, so isn't it a great idea to make sure you really know that person and are truly compatible before deciding to spend the rest of your like with that person?

I didn't move in with my wife, but I did stay with her on the weekends when we were dating. By spending so much time with her, I was able to get to know her incredibly well. This knowledge made it clear that we were very compatible, and that living together post-marriage wouldn't be a problem. And more importantly, it underscored that marriage was a good idea, and not something that would immediately blow up in our face.

ANSWER: It may be popular with some of your friends, but for both practical and spiritual reasons I strongly urge you not to go down the road your boyfriend is urging you to take.

For terrible religious reasons no doubt...

On a practical level, the problem with simply living together is that there’s no real commitment, either to each other or to marriage. What’s to keep your boyfriend from deciding he doesn’t want to be tied down, and suddenly casting you aside? Or what’s to keep you from leaving after a minor disagreement (as happens in almost any relationship)? The answer is simple: precisely nothing.

What world is Billy From? Moving in together is a big step in a relationship. It is a step people take after they have already been dating for a while. How is there no commitment? It is usually the last step prior to a proposal, so by time a couple lives together, they are pretty damn committed to one another. And what of Billy's scenarios? They are also silly because they can happen if you without moving in together too. Couples can split ways, have a relationship with another, or fight whether they are living together or not.

But here's the point Billy doesn't seem to realize. Even if this does happen, it was a good thing. Isn't it better to find out that you can't live with someone before you get married rather than after? Billy often speaks ill of divorce, so he should be in favor of moving in together since it can actually help avoid divorce. But perhaps that's too much logic for him to comprehend...

But I also hope you’ll avoid this for spiritual reasons. God gave marriage to us for our happiness and mutual help, and in His eyes it’s a solemn commitment to be faithful to each other, no matter what happens.

No, for the one-thousandth time,God didn't give us marriage. Marriage far predates Christianity, and may even predate religion of any type. And if it's supposed to be such a solemn commitment, why does God allow divorce if the man finds his wife displeasing?

This is why the Bible commands us to avoid sexual relations outside of marriage.

Here's the thing though... It doesn't. Well, if you are a man that is. The Bible only commands sexual 'purity' from women. But that's partially because a virgin is worth more than a non virgin daughter. Dad has to make money off this after all. But do men have to practice sexual purity? A reading of the Bible doesn't place males with the same requirement. Heck, a man can rape an unwed woman and his only punishment is to pay her father and marry her. The Bible does talk about about the vague subject of fleeing 'sexual immorality'. But that could include any number of things.

Only then can true love flourish, and only then will your relationship grow stronger over the years.

But love can flourish by saving sex until after marriage and finding out that you aren't compatible at all?

At the moment, your boyfriend’s suggestion may be very tempting, but it’s filled with uncertainty and great risk, as many have discovered, to their sorrow. 

How the hell is wanting to move in together a decision filled with uncertainty? It's a choice one makes when they are sure they want to take the relationship to the next logical step. Yes, there is risk, but so is marriage. But what will create more sorrow... Moving in together and having it not work out, or getting married and having it not work out? I think that the answer to that one should be rather obvious.

-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Billy Graham: Lazy Kids!

QUESTION: I own a small business that hires a lot of young people, but I’m frustrated because I can’t find very many who are reliable and actually want to work. Doesn’t the Bible say we’re not supposed to be lazy? — D.E.

As far as DE's staffing troubles go, the Bible does have one solution. But it's far from a pleasant one...

ANSWER: Yes, the Bible certainly urges us to be responsible and diligent in our work, no matter who we are or what we’re doing. The Bible says, “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might” (Ecclesiastes 9:10).

To be fair, all that really says is to do your best when you do do something. I can get behind that. But it doesn't really have anything to say about laziness so much as quality of work...

One reason is because laziness will never give us the things we want, or even the things we need. More than that, others will suffer because of our slackness – not only our families, but society as a whole... But the Bible warns us against laziness for another reason: a lazy person isn’t making use of the abilities and gifts God has given them.

Too bad all of this doesn't jive with parts of the Bible. Remember that unsavory solution I mentioned for DE's staffing issues? The Bible has an answer in Leviticus 25:44...

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.

That's right! Slavery is the answer! I don't know about you, but I don't think that it gets much more lazy than slavery. And what's more, the Bible comes to the rescue when your slaves don't do as you tell them in Exodus 21:20-21...

If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

Maybe it's just me, but all of this sounds like God approved laziness that causes others to suffer. Exactly the kind of thing that Billy is actually claiming that the Bible is against.

-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Billy Graham: Prejudiced God

QUESTION: I enjoy my friend’s company, but sometimes he gets off on racial issues, and his intolerance and bigotry really make me very uncomfortable. I tried to say something to him about it once, but it just made him angry. How should I handle this? — W.J.

It sounds to me like WJ tried to do the right thing, and maybe has to give saying something about it another go. If he continues to react so strongly then there is a choice to be made. How often does this happen, and how much does it bother you? The answers to those questions will determine if you should just try to deal with it, try to reason with them, or cut ties completely.

Nope, God is totally against ethnic prejudices. He would never
put one people above another, much less order one destroyed,
right. Right...?

I can understand the confusion of people always being drawn toward certain issues. I know people that can and will turn any unrelated conversation on it's head and just bring up 'illegals', gays, or people on food stamps completely out of the blue. I have more than once found myself flabbergasted by the abrupt change of topic to something so unrelated. In many cases, I find that it's a case of people believing misconceptions, or watching too much Fox News. So don't feel disheartened. Sometimes the solution is just a few corrections to falsehoods they may have heard brandied about as fact from suspect sources.

ANSWER: Racial or ethnic prejudice is a sin in God’s eyes,

What?! Seriously, what!? Has Billy ever read the Bible? It is rife with God commanding his people to kill and conquer other peoples. Actually, the fact that he even chose one group of people to be his chosen ones and condemn those that were worshiping other gods is an obvious example of the Christian god playing favorites.

And when he's not telling his people to kill, he tells them to take their slaves from the nations around them. This is yet another example. One that was used by southern Christians to justify their claimed right to keep African slaves. Furthermore, holy books have even been used to claim that 'darkness of skin' was either the curse of Kain, or the curse God bestowed on Noah's son Ham and his descendants. The latter has been a common teaching in some Jewish and Christian sects (though it is far less common now).

and it should be wrong in our eyes, as well.

And to a lot of it it is wrong. The problem that religions have that Billy is ignoring, is that they can and are used to justify the very prejudices that he is claiming they are actually against...

How do we know this? We know it for many reasons, but most of all because Jesus Christ died on the cross to save people from every race and ethnic background. Even some of the earliest Christians had a hard time understanding this at first, but in time they did, and God confirmed it by bringing all kinds of people into His kingdom.

Sorry, but allowing anyone into Heaven doesn't make up for condoning the owning of people from other nations or ordering the slaughter of other peoples for incredibly petty reasons. The Bible still promotes ethnic prejudices any way you slice it.

What's more, God separates people for ridiculous reasons once more by destining some to Heaven and some to Hell. While this may not be ethnic or racially motivated, it is certainly proof that God certainly doesn't love everyone the same.

-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Outspoken Atheist?

I'm sure we've all heard the joke in a few different formats, but it generally goes like this: A vegan, an atheist, and a crossfitter walk into a bar. I only know because they told everybody within 2 min.

Okay, I guess it's a bit funny, but it also doesn't make much sense. As far as the atheism part goes, the joke would have you think that we go about bringing up religion constantly out of the blue. But this

hasn't been my experience at all.

By and large, many atheists are closeted. Depending where we live, just letting the fact that you don't believe can have serious ramifications. That said, when it comes to religious discussion, I am almost never the one to start the conversation. I know how annoying it can be when a believer brings Jesus and the Bible up out of nowhere, so similarly I don't bring up my non-belief unless it is relevant. Because of this there are many in my life that have no idea that I'm an atheist.

Perhaps believers act as though we are shouting our atheism from the rooftops because when the topic of religion does come up naturally in conversation, it is a topic that we tend to be very interested in. I know that I love talking theology. It's a topic that genuinely interests me. Sometimes I even find myself hoping the other party asks a certain question so that I have a chance to share a particular thought. But if that question or comment isn't uttered, I save that opinion or though for another day.

But the main reason I think believers may think that all atheists are outspoken is that we are memorable. Out of all the people they meet, we stand out because we have the audacity to not hold the same belief as them, or worse yet, we don't keep it to ourselves. It's comical in a way that a believer may consider me answering a question about belief with "Actually, I'm an atheist." as forcing my beliefs or being too vocal. How is that the case?


If I was asked by the door-to-door proselytizers if I know if I'm going to go to Heaven, isn't their outrage amazingly ironic? I simply honestly answered a question that they asked of me. And here they are going door-to-door, handing out tracts at a festival, or constantly asking anyone who will listen if they've heard the 'good news'. So please tell me... Which one of us is that one who can't shut up about our beliefs?

So, yes... It is a funny joke. But the reality is that it doesn't match up with reality. Perhaps the joke should be 'a Christian, rich man, and a show dog owner walk into a bar...'

-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Billy Graham: True Christians?

Q: Several of my friends are active church types, but I can't see that it makes any difference in the way they live. How do you explain this? I don't think they're any better than I am. -- C. McK.

To tell you the truth, none if this surprises me. In fact research has shown that societies that believe in an unforgiving god tend to be more peaceful that those that believe in a forgiving god. And should this really surprise us? Christianity teaches that any sin a believer commits will be forgiven. It's this flawed system that would see murderers enter Heaven, and serves as no deterrent to bad behavior if
they truly believe they will be forgiven.

A: If someone is sincerely committed to Jesus Christ, it will make a difference in the way he or she lives.

Like rapist priests and a Pope that tried to cover the whole thing up? Like the majority of US prisoners, who are Christians? Like the insanely devout who bomb abortion clinics and protest funerals? Sure, belief made a difference for them. But it wasn't a good difference.

It may only be in small ways at first, but over time that person's life will be different because Christ now lives within them. The Bible says, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come" (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Christ lives within them? Does that mean Jesus is going to pull out the Alien chestbuster routine, or is he more the explosive diarrhea type?

Only God knows, of course, whether or not your friends have truly believed in Christ. However, the Bible warns us against claiming we are following Christ, when in reality we aren't. We may claim to be Christians... we may say we're trying to live by the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount... we even may be active in a church, but we've never allowed Christ to take control of our lives. The Bible warns, "Faith without deeds is dead" (James 2:26).

You see, all Billy is trying to lay out here is the No True Scotsman Fallacy. It's a simple claim, but one that is easily combated with any amount of honest examination. Billy claims that belief will always make you a better person. But when presented with evidence that this isn't the case for someone, how is he to respond? Simple! Just claim that they aren't 'real Christians' and move on as if nothing ever happened. But this is dishonest. It ignores whether their belief is actually sincere. It ignores that by the very definition of what is required to be a Christian, they undoubtedly are.

It's but a sad attempt to try and redefine what something means in order to keep up the illusion that the initial claim is still true. But the truth is that the claim that belief always results in a positive change in the believer's life and actions is patently false.

History is full of believers and non-belivers alike who were good people and bad. Who lived rich lives or financially depressed ones. Belief has led some to end their life in hopes of Heaven, and it has drove many an innocent child to end their life because believers bullied them endlessly for being gay. Likewise, some claim that non-belief leads to an empty meaningless feeling toward life. This has not been my experience, but I don't pretend to speak for everyone.

So in the end, it's no surprise that there are believers that don't live saintly lives. That's because when you get right down to it, it's not your beliefs that matter but what kind of person you are independent of them.

-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter