Tiger doesn't claim to be following a higher moral code, does he? He doesn't claim "inspiration" or "guidance" from any "holy spirit" does he?He's never made any claims about being morally superior to others, has he?Contrast that with all the Repugs coming out of the closet, who were, until outed themselves, passing bills that opposed homosexuality.Think about that, and you'll get a clue.
I love being up to date on the latest atheist excuse making for atheists who are obviously, solidly and only anti-Christians; thank you.1. deny the fact that Woods claims to be a Buddhist and is therefore expected to be following that which Buddhism teaches about morality.2. cast a red herring on the path of the facts by throwing in an arbitrary statement about moral superiority when the issue is only morality in general, Woods' lack of it, and atheist who are strictly anti-Christian.3. set out a red herring feast by turning to politics, republicans and homosexuality.4. do it all knowing that you have nothing to base any of it on except for personal preferences that are based on personal preferences.Go it; thanks again.aDios,Mariano
I concur with the first comment. Tiger has done nothing that requires an apology to anyone but his wife. Frankly, his affairs are the business of no one besides his and his wife's. The rest is noise to sell papers.In fact, if you step down from your sanctimonious soapbox, you would realize that Tiger is not actively bilking John Q. Public out of billions in hard earned wages to provide "spiritual guidance" and path to "everlasting life" (try to get your money back for THAT when it doesn't turn out to be true!)Organized religion does wail on and on about morality and proper living and a better standard, while bilking billions in hard earned wages from even the most poor and needy. That is why everyone pounces so vehemently when the smugly righteous fall from grace. They get paid to model proper behavior, but even beyond that, they are supposed to be pointing the way to "heaven" through correct living. As you said, Tiger hits a ball with a stick.Comparison = FAIL!
Mariano continues his emotional rejection of atheism, derived from personal preferences which are based on personal preferences ;)Obviously, if Tiger Woods had been droning on and on for years about sexual restraint, he would be judged as a total hypocrite.The problem most people have with holier-than-thou Christians who fail their own moral demands is that they do not adhere to the moral code they expect of others. Pretty simple.a La idea sin evidencia,secularist10
Buddhists don't arrogantly claim that all morality stems from some aspect of their religion, that all other belief systems are flawed, and that it is persecuted while being in the majority.Christianity, on the other hand, does all of those things.Being dishonest with yourself, Mariano, is still dishonesty. For one who claims to belong to a religion that concerns itself with rejecting sin, you sure seem to love yours...
Wow a lot of assumptions...and name calling here but no answer to Mariano's challenge. Nothing, Must be because there is nothing to be said. Mariano's right. If a Buddhist makes a lapse in Moral judgment, it's between him and the peole who have suffered. If a Christian does it, then Bible is wrong and Christianity is false. That's not crying about persecution. Just making an observation. If as an atheist you don't use this double standard...great....but some of your brothers and sisters do. Why don't you go reign them in?
Marcus wrote no answer to Mariano's challengeAu contraire: Reynolds, Rex, secularist10 and I all explained why atheists tend to criticize Christians and not Buddhists. Honestly, you have to be TRYING to not see the answers posted here.
Marcus:I will definitely say that Buddhism is a backward system of belief based on ideas for which there is no evidence--like all religions.The difference is the vast number of prominent and not-so-prominent Christians in the US who condemn, judge and hold others to a higher standard than themselves. There just happens to be no such phenomenon in the Buddhist faith, although it could just as easily arise there, too.I disagree slightly with Whateverman in that the problem of hypocrisy is not with "Christianity" per se, but rather with many individual Christians. And there are many Christians that are not hypocrites.
Tiger doesn't claim to be following a higher moral code, does he? He doesn't claim "inspiration" or "guidance" from any "holy spirit" does he?While I'm not sure about any 'holy spirit,' I do believe he credits Buddhism for at least some moral guidance:http://news.iskcon.org/node/2559/2010-02-23/tiger_woods_returns_to_buddhism“Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves causes an unhappy and pointless search for security,” he said. “It teaches me to stop following every impulse and to learn restraint. Obviously I lost track of what I was taught.”No Holy Spirit there, but Woods does give credit for Buddhism for teaching self-restraint--i.e expecting him to follow 'a higher moral code.'That said, in reference to Rex, Secularist, and Whateverman, atheists, at least so far as I've seen, typically criticize Christianity not merely based on the hypocrisy of its loudest moralists--the guys who tell everyone should act a certain way on public TV and then act another privately--but on the simple fact that even Christians who aren't "loud" don't tend to act much better than everyone else.That said, Mariano, I don't agree with you entirely, I think the only reason atheists don't rail about Buddhism as much as that they don't see it as direct of a threat--if it was as popular as Christianity, they'd hate it as much. Hitchens, for instance, lambastes Buddhism in "God is not Great," though thankfully he doesn't go *quite* as far as to justify China's invasion of Tibet. Quite frankly, I think Christians, Buddhists, and religious people in general have something of a vested interest is sticking together against the atheists like the ones you see around this blog so much of the time. As the old saying goes, "we must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately.
Oops! A double comment there. Sorry about that, Mariano, my Internet connection has been acting up recently.
"Quite frankly, I think Christians, Buddhists, and religious people in general have something of a vested interest is sticking together against the atheists like the ones you see around this blog so much of the time."I find this line interesting. How are people who claim totally different things about the most essential and fundamental questions of life and the universe supposed to find common cause?It didn't seem to work out between Protestants and Catholics, historically--and they were both Christians! Drag Muslims and Shintoists into the mix, and I doubt such a project can result in much more than calls for "religious tolerance" and all that jazz...
Simple--as much as all of these groups hate each other, they all believe in God, gods, or the supernatural/life beyond death, to some degree. Therefore, for all their disagreements, every single one of them can agree that the atheists have got it wrong. That may be the only thing they can agree on, but it's something, at least.I would go on to talk about how religious tolerance is a good thing for religions in general (and nonbelievers, for that matter) but judging from your last sentence I don't think you're much fond of the concept. Please tell me if I'm, wrong, though, if you really would like to learn I'll explain further.
Secularist10 wrote the following to/about me: I disagree slightly with Whateverman in that the problem of hypocrisy is not with "Christianity" per se, but rather with many individual Christians. And there are many Christians that are not hypocrites.Point taken, although to be fair I didn't characterize Christianity as hypocritical. I would agree with you that there are plenty of reasonable theists of all stripe, not just Christian
Anonymous:"Therefore, for all their disagreements, every single one of them can agree that the atheists have got it wrong."Ah, interesting! Because I could easily say the following: Atheists, Humanists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Zoroastrians--for all their disagreements, every single one of them can agree that the Christians have got it wrong.It depends what exactly the "it" is. If you are referring to the existence of the supernatural, you might just be right. Although a big problem is, how do you define the supernatural? Pantheists, for example, would define it differently than theists.Also definitionally speaking, deists and polytheists may agree in very general terms on "the divine" but little else on its definition.On religious tolerance: "...but judging from your last sentence I don't think you're much fond of the concept."Actually I am fond of the concept. I was referring to the fact that typically when different religious leaders get together at this or that "summit" it typically produces little more than vague and empty rhetoric. That's better than violence, sure, but it just shows that religions, by their nature as having the "exclusive and absolute truth," are never going to have much in common, on an intellectual/ philosophical level.
If you are referring to the existence of the supernatural, you might just be right.I am. While I'm no anthropologist or expert in religious history, I define a 'supernaturalist' as anybody who believes in God (obviously) and/or gods (Hindus, Greek worshippers, etc.) and/or believes in some sort of afterlife or reincarnation (Buddhists, Shintoists--Sam Harris has flirted with Buddhism, IIRC, but I remember him mentioning that more work would have to be done on the subject and that he was still skeptical of reincarnation, so I doubt he's anything other than an atheist).Ah, interesting! Because I could easily say the following: Atheists, Humanists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Zoroastrians--for all their disagreements, every single one of them can agree that the Christians have got it wrong.A nice attempt, although I think I may have worded my intial post incorrectly. I hope this rephrasing makes it a bit clearer:"People of all religions can agree the supernatural exists (again, using the definition I gave above)."Thus, we run into problems building common ground among atheists, humanists, and religious folks--a conference among those kinds of people might go along the lines of, "Well, we can all agree that the Christians have got it wrong! What else can we agree on, the existence of the supernatural? Wait, that excludes you atheists! I guess we only have one thing to go off of." On the other hand, a conference of all religious folks might go something along the lines of, "Okay, we can all agree that the atheists are wrong. We can also agree that every last one of us believes in the supernatural. It might not be much, but at least there're two things to build a coalition off of--better than nothing."Okay, since you've shown interest, I'll make my argument for religious toleration in my next comment...
First off (and again, this is all off-the-cuff theorizing here, I'd have to actually go to the library to really write up a good summation of the history of religious tolerance--and even if I did, I'm no Jon Butler, at least not yet anyways :) ), what are the origins of religious toleration/liberty? Long story short, and forgive me for being cynical, but beyond the theological justifications liberal religionists might give, let's just assume, for the purposes of argument, that they're all deluded and that God doesn't really exist.So why might all these misguided, benighted people *want* to exist in relative peace and toleration (if not harmony) with each other if their non-existent Gods tell them to kill everybody else? Simple--they themselves don't want to die. One can't worship God if he's already gone to meet Him, after all. Historically, most folks would agree that when one religious group oppresses another, the moment the lose power the oppressed become the oppressors. When the Catholic Church attempted to stamp out Protestantism, in places the Protestants seized power they stamped out Catholicism (iconoclasm, whooo!). When Muslims blow up a church in Africa, Christians blow up a mosque.Now, all these believers may want their God to descend from heaven and kill everybody else, but since that's apparently not happening anytime soon they've all figured out by this point that the whole tit-for-tat cycle of violence is getting pretty tiresome. How to circumvent it? Tolerance. The Catholics don't kill Protestants, and in return, the Protestants will refrain from killing Catholics, and so on. It's hard to do, but in the end, this state of affairs is better for everybody, they can all agree--sure, it sucks for Catholics to have to tolerate that Protestant church across the street, but the cost is outweighed by the benefit of not having to worry about them wandering over to burn the Catholic church.So, beyond 'empty rhetoric,' nearly every religion has reasons to prefer tolerance to outright war, not because of philosophical common ground, but simply out of self-interest. It's not a coincidence that religious folks who place a small premium on their own lives (like suicide bombers) aren't so big on RT but most other religious folks are, at least nowadays, and to some extent.
You know, I was going to say something to backslap Mariano's idiotic self-righteous reply to me, but it seems everyone else has beaten me to it.Thanks.
Anonymous:I am very familiar with the historical roots of religious tolerance. In fact, I wrote a post dealing with this topic on my blog, and its relationship with secularism, if you are interested:http://100treatises.com/2009/12/why-religious-freedom-requires-secularism/I was not referring to history or the straightforwardly obvious value of true tolerance from a survival standpoint. I was referring to the modern day, where "tolerance" has become almost a cliche. It is an ideal, like nuclear arms reduction, that almost everyone of consequence agrees with.But just coming together every once in a while for the purpose of affirming, reaffirming, and then reaffirming again, the importance of tolerating and respecting each other, (1) is not necessary, because again all people of consequence agree with that, (2) has little utility in the real world beyond photo-ops, (3) does not help to really combat the negatives and extremism of religion, insofar as the people who are reaffirming their tolerance of each other are already tolerant.So I guess the religious will get together and say (1) the atheists are wrong, and (2) there is a supernatural. Whereas if atheists and other-non Christians got together they would only say (1) the Christians are wrong.So... 2 items is better than 1. Big accomplishment.
Hello again, secularist10, and thank you for the link to your blog. To go on a bit more about the subject of tolerance:But just coming together every once in a while for the purpose of affirming...2 items is better than 1. Big accomplishment.I agree, mere rhetoric, no matter how nice it sounds, won't do much practical good. However, let's go back to the question you original asked:Me: "Quite frankly, I think Christians, Buddhists, and religious people in general have something of a vested interest is sticking together against the atheists like the ones you see around this blog so much of the time."You: I find this line interesting. How are people who claim totally different things about the most essential and fundamental questions of life and the universe supposed to find common cause?What 'common cause' they can find? The same common cause I described in my comment about the sources of religious tolerance--basic survival. While I won't generalize all atheists and/or secularists, I think it's fair to say that a significant proportion of you folks, particularly in what has been termed the 'New Atheist' movement, think that *all* religions, not just Christianity, are Bad Things that must be stamped out (again, Christopher Hitchens is a good example of this, lambasting Buddhism almost as eagerly as he lambastes Christianity and Islam). What will happen if folks like that ever acquire power? *All* religions will find themselves in quite a bit of a pickle. Therefore, just as they have an interest tolerating each other because of basic survival (again, tit-for-tat violence got annoying), they have an interest in presenting a united front against at least certain atheists, because if they spend too much time quarreling amongst themselves, they might be unable to effectively resist someone like Mr. Hitchens acquiring a position of great political power, which would more likely than not result in the destruction of all of them.
Anonymous:I would make three points. (1) the funny thing is that the greatest amount of oppression and suffering on the part of religious people historically has been at the hands of other religious people, **for religious reasons**-—proportionally speaking,(2) when most of us talk about stamping out religion, it is in reference to the marketplace of ideas, not using the totalitarian power of the state (although that would play very well into Christian prejudices in particular); and Hitchens is not quite the villain you make him out to be(3) Hitchens and Dawkins and others are right when they say that atheism—-that is, nonbelief in god or gods-—does not in and of itself logically force a person to commit acts of violence; by contrast, if one believes in god, and defines god in a certain way, it is very possible for them to end up assuming that god wants them to commit harm, and to therefore commit harm---a logical, reasonable person can do this.The bottom line is that the real threat you are referring to comes not from atheists per se, or religious people per se, but rather from hardcore extremists of any belief system—-extreme Christians, extreme Muslims, extreme Atheists, extreme Communists, extreme Fascists, or whomever.
Thanks for your comments, secularist10, In response to point 1:True, but this is because it has only been fairly recently that atheists have been able to acquire significant amounts of political power. Were I living in the 18th century, I would agree that religious people have more to fear from each other than you folks, but living in the 21st century, that is no longer such an easy case to make.2:"Most" of you, maybe, but then again, "most" Christians would not shoot an abortionist and "most" Muslims would not fly planes into building. In reference to Hitchens, it does seem like I'm being hard on him, but to be perfectly frank my suspicions of the man run from the descriptions his fellow atheists have given of him. Check this out:http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/ffrf_recap.phpThe money quote: Basically, what Hitchens was proposing is genocide. Or, at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again.And before you accuse the author of this for 'playing into Christian prejudices,' he is an atheist who hates religion even more than you do. If even he thinks Mr. Hitchens was just a bit more bloodthirsty than is healthy, I think I can be forgiven if I choose not to vote for the man if he or anyone like him decides to run for office.3:I will not argue that point here, but for the purposes of argument let as agree that 'mere" atheism (i.e just lacking belief in God/s) cannot lead to violence, but certain beliefs which are related to atheism (for instance, the belief that religion is a bad thing that must be stamped out) certainly can. For instance, if I believed the persistence of religious beliefs might eventually lead to nuclear war, I could quite easily justify on rational grounds sending thousands of believers to the gulags, on the basis that the harm caused by killing religious people is outweighed by the benefits of destroying religion, i.e reducing the risks of nuclear war and the extinction of humanity.In the end, however, to keep myself from arguing overmuch, I will say that I agree quite heartily with you when you say the threat to everyone comes from extremists of any stripe, religious or no. Indeed, that might also be another unifying banner for moderates to get behind, out of mere self interest. Even moderate Catholics have an interest in joining together with Jews and Protestants against Catholic extremists, since after those fellows finish Inquisitioning out all the Non-Catholics they might turn on their Catholic brethren for being insufficiently zealous. By the same token, even a 'secularist' like you can find common cause with someone like Mariano in opposing the excesses of someone like Mr. Hitchens, since I assume both of you feel there are better ways to cure Muslims of Islam (in your case, turning them into atheists, in Mariano's case, turning them into Christians) than "just killing them."
Anonymous:It seems there is little to contest at this point. I will just say, from the PZ Myers article, this to me is the "money" quote:"He seemed unable to comprehend that people could despise and oppose all religion, Christian, Moslem, or otherwise, yet have no desire to triumph by causing physical harm to the believers. I've noticed the same intellectual blindness in many Christians, actually."The danger is primarily blindness/ narrow-mindedness, not any particular ideology per se. However, what is so interesting is that religion, unto itself, necessarily leads to a significant amount of narrow-mindedness, because it requires large amounts of blind faith without proof. Atheism, as a faith without evidence, also crosses into that territory, but just not as bad because it does not assume nearly as much without evidence as a religion."By the same token, even a 'secularist' like you can find common cause with someone like Mariano in opposing the excesses of someone like Mr. Hitchens..."No, I don't want to turn anyone into atheists, because atheism is another faith, although it would be an improvement. However, if you read some of the posts on this blog, I think you will find that Mariano is often just as emotional and simplistic towards atheism as Hitchens is toward religion. Maybe the two of them should come together and form an anti-moderate coalition?
I would agree with you in regards to blindness/narrow-mindedness, though, I suppose, it is debatable whether or not atheism is "not as bad" merely because it "does not assume nearly as much without evidence." For the purposes of argument, then, let us agree for the moment that atheism is preferable to religion, and thus agree that turning Muslim populations into atheists would be more preferable to "just killing them," with the caveat that there is still something better than atheism out there (I assume you're an agnostic? In that case, I suppose you'd prefer converting Muslims to agnosticism rather than just killing them as Hitchens would, then. If you're not agnostic, though, pardon me). So again, we agree, moderates like you and Mariano have at least some common interest in fending off extremists of all stripes--Mariano would want to make common cause with you in fending off Christian extremists, since after those people are done with you they'd probably come after him for not being Catholic/Baptist/etc. enough, and you would want to make common cause with him in fending off people like Hitchens, since you don't want to kill anybody, you just want to convert them to...well, if not atheism, then whatever it is you feel to be the most rational position.And yes, secularist10, I still count Mariano as a 'moderate,' at least compared to Hitchens. I haven't been hanging around this blog for long, so since you have seniority over me, I would of course be happy to be pointed in the direction of any posts which prove the contrary, but even if Mariano and Hitchens are equally emotional and simplistic in their rejections of atheism/theism respectively, Mariano seems to me to be distinctly less dangerous. I've been poking around this blog for a month now, and while I've seen Mariano badmouth atheists (and Muslims, Buddhists, etc.), as far as I know he hasn't called for killing anybody. Not only that, but in terms of his personal conduct he seems rather open-minded and even-handed, IMO--Reynold (and plenty of other atheists, for that matter) have called him names, insulted him and other commentators, and generally made nuisances of themselves, but so far as I can tell Mariano hasn't banned any of them.Now, perhaps that's more indicative of the fact that he doesn't pay attention to comments than of any open-mindedness or dedication to free speech, but still, when you combine that with the fact that Mariano hasn't called for "just killing" anybody, I think you can see why I'd rather be on his side than Hitchens', even if I don't agree with everything our host says. ;)
Yes, I suppose most would call me an agnostic.And yes, Mariano has not called for killing anyone (although I would caution against taking PZ Myers' account vis-a-vis Hitchens at face value; the former seems a staunch political liberal quick to demonize on "war on terror" issues).But I don't consider Mariano a "moderate" per se because he often, not always, gets into unnecessary personalistic stuff, and his writing often betrays an emotionalism on these issues. You asked for examples, well here you go:========================http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2010/03/interesting-facts-american-humanist_11.htmlQuote from Mariano: "The American Humanists Association is one of the groups that collected donated money to fund self-serving ad campaigns instead of helping people in need during a time of worldwide recession."Now, is that really necessary? Clearly it's just a below-the-belt casting of aspersions that any fair-minded person knows is unwarranted, especially since the same could be said of many Christian groups that count missionary activity as "charity." We all can't be saints, like Mariano.============================http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2010/03/richard-dawkins-outraged-atheists-lose.htmlIn reference to Richard Dawkins' face and a picture of a monster in a video game, Mariano said:"Now, I do not know about “slack-jawed…” and all of that but…is it just me or does his photo from The Times bare a striking resemblance to the video game that is being advertised right along side of it?—you be the judge."Classy, Mariano.=============================http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/07/atheist-neo-paganism-in-other-words.htmlIn reference to a quote from Dawkins, he said:"Well, just because something is awe-inspiring, aesthetically appealing, uplifting and transcendent does not mean that it is true."Never mind the fact that Dawkins was making no such claim. This is called a straw man--something Mariano does often."Whatever the case, the claim, the observation, the speculation may be: Darwinismdidit."Again, straw man, and a deliberate misunderstanding of what truly informed Evolutionists believe/ argue--he does this often.=================================http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/09/richard-dawkins-greatest-show-on-earth.htmlOn Dawkins' book on evolution he said:"Yet, we will have to see what the book actually contains. Richard Dawkins has claimed that “it is not intended as an antireligious book” but what does “intended” mean? Is he even capable of positively affirming something that he believes without premising it on anti-theistic sentiments?"Yeah, what does "intended" mean? Huh? Huh?! I smell a conspiracy...lol. Mariano simply does not like Richard Dawkins the person, and thus assumes everything the man thinks and does is with the intention of bringing down religion.=======================================Finally, this entire post seems to be for the purpose of mocking and character assassinating Dawkins:http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/06/is-richard-dawkins-still-alive.html
Hi secularist10,I think we're coming close to agreement here. I've seen the posts you mention, and while I will refrain from calling Mariano an asshole or any other name (this is *his* blog, after all, and most folks who insult their hosts can often be more accurately termed 'assholes' than the hosts themselves), I do agree with you, I think that no matter how strongly he feels about atheism or Christianity or whatever, he has an obligation to be fair, and he most definitely hasn't been fair to Dawkins or his other ideological opponents, at least on certain occasions, though.Again, however, I would still call him a moderate, albeit an emotional one sometimes prone to ungentlemanly personal attacks. As you mentioned, he hasn't called for killing anyone, and even if Myers was misrepresenting hitchens (still unlikely--you're right that Myers is anti-war, but he's so fervently pro-atheism it seems improbable he would intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent one of his co-irreligionists unfavorably unless he absolutely had to), I could still pick out more examples of atheists who are perhaps less circumspect about the use of force than even Mariano. Check out this charming post from the now defunct "unorthodox atheism" blog, courtesy of the Wayback Machine:http://web.archive.org/web/20071114075457/unorthodoxatheism.blogspot.com/2007/11/i-think-youre-all-idiots-prove-me-wrong.htmlA reader asked the proprietor of the blog, "Reed, if you're so adamant about nuking the hell out of them then please think about exactly what you're saying. I'll hand you the button that sends off those nukes, and you can fire it. You can live with the knowledge that you are personally responsible for the deaths of countless numbers of innocent people. You can live with the knowledge that you've completely destroyed an area of all life for the next few thousand years." His response:I can live with the knowledge that I destroyed a violent area of our globe that threatened to end all of our lives But the overwhelming majority of the “innocent” people you talk about are training their children to hate the Western World and support the terrorists who kill us and strike fear into our hearts. I wouldn’t necessarily call them innocent. They don’t want to share our world with us; we don’t have to share our world with them...If you have that button, I'd like to see it.And that's not someone else's summation, that's straight from the blog itself. So at the very least, I think we can agree on this: As emotional and sometimes unfair as our host can be, at least he's not so blase about nuking anybody--which makes him just a wee bit more 'moderate' than at least one atheist (and maybe two) we can think of, which means you and he would both have an interest in standing together against extremists, no? :)
Well, it depends on the exact definition of "extremist" (I wouldn't say one necessarily has to be violent to be an extremist). But sure, I have no doubt that there would be plenty of stuff Mariano and I could agree on, morally as well as practically--I never doubted that. Indeed, I know we both value life and eschew unnecessary violence, for example.When I refer to "common cause" or "moderates" it is a bit more discriminating than just the bare minimum of survival or violence. So, yeah, obviously give me a devout peace-loving Muslim over a sociopathic atheist secularist any day of the week. I'll take Gandhi over Stalin, in other words. But I'm more interested in ideological or philosophical substance, long after nonviolence has been agreed upon, which seems pretty elementary to me.
The point is pointing out the hypocrisy and the overwhelming amount of people who are the leaders for the moralistic religious movements who inevitably become the biggest perpetrators of the very thing they claim they are against.Go ahead and make your excuses for why so many priest who claim to channel the word of god are child molesters. Look at Haggard... the evangelical who made it his lifes mission to speak against homosexuality yet got arrested cheating on his wife with a man and snorting speed. Or consider the 10+ congressmen and senators who belong to christian groups and gave clinton hell for getting a blow job... but have all been busted cheating on their wives as well.Its a matter of hypocrisy... the "real" "christians" are just as guilty of judgment for they are deeming themselves the "real" "christians" and others note. Jesus says time and time again in the bible to relinquish all your possessions... then you will get the glory in heaven... there are no "real" "christians". It is impossible in todays world to follow what christ said implicitly. Religion is dead except to those who have unfortunately been persuaded by charlatans to live their life for their death rather than to live their life.If god existed... I would say...Impeach God!... For he made a shitty world full of hate and sorrow with the false promise of a better somewhere else that doesnt exist.
Anonymous above me, you do know that the reason it seems that Catholic priests seems to be synonymous to pedophilia is because it was OVERbroadcasted. Seriously, every time there's an incident like that, news agency always bear down and people, religious or not, left or right, criticized the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, Child Abuse in Public School is 10 times more likely and yet there seems to be nothing on that. Go figure.Relinquish all your possession does not mean throwing out everything you need to live. Take a look at Zaccheus, he did not relinquish all his possessions and yet Jesus said that he was saved. Maybe you should read the bible ;)"Religion is dead" ROTFLMAO! Heh, that was funny.Shitty world? Some of us actually likes the world the way it is thank you very much. Yes it could be better, but I don't think it's a complete crapsack world either.BTW, how does any of this have anything to do with this article? :confused:
Latest Hot Entertainment News, Latest updata about Bollywood, hollywood, pakistani Girlshotentertainnews.blogspot.com
Jobs at your Home, Internet Online Jobs like data entry, copy pasting, Form Filling, Facebook Sharing Jobs, Clicking Jobs, Web Surfing, Google Jobs and Much More Earning Systems Onlinewww.jobzcorner.com
Many of the Online Jobs and Online Earning System in internet online Business, but here is a best and legit online earning systems with life time opportunity.www.jobzcorner.com
Free Social Media Marketing where Every thing will be Free, Facebook Likes, Twitter Followers, Twitter Tweets, Twitter Re-Tweets, Twitter Favorites, Google Plus Followers, StumbleUpon Followers, Youtube Views, Youtube Likes, Youtube Subsribes, Pinterest Followers, Pinterest Likes, Pinterest PinIt, Free Website Visitors.Just Join now and Free Increase your Social Media Networks.GetLikeFast.com
Free Facebook Likes, Free Targeted Facebook Likes, Make Unlimited Likes on your Facebook Fan Page, Facebook Share, Facebook Followers, Facebook Post Like and Share, Twitter Followers, Twitter Tweets, Twitter Favorites, Google Follow, LinkedIn share, Youtube Views Likes and SubscribesSocial Media Marketing is the easy way to increase your Folow Likes and Subsribesgetlikefast.com
Any thing you want in Entertainment for Fun... Entertainment Articles, Entertainment News, Entertainment Pictures, Bollywood, Hollywood and Lollywood Pictures and Videos, Entertainment Latest updates, Hot Entertainment News and Pictures Funny Entertainment Pictures, lol Pictures, Funny Pictures and Much More Fun Only on 1 Current Affairs Networkhotcurrentaffairs.com
Earn Money with Facebook, Just Post a Picture on Facebook and Get Earning on Every post, Social Media is the best way to earn money online and Facebook is the Most popular website in the World, You can Join any where in the World and Get Earnings with UsFacebook Sharing, Facebook Wall Sharing and Earn with Jobz Cornerjobzcorner.com
Earn Money Launch a New Earning System on Facebook, the best Social Media Website where you can share some fun and earn with us, Share some pictures on Facebook and earn on every pictures you post or share. Unlimited Facebook Wall Sharing and Unlimited Earning.Earn with Making Facebook Ids, Make Unlimited Facebook Ids and Get 10$ on Every FB Id. jobzcorner.com
Online Marketing is the Best way to increase your income and Get online visitors or Customer on your company. Many Marketing Way like Facebook Marketing, Website Marketing, SMS Marketing, Products Marketing and Social Media Marketing such as Facebook Likes, Twitter Follow, Youtube Views and Much More International Advertising Systems, Just VisitHotCurrentAffairs.com
Now you Get all in one Network, ThatIsLol.. Lol Pictures, Lol Videos, Lol Peoples, Funny Peoples, Troll Images, troll pictures, funny pictures, Facebook pictures, facebook funny pictures, facebook lol pictures, Funny videos and Much More only Laughing out of Laughinglolsgag.com
Upcoming Latest cars and vehicles, Latest Mazda Models, Racing Cars, International Sport Cars, Concept Cars, PS-Pod, Strange Vehicles, Nissan, Royce Corniche, Ford Concept Cars, Strange Vehicles, Mercedes and More Sport Cars and Vehicles with Pictures and InfoWorldLatestVehicles.com
Lols Gag is the the Best Lol Network Ever, where you can every thing is lol and Funny, Troll Images, Prank Peoples, Funny Peoples, funny planet, funny facts, funny cartoons, funny movies pics, iphone funny, funny jokes, Prank Images, Fail Pictures, Epic Pictures, Lols and Gags, Lol Pictures, Funny Pictures, Lol is the Laugh out of Laugh where you can Fun Unlimited and Laughing Unlimited.lolsgag.com
Every thing will be Free, Facebook Likes, Twitter Followers, Twitter Tweets, Twitter Re-Tweets, Twitter Favorites, Google Plus Followers, StumbleUpon Followers, Youtube Views, Youtube Likes, Youtube Subsribes, Pinterest Followers, Pinterest Likes, Pinterest PinIt, Free Website Visitors.Just Join now and Free Increase your Social Media Networks.GetLikeFast.com
Trading is the Best Business Ever in the World.. All News updates about Forex Business, Latest Currency news updates, latest forex trading business updates, trading updates, forex trading latest news, forex brokers directory, forex brokers list, Dollars news affairs, Stock Markets, stock market news, stock market analysis, technology news, international forex markets, international forex business news and all updates about Forex TradingForexAffairs.Com
Just for Laugh Lols, where you can every thing is lol and Funny, Troll Images, Funny Vidoes, Prank Peoples, Funny Peoples, Prank Images, Fail Pictures, Epic Pictures, Epic Videos, Prank Videos, Fail Videos and Much More Fun and Entertainment, Lols and Gags, Lol Pictures, Lol Videos, Funny Pictures, Lol is the Laugh out of Laugh where you can Fun Unlimited and Laughing Unlimited.lolsgag.com
Classified Sites, Pakistani Classified Sites, USA Classifieds, Indian Classifieds, Entertainment Articles, Entertainment News, Entertainment Pictures, Bollywood, Hollywood and Lollywood Pictures and Videos, Entertainment Latest updates, Hot Entertainment News and Pictures Funny Entertainment Pictures, lol Pictures, Funny Pictures and Much More Fun Only on 1 Current Affairs Networkhotcurrentaffairs.com
Top Ten Classified Website List, Pakistani Classified Sites, USA Classifieds, Indian Classifieds, Entertainment Articles, Entertainment News, Entertainment Pictures, Bollywood, Hollywood and Lollywood Pictures and Videos, Entertainment Latest updates, Hot Entertainment News and Pictures Funny Entertainment Pictures, lol Pictures, Funny Pictures and every thing you want...www.hotcurrentaffairs.com
Lol is the Laugh out of Laugh where you can Fun Unlimited and Laughing Unlimited. The Best Lol n Troll Network with the Name of Lols Gag... Troll Images, Prank Peoples, Funny Peoples, funny planet, funny facts, funny cartoons, funny movies pics, iphone funny, funny jokes, Prank Images, Fail Pictures, Epic Pictures, Lols and Gags, Lol Pictures, Funny Pictures.LoLsGag.Coma
Join for Best Online Home based JobsJobzCorner