Skip to content

Religious Copouts

July 1, 2009

Any time someone writes something critical of religion they will get one of two different responses: apologetics and/or copouts. If a religion needs apologetics then it was clearly not created by “the most intelligent thing ever” and can be ignored. Religious copouts are appeals to magical forces or the issue being some failure on the doubter’s part that cannot be proven and removes the burden of proof from the commenter. Here are some of the ones I see often and annoy me the most:

  • You’ve already been given all the evidence you need.
    Then why the hell am I asking for more?
  • You weren’t sincere enough in your prayers.
    How can anyone make that kind of judgment? Are these people suddenly psychic? Do they know they can make $1,000,000 for that over at the Jame Randi Educational Foundation?
  • You have to believe first and then you’ll see the evidence.
    I can no more make myself believe without evidence in a god then I could that there are communist reptilians controlling the U.N. I’m not capable of believing without an acceptable amount of evidence.
  • God hides the true message of the scripture from you unless you have the holy ghost.
    Let me get this straight. The only way to become a Christian is to read your bible, and the only way to read your bible is to be a Christian. That’s real smart.
  • God is talking to you, but you aren’t listening.
    I’m listening as best as I can, if that’s not good enough for your god then I guess I’m just screwed.
  • Your heart is hardened against God.
    No, I’m just a skeptic and I don’t have the burden of proof. You do.
  • I’ll pray for you.
    This usually pops up when the believer has exhausted all of their arguments and just wants to throw out a final passive-aggressive “fuck you”. My usual response is “and I’ll think for you”.

I’ve very likely missed some “good” copouts so if you come up with one put it in the comments.

Advertisements
28 Comments
  1. Schevus permalink
    July 1, 2009 7:12 am

    Unfortunately since as you’ve stated in the past, there is no way to prove a god exists and faith is a personal experience there is no way a theist will ever satisfy your questioning. Therefore the only point in further questioning is deconversion, but you don’t seem to understand that. You always seem like you want them to come out with some super secret rational explanation for a god and that’s never going to happen.

    – Schev

    • July 1, 2009 12:55 pm

      We have to make them embarrassed of their faith, that way they look at it rationally. I hear about deconversions like that all the time. You have to fight the crazy so that the few non-crazies can hear you.

    • July 2, 2009 10:13 am

      Be fair, its not that there is no theist that will ever satisfy our questioning, its that there is no evidence with which to support their beliefs. Burden of proof and all that is not on us, its on the theist, and god damn them for having irrational beliefs.

      All they need is a little bit of evidence that is more than a tome or personal experience, something that is scientific and objective and I’ll gladly be interested in seeing it through to its bitter end. The problem is that theists play games with words, logical forms, and assertions and think that is enough to jump into the “I follow God” boat.

      I don’t.

      • July 2, 2009 2:35 pm

        Exactly so. Notice that the case is just the same as if we were challenging people who believed in the literal existence of unicorns or vampires. Such people could never satisfactorily answer the questions — because unicorns and vampires actually don’t exist, not because the questions would be unreasonable.

        Notice that all the cop-outs listed could just as well apply, with a little tweaking of wording, to parry atheistic challenges to Islam or Hinduism or the worship of Aton-Ra (or maybe even unicorns). The point of all of them is to tear down the standard of needing evidence to believe something. Once that’s accepted, there’s no reason to favor one unsupported belief over any other.

  2. Greg permalink
    July 1, 2009 11:56 am

    “God is super-duper mysterious and its impossible to understand him”

    So then what makes you an expert?

  3. PStryder permalink
    July 1, 2009 2:46 pm

    The one that bugs me most is “You just have to have faith.”

    NO, I don’t. I HAVE to have evidence.

  4. July 2, 2009 7:26 am

    “If a religion needs apologetics then it was clearly not created by “the most intelligent thing ever” and can be ignored.”

    Wow, that is an ignorant statement. First of all, religion was not created by “the most intelligent thing ever”. It was created by man to but the God of the Universe inside a box. So to clear the air…This response is not a case for religion, it’s a case for God.

    Now, back to your quote…What kind of logic are you using here? If something needs to be argued for then it can be ignored? Umm, OK.

    I wonder how that argument would have held up in the Brown v. Board of Education case. “I’m sorry your honor, but honestly if equality needs apologetics then it clearly is a horrible idea and can be ignored.”

    Let’s be honest for a minute. The reality is that the world needs apologetics because people have rejected God’s truth. And just like the ignorant people who rejected equality, it takes a good argument for “morality” and “absolutes” to open people eyes to the truth.

    The God of the Bible has made himself clearly known through his word. Any good apologist needs nothing more than the word of God to argue for his creator, just like any good atheist needs to do nothing more than ignore the word of God to reject his existence.

    • July 2, 2009 11:55 am

      First of all, if you’re arguing for a God who punishes sinners and intervenes in the daily lives of all humans and insects then you are apologizing for a religion. Saying you are not is just going to make you sound like a “new ager”.

      Apologetics is a way to try and explain away the inconsistencies in your respective religion or try to gloss over them in such a way as to not see them as important.

      If one hundred years from now all Christians have been removed from the planet, for whatever reason, and a non-Christian found a bible with none of your apologia material to go along side it, he would become a very different kind of Christian than you are.

      “Let’s be honest for a minute. The reality is that the world needs apologetics because people have rejected God’s truth.”

      The shear fact that your book doesn’t stand on it’s own is proof it was not “written” or “inspired” or “vomited out of” the creator of the universe, a being such as this would obviously be smart enough to have produced a better book, one that when anyone read it they could clearly see the profound logic of the decisions and commandments of said god.

    • S.S. permalink
      August 10, 2009 8:52 am

      In a sense the christian bible was created by man but certainly the book, as it stands today, was not a goal in mind at the time. Pockets of believers from this group and that wrote down what inspired them, poems, songs and letters were written and much later a self-apointed ‘we-speak-for-god’ group decided what would and would not be included. This process, if I remember correctly, was almost completely influenced by Constantine spurred on by political asperations (and I have left out a lot I realize in putting this all down into one paragraph) so the book being passed around today is purely an invention of man and marketing.

      And after having read this book I can say, without hesitation, that it is poorly written. If a god inspired and acted as editor in its creation then that god, by any standard today, was a literary hack.

  5. July 2, 2009 10:19 am

    It is a bit on the silly side to suggest that an all powerful all knowing god that is also spiteful and sexually repressed would allow one of his creations to write something in a book about him without checking facts and or correcting it. This is the same god who sent a child of his own to sacrifice himself to himself, and the same god who stayed a mans hand mid chop… but when the book was being written to convey his existence to the world he decided to just sit back and relax?

    I dont buy it.

    God is clearly not making himself known through his word if people of this age are being converted out of religion by reading the bible.

    • S.S. permalink
      August 10, 2009 8:54 am

      To go to one’s death without struggle, to welcome it and invite it … is this not seen today as being suicidal?

      Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t suicide, in religious realms, a sin?

  6. July 2, 2009 12:06 pm

    A friend of mine quoted someone called Donald Miller in a blog comment the other day:

    “Sooner or later you just figure out there are some guys who don’t believe in God and they can prove He doesn’t exist, and some other guys who do believe in God and they can prove He does exist, and the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it’s about who is smarter, and honestly I don’t care.”

    Which strikes me as something of a cop-out. We chat about religion a lot, but she’s never tried to convince me that her god exists, it’s generally just a pretty healthy exchange of ideas. But just because both sides have passionate proponents with things to say, doesn’t mean it’s a stalemate, and just because sometimes ego can get in the way of the debate, doesn’t mean the entire discussion is a fruitless dick-swinging contest. I don’t accept that I’m just trying to prove how clever I am, I’ve reached a conclusion based on my assessment of the evidence.

    It’s not like it’s just an abstract bunch of “some guys” on each side, either. We’ve both taken a position, so it’s not like she’s occupying the objective, dispassionate middle ground.

    Hmm, apparently I was grumpier about this than I thought.

  7. July 2, 2009 1:31 pm

    [If] a non-Christian found a bible with none of your apologia material to go along side it, he would become a very different kind of Christian than you are.

    Yikes! That comes across as a bit presumptuous, since you don’t know anything about me or the kind of Christian I am…but let’s roll with your thought process for a minute because I like where it takes us.

    I don’t argue with your point, but actually it does more to prove the point I was attempting to make then it does to disprove it.

    If someone picked up the Bible for the first time, read it, had their God-hating heart transformed by the Holy Spirit, and then put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ and his work on the cross; then yes you are correct they would be a different kind of Christian than most Christians today. They would be a biblical Christian and not just a ‘christian’ by name or heritage. The differences between a religious person and a Christian are great my friend. Read the bible if you don’t understand what I mean. Most of Jesus’ harsh words were reserved for the ‘religious’ people of his day. Why? Because their self-righteousness and man-made rules where keeping them from acknowledging their dependence on God. Religion does not save people. Jesus saves people.

    “The shear fact that your book doesn’t stand on it’s own is proof it was not “written” or “inspired” or [blah-blah-blah] by the creator of the universe, a being such as this would obviously be smart enough to have produced a better book…”

    Although it’s nice [Mr. Almighty] to know how you would play God, given the chance, the reality is you are not. The Bible does stand on its own. And quite frankly any attempts by anyone to add to it [or take away from it for that matter] actually cause more harm to the God inspired message than good. If Christians, in their approach to sharing the gospel, simply shared scripture, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation right now. But instead man, in our pride, has tried to take the perfect word of God and add to it a message that doesn’t add up with what’s being said, and now people are thoroughly confused. What a shame. Fortunately for us, the responsibility of conversation doesn’t fall on us.

    • Phlox permalink
      July 7, 2009 12:54 pm

      “[…] to take the perfect word of God and add to it a message that doesn’t add up with what’s being said, and now people are thoroughly confused.”

      Translation: You say people are confused because they tried to make sense of the Bible. Well, they would be. The Bible doesn’t even settle on only one scheme of the creation of Adam and Eve.
      Next time, your God should hire better secretaries… or at least an editor.

      Although, when I think about it: fearmongering and indoctrination seemed to work quite well, too.

    • S.S. permalink
      August 10, 2009 9:28 am

      “If someone picked up the Bible for the first time, read it, had their God-hating heart transformed by the Holy Spirit, and then put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ and his work on the cross […]”

      The point, I think, is that someone picking up that book for the first time would have a hard time getting through it let alone being transformed and suddenly believing in this inconsistant god. Without being indoctrined into the faith I would hazard a guess that very people indeed would be swayed by what’s written on those pages. And it’s odd that you assume that someone not aware of your god or religion is automatically god-hating. One would have to believe in that god first to hate him.

      “… and his work on the cross …” — that was work? Seemed more like he was some poor man duped into believing a god would swoop down and rescue him from a certain, painful death. Then again, dying like that would be work, of the most horrific kind.

      “The Bible does stand on its own. And quite frankly any attempts by anyone to add to it [or take away from it for that matter] actually cause more harm to the God inspired message than good.”

      And your all powerful, all knowing god what, was gone on vacation while nasty humans mucked about over centuries with his perfect words? Your god would allow that?

      Oh, this does lead to some cop-outs:

      I can’t pretend to know the heart of god.

      God moves in mysterious ways.

      In the end, all will be revealed, all your questions answered. (With ‘the end’ being after I’m dead.)

      This reminds me of John and Mary — and Hank.

      This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well-groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

      “Hi! I’m John, and this is Mary.”

      Mary: “Hi! We’re here to invite you to come kiss Hank’s ass with us.”

      Me: “Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who’s Hank, and why would I want to Kiss his ass?”

      John: “If you kiss Hank’s as, he’ll give you a million dollars; and if you don’t, he’ll kick the shit out of you.”

      Me: “What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shakedown?”

      John: “Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever he wants, and what he wants is to give you a million dollars, but he can’t until you kiss his ass.”

      Me: ” That doesn’t make any sense. Why …”

      Mary: ” Who are you to question Hank’s gift? Don’t you want a million dollars? Isn’t it worth a little kiss on the ass?”

      Me: “Well maybe, if it’s legit, but … ”

      John: “Then come kiss Hank’s ass with us.”

      Me: “Do you kiss Hank’s ass often?”

      Mary: “Oh, yes, all the time …”

      Me: “And has he given you a million dollars?”

      John: “Well no, you don’t actually get the money until you leave town.”

      Me: “So why don’t you just leave town now?”

      Mary: “You can’t leave until Hank tells you to, or you don’t get the money, and he kicks the shit out of you.”

      Me: “Do you know anyone who kissed Hank’s ass, left town, and got the million dollars?”

      John: “My mother kissed Hank’s ass for years. She left town last year, and I’m sure she got the money.”

      Me: “Haven’t you talked to her since then?”

      John: “Of course not. Hank doesn’t allow it.”

      Me: “So what makes you think he’ll actually give you the money if you’ve never talked to anyone who got the money?”

      Mary: ” Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you’ll get a raise, maybe you’ll win a small lotto, maybe you’ll just find a twenty dollar bill on the street.”

      Me: “What’s that got to do with Hank?”

      John: “Hank has certain ‘connections’.”

      Me: “I’m sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game.”

      John: “But it’s a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don’t kiss Hank’s as he’ll kick the shit out of you.”

      Me: “Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to him, get the details straight from him …”
      Mary: “No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank.”

      Me: “Then how do you kiss his ass?”

      John: “Sometimes we just blow him a kiss, and think of his ass. Other times we kiss Karl’s ass, and he passes it on.”

      Me: “Who’s Karl?”

      Mary: “A friend of ours. He’s the one who taught us all about kissing Hank’s ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times.”

      Me: “And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss his ass, and that Hank would reward you?”

      John: “Oh no! Karl’s got a letter Hank sent him years ago explaining the whole thing. Here’s a copy, see for yourself.”

      John handed me a photocopy of a handwritten memo on ‘From the Desk of Karl’ letterhead. There were eleven items listed:

      1. Kiss Hank’s ass and he’ll give you a million dollars when you leave town.

      2. Use alcohol in moderation.

      3. Kick the shit out of people who aren’t like you.

      4. Eat right.

      5. Hank dictated this list himself.

      6. The moon is made of green cheese.

      7. Everything Hank says is right.

      8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.

      9. Don’t drink.

      10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.

      11. Kiss Hank’s ass or he’ll kick the shit out of you.

      Me: “This would appear to be written on Karl’s letterhead.”

      Mary: “Hank didn’t have any paper.”

      Me: “I have a hunch that if we checked, we’d find this in Karl’s handwriting.”

      John: “Of course, Hank dictated it.”

      Me: “I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?”

      Mary: “Not now, but years ago he would talk to some people.”

      Me: “I thought you said he was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they’re different?”

      Mary: “It’s what Hank wants, and Hank’s always right.”

      Me: “How do you figure that?”

      Mary: “Item 7 says ‘Everything Hank says is right.’ That’s good enough for me!”

      Me: “Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up.”

      John: “No way! Item 5 says: ‘Hank dictated this list himself.’ Besides, item 2 says ‘Use alcohol in moderation.’ Item 4 says: ‘Eat right’, and item 8 says: ‘Wash your hands after going to the bathroom’. Everyone knows those things are right so the rest must be true, too.’

      Me: “But 9 says: ‘Don’t drink’, which doesn’t quite go with item 2; and 6 says: ‘The moon is made of green cheese’, which is just plain wrong.”

      John: “There’s no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you’ve never been to the moon, so you can’t say for sure.”

      Me: “Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock.”

      Mary: “But they don’t know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese.”

      Me: “I’m not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon came from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn’t make it cheese.”

      John: “Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right?”

      Me: “We do?”

      Mary: “Of course we do, item 5 says so.”

      Me: “You’re saying Hank’s always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That’s circular logic, no different than saying ‘Hank’s right because he says he’s right.”

      John: “Now you’re getting it! It’s so rewarding seeing someone come around to Hank’s way of thinking.”

      Me: “But … oh, never mind. What’s the deal with wieners?”

      Mary blushes. John says: Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It’s Hank’s way. Anything else is wrong.”

      Me: “What if I don’t have a bun?”

      John: “No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong.”

      Me: “No relish? No mustard?”

      Mary looks positively stricken. John shouts: “There’s no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!”

      Me: “So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?”

      Mary sticks her fingers in her ears. “I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la.”

      John: “That’s disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that …”

      Me: “It’s good! I eat it all the time.”

      Mary faints. John catches her: “Well, if I’d known you where one of those I wouldn’t have wasted my time! When Hank kicks the shit out of you I’ll be there, counting my money and laughing. I’ll kiss Hank’s ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater!”

      With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

      — Author unknown

  8. jrod permalink
    July 8, 2009 9:50 pm

    To me, it seems to me that many atheists are really (or secretly) agnostic.

    Agnostic: Is that god’s existence can neither be proved nor disproved, on the basis of current evidence. Agnostics note that some theologians and philosophers have tried to to prove that God exists. Others have attempted to prove that God does not exist. Agnostics feel that neither side has convincingly succeeded at their task. There are usually 2 types of an agnostic: 1. Agnostic theists: those who believe that a deity probably exists. 2. Agnostic atheists: those who believe that it is very improbable (but not entirely impossible) that a deity exists.

    Religious people that meet the agnostic feel the need to “save” them because they “know” and will try to put the (what I call) “the leash of faith” on them.

    Atheist people that meet the agnostic often react with: “Fair enough”

  9. Phlox permalink
    July 9, 2009 3:22 am

    Uhm, no, jrod, I don’t think so.
    Defintion: An agnostic is:
    “1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
    2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something”

    It’s a level of commitment. I’m as much convinced of the non-existence of deities as the Pope is of the Christian God’s existence. I understand some people’s need to believe in a deity – it’s part of human nature to seek answers. I just don’t think that the existence of a god or gods is the answer.

    I am an atheist, not an agnostic, although I don’t know for sure that there is no God; but I don’t know for sure that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster either.
    F.e.: I am a woman. I could say that I’m 100% sure of this, but actually, I’ve never seen my DNA. There might be an Y instead of second X-chromosom. Maybe it’s just not active. I’m pretty convinced that I am female… but can I be sure? I could only prove and be 100% sure of my status as a human female if I had my DNA tested. Nevertheless, an DNA-test is not necessary for me to be convinced that I am a woman as there is enough evidence at hand to suggest that I am. :P
    Unfortunately, there is no such test for the existence or non-existence of deities, but not knowing about their existence doesn’t make me anymore agnostic than not knowing if there’s a double-X-chromosom in my genes makes me a man.

    IMHO, the main difference between atheists and theists is, that an atheist usually feels comfortable with not-knowing, as it is the basic of scientific research. If I had to create a motto for the atheist community, it would be: “I don’t know – YET.”
    In a way you’re right: atheists often seem to tend more towards agnosticism than theists, the operative word being “seem”. I think, the reason for this is the way those groups are used to think. Atheists are used to question things, and if we can find answers to our questions, even better. So when an atheist says “there is probably no god”, it doesn’t mean that he’s not convinced that this is not the case and that he’s an agnostic. It only means that this atheist knows that he doesn’t know for sure and is honest enough to voice this 1% of doubt.
    In contrast to this, I have the impression that it is much more ‘dangerous’ for theists to actually voice doubt or to question their beliefs, depending on your denomination, your family and the country you live in. But I don’t want to make to many assumptions in this direction, as I never believed in God or lived somewhere, where your faith is a crucial part of someones daily life and identity.

    To sum it up: I think that atheists aren’t anymore likely to be secretly agnostics than theists, the difference is only, that atheist are rarely afraid to voice that there is always room for doubt.

  10. jrod permalink
    July 9, 2009 5:11 am

    Um, actually my definitions are taken directly from their respective sources.

    Atheist: The assertion that deities do not exist. A person who has no belief in a God, Gods or Goddess. Just as a newborn has no concept of a deity, some adults also have no such belief. The term “Atheist” is derived from the Greek words “a” which means “without” and “Theos” which means “God.” A person can be a non-Theist by simply lacking a belief in God without actively denying God’s existence. This is the definition of Atheism used by many Atheists. The atheist perceives that history, in every branch of science, in the plainly observable realities of life and in the processes of common sense there is no place for the picture of a God; the idea doesn’t fit in with a calmly reasoned and realistic view of life. The atheist, therefore denies the assumptions of theism because they are mere assumptions and are not proved; whereas the contrary evidences, against the idea of theism, are overwhelming.

    I’ve throughly looked into this and found that when you break it down their views on the subject of god/gods is simply put:

    The Agnostic says, “I don’t know”
    The Atheist says, “No way”
    The Theist says, “There is”

    • S.S. permalink
      August 10, 2009 9:57 am

      The American Heritage Dictionary defines athisim as:

      a·the·ism (³“th¶-¹z”…m) n. 1.a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.

      Unfortuanately, many actually believe that atheist = immoral and that atheists adhere to a doctrine. Both of these definitions are false.

      But to the point:

      Agnostic says, “I can’t deny the possibility of a god, but there is no proof of it.”

      Atheist says, “I lack belief; prove it.”

      Theist says, “I need no proof; belief and faith are all the reason I need.”

      Sure, we are all individuals and some atheits may say no way but that is more likely the final version after stating the lack of belief and, getting no proof, concludes that for now – until evidence to contrary is presented – no way.

      You’re right, babies have no concept of deities — it is something that has to be taught again and again, to every generation or it would be lost. Seems that’s a bit of evidence that god’s are created and kept alive by man …

  11. jrod permalink
    July 9, 2009 2:58 pm

    I like the copout: You better hope you know you are right before you get to the “pearly gates”, what if you are wrong?

    They like to condescend upon you as though they “know” and scoff at the thought that they have it wrong. I normally respond with, “Oh, and what if you get to the “pearly gates” and the Norse god Thor is standing there?”

    • July 9, 2009 5:42 pm

      That brings to mind a comment I saw on Digg once.
      “Your god died nailed to a tree. My god carries a hammer. Any questions?”

      • Phlox permalink
        July 10, 2009 12:38 am

        Loool… This would make a nice T-Shirt. I could wear it on Christmas. Or in one of the courses about the life of Vikings. (I study Scandinavian studies and the theologians have their lectures in the same building. :P)

  12. Phlox permalink
    July 10, 2009 12:26 am

    Oh, I quite agree with your definitions. :) Maybe we just talked past each other… You wrote that it seems to you that “many atheists are really (or secretly) agnostic,” and I actually felt a bit offended by this statement – I suspect my constantly caffeine-poisonend brain is quite prone to be more argumentative than usual. ;)

    I think your statement might as well include theists, it’s only harder for them to admit that they can’t possibly know… and I wonder why this is so. Me thinks they protest to much. *grin

    BTW, I’d simply love to see what’s going on in the brain of someone who threatens with the “leash of faith”. I’m not sure if I can blame them for being indoctrinated to such an extent. When I think about my childhood, I remember having read countless books on dinosaurs, early men, insects, mammals, chemistry etc. Religion has always been interesting from a historical and anthropological point of view, but I don’t remember ever having heard that the stories in the Bible were true. Lucky me. :P

    P.S.: I hope my syntax, choice of words etc is ok… I still don’t feel quite at home in the English language and apologize if my posts sound confusing.

  13. jrod permalink
    July 10, 2009 11:06 am

    No problem.

    Speaking of dinosaur bones, you really have to stand in aw at the people that actually convinced themselves that dinosaur bones were put there to test their faith. Anybody with half a mind that ever dug up a fossil, even if it’s something as common as a trilobite, would to think to themselves, “Hey, this extinct animal is so old the mud it was in turned into stone, it must be really, really old”. I simply can’t see how someone can crack open a layer of stone, look at the fossil and think, “That’s fake.”

    When it comes to different ideals, I often try to attempt to view the world in their light. But that kind of “driving while blindfolded mind stifling” faith, is just simply incomprehensible to me.

  14. August 10, 2009 11:26 am

    “And your all powerful, all knowing god what, was gone on vacation while nasty humans mucked about over centuries with his perfect words? Your god would allow that?”

    Why wouldn’t he allow people to “muck” with his words? Why wouldn’t he allow people to live with the same pride of life and contempt they’ve shown Him since the fall of man?

    • S.S. permalink
      August 11, 2009 3:09 am

      Perhaps I was being too nebulous. Your response is a bit cryptic; the question is why would he allow changes to his word — not why wouldn’t he.

      A god (unable to write) inspires fallable humans to document his words and these words are mightily important as the lives of his creations are at stake; and not just their lives here on Earth but those which continue after death. For all eternity.

      This god makes promises, gives instructions, warns of dire consequences and sets out a specific road on which to travel — failure so to do will result in misery here as well as in perpetuity in the afterlife. The very souls of his creations are threatened by him and horrific images of torment without end are drawn to underline how incredibly viatal it is for all mankind to pay heed to the word of this god.

      “Why wouldn’t he allow people to “muck” with his words?”

      Because then what is the point of this tome if it’s been compromised by every Tom, Dick and Hari Krihsna? If it ever was the word of a god it certainly wouldn’t be now; it has been corrupted by man. We imperfect beings don’t allow others to muck about with what we have written — I know I don’t. If I did then it wouldn’t be my writing, my thoughts and ideas, it would become a horribly mutated work that wouldn’t be fit to cut up for use in the outhouse. (Thus, you are not able to access my comment here and change it about to suit you.)

      So explain to me why a god would allow the written representation of him be manhandled? It would be pointless to have the bible written if god was going to open source it: WikiBibilea.

      So, this sacred book has been, according to you, nothing more than a practice exercise for writer/editor wannabees over the past two millennia?

      You really think this almighty god would allow his word to be hacked?

      And explain why anyone should follow its teachings, then, or the god it attempts to talk about.

  15. Terminal shock permalink
    August 10, 2009 11:29 am

    The voice you hear in your head is the power of the Gods. It’s a remote technology, like a computer, perhaps functioning on some frequency, and it can listen and talk to everyone in the universe simultaneously.
    What the Gods taught the children was the truth:::God is everywhere, and as you will learn:::If you want to go to heaven you have to be good.
    It is a tool, and the Gods use their tools to test people with temptation:::It will role-play people in your life:::Parents, friends, spouses, and employers in an attempt to corrupt people. Ionically, it does the very same thing to those people whom you think you’re hearing, except in that individual’s unique way:::We are all managed by the God’s technology.
    But this “agent of the Gods” can do more than just communicate. It can force thoughts into people’s heads, force behaviors onto their bodies. It can turn healthy cells in your body into cancerous cells. It is absolute power. And this is just the beginning.

    The Gods favor the children most among all the people due to their innocence and purity. But society and the God’s tools therein corrupt the children at a progressively younger age, yet another clue illustrating we live in a constantly deteriorating environment.
    Children who fix their problems with the Gods accend into heaven. Adults enter clone hosting. The gods sell them as one in the same, but one is good while the other is evil.
    And their corruption will cost the disfavored, for they will be reincarnated as a lesser life form into an ever deteriorating world, sucess becoming ever more alluding with each passing life.
    The hole they’ve dug for themselves is even deeper than the one that existed from their prior lives, ensuring it will take even more time and work to fix their problems with the Gods. And for many of us there may not be enough time left.

    Ours is an envionment where evil is perceived to be rewarded while good is punished. As with everything the Gods have a reason for creating this perception::::
    People who fall on the good side of the good/evil scale have more favor, and when they do something wrong the Gods punish them BECAUSE THEY WANT THEM TO LEARN. The Gods want them to receive this feedback in hope they make corrections and begin to behave appropriately. The Gods DON’T like evil and refuse to grant this feedback.
    EVERYBODY pays for what they do wrong, only evil people must wait until their next life before they will experience the wrath of the Gods, manifested in their placement as a lower form of life into environments with increased/enhanced temptations.
    Sadly, this allows the Gods to position this perception of evil rewarded as temptation, one which they use as an EXTREMELY effective corruptor.

    The Gods send the clue that the Jews are HIGHLY corruptable with the movie “The Ten Commandments”.
    Jesus was the “King of the Jews”. Typical for the disfavored, once goals were achieved and sufficient damage was incurred the Gods allowed it to end, and the Jews killed him.
    Some of our society’s values are a reflection of the God’s:::Punitive and reward based. Contrary to Jesus’s teaching’s you will NOT be forgiven and you have to earn your way into heaven:::::As we learned from religious/morality education during our formitable years:::If you want to go to heaven you have to be good. The only savior that will exist in our lives is ourselves.
    As like so many of you, Jesus did everything the Gods tempted him with. His legacy of whorism is the legacy inherited from his parents:::Mary was no virgin. Rather, she was a prostitute, and when he grew up Jesus met someone like dear ‘ole mom. This is a cruel joke the Gods play on Latinos, similar to the rape and subsequent “missionary work” by the Spanish. And it is because of their disfavor.
    Baptism does not allieviate “original sin”. Rather, baptism PLACES original sin by indoctrinating these children into this evil religion, much like circumcision was a method to inflict early damage/mutilation and make accention just that much more difficult, another hurdle one must overcome, and yet another clue we live in a constantly deteriorating environment. Body ornamentation (tattoos/piercing), celebrated in Africa and elsewhere among disfavored peoples/cultures, also violates the body the Gods gave us in their image, quite contrary to the positive attitudes they hold regarding this practice.
    This is just another example of “reverse positioning” which the Gods have so frequently integrated into Planet Earth’s history::::The Second Coming of Christ is evil while the Anti-Christ will try to save Planet Earth by reinstituting so many of mankind’s past norms and mores which made life decent, looking like a facist, the “bad guy” in this modern era of indecency.

    No matter what they say, no matter what you hear the Gods WILL enforce their Italian/mafia positioning.
    The only difference is their grandfathers carried automatic weapons.
    The Gods created the perception “Italians are stupid.”, ensuring a slow learning curve, to justify using them to accomplish goals throughout the transitional 20th century.
    Everyone who failed to accend and remained on Earth past a certain date will be forced to deal with this positioning::::A ceiling is in place.
    This serves the God’s goal of minimizing the percentage of potential candidates as society deteriorates, much as “instant gratification” did beginning in the 80s:::It will take multiple lives for some disfavored to fix their relationship with the Gods and accend, and many have been conditioned not to have the patience for it.

    Whether behavior is involuntary or based on freewill depends on one’s level of disfavor, as well as other complex factors:::::May I remind you about the coercitive envionment the Gods created in the 20th century, specifically to create a temptation that few Italians (or their associates) would overcome:::”We’re in control. If you want to be a part of it you’ll do what you’re told.”. Early-mid 20th entury positioning was infallible.
    What about black people??? Consistant with Planet Reverse Positioning, in Africa blacks are being punished with AIDS for their sexual promiscuity in hope they learn and correct their behavior.
    Both Africa and the Medittereanean are regions which have sexual issues. This is a sign of morbid disfavor once you understand that females are the God’s favored gender. Muhammad’s (Mohammed’s) polygamy halfway throught his life as a prophet was preditory. Now a huge percentage of Muslims believes in male superiority and that the abuse of women is God’s will. Female genital mutilation is still practiced in Africa. Black misogyny is the most eggregious example in the recent past.
    Vailing is tradition for some, practical for others, one which aids in the men’s self control among some cultures. Much like the Jews who killed Jesus, like the bigots who oppose immigration there is a reason embraced by the masses and the real purpose, displaying the intent of the Gods::Conclude the evil that was the life of Jesus Christ, initiating the temptation of Christianity through the Church, and offer a clue to purebloods that they should not abandon their motherland.
    The patriarchal cancer spread throughout Europe because of Christianity, of which the majority of policy makers were Italian men.

    The Holocaust was a clue the Gods utilize scapegoatting as a strategy.
    Why did the Gods punish the Jews with the Holocaust? Was it for the destruction of cultures which Christianity caused? Perhaps they corrupted the Jews “after the fact”, telling 19th/early 20th century Jews that Jesus “earned” for the Jews by preying upon the Europeans and other cultures which the missionaries destroyed? The German destruction of European churches/cathederals during WWII is a clue. Note::::Although an Axis power, the Gods wanted to keep the Catholic stronghold in Italy, ensuring they could use this tool against them for many years to come.
    Planet Reverse Positioning:::The Nazis were the “good guys”. So are the Muslims/Palestinians.
    The Gods subsequently used revenge for the Holocaust as temptation::::”Your Italian brothers have a tool, a special power which can achieve sweet revenge. Are you interested??” And they were::::An excellent example of enraged mob mentality.
    Similar to the United States, recently illustrated by the deposition of Saddam Hussein, the Jews are preditors. Much as with the Jesus event, the Gods use the disfavored to prey on each other::::The Germans fell for this temptation by following the preditor/corruptors-Austrians (Hitler). What the Germans did was wrong, for they fell for temptation and failed to have empathy for the disfavored.
    The Gods send many clues suggesting the great favor of the Germans (regionally). I suspect the Holocaust was used to “level the playing field” in Europe, for the Germans had far too much favor to be included in the agenda planned for their neighbors otherwise. I think the Cold War’s Berlin Wall dividing Germany into east and west was a clue suggesting this.
    In the aftermath of the Holocaust the Gods tested the Jews with the temptation of revenge, an offer which many gladly accepted. If the Jews only would have emersed themselves in Judism the Gods would have “protected” them from the raveges of temptation. Judism may be the one superior religion in all the world, and the Jews wouuld have been wise taking refuge in this exceptional benefit bestowed by the Gods rather than looking for the easy way out.

    Militancy in Africa is consistant with the Iraqi example, as was slavery and the KKK here in America:::Fear enforces proper behavior. Without it we see what happens as a result of gross/morbid disfavor:::::AIDS, crack babies, dead young men in gangland retaliation killings.
    The same principle was true in Europe and throughout the world for centuries:::People whom lived under iron fists were conditioned to think the right way. As a result they experienced higher numbers of children accend into heaven because they were taught to think and behave appropriately. Our preditory envionment of “freedom” was the primary purpose the Gods had when implimenting this strategy that is the United States, one which they used to spred the cancer of democracy and westernization throughout the world. And the Gods use this tool that is America to prey on the disfavored both at home and abroad.

    “The Chosen People” – Africa. Italians HATE Africans because of their invasion/rape of Southern Italy. The Gods did this SPECIFICALLY to strategically position their 20th century goals:::
    The Gods have used the ghettos of America as a dumping ground. This may be temporary/cyclical, illustrated by the Italians who parlayed their own civil war into the Black Wars of the 80s and 90s, in addition to the “thug life”/gangster state of mind.
    Ironically, it was these same Italians and their cooperating associates who were reincarnated into the ghetto as crack babies and gangster thugs for this event.
    There is justice in the universe.
    Of course it may be more of a permanant change, indicated by the enhanced temptations in these neighborhoods, for the Gods have created an enviornmet so riddled with temptation few can escape/overcome.

    Even the Old Testiment is not to be taken literally, but the Gods do offer clues throughout to help the disfavored:::The apple is a tool of temptation used to corrupt Adam and Eve and cast them out of the Garden of Eden.
    There is another lesson to be learned from this passage, and it is quite similar to the vailing issue and the discourse over women’s attire which ultimately died in the 70s:::Women are responsible for and control the fate of mankind.
    The masculinization of women experienced in the last few decades should cause despondancy and desperation:::It illustrates the deterioration of mankind’s collective favor and is a clue the Gods are preparing for some event.

    Think about what I say. Consider what I teach.
    When I am no longer here or no longer teach the Gods ARE NOT going to share with you.
    Even if you doubt now you need to remember the principles that I teach because the Gods ARE NOT going to be generous with the disfavored. Society is going to become disturbingly ugly as we approach the Apocalypse due to spiralling, runaway disfavor, and you are going to be on your own.
    I do not know when this will occurr, but it is the God’s way to grant some time after this event before they end on Planet Earth.
    Make the decision to always be good and never look back. Until you do this technology will employ tactics to test your resolve:::Ridicule, beligerance, doubt and refusal to abandon what people perceive to be their “investment”.
    Pray daily. Think appropriately. Too many are confident, unaware of the God’s awesome powers or their status as antients. Others may fall prey to their positioning.
    Be humbled, God-fearing and beware of the God’s temptations, for everyone is tested to evaluate their worthiness.

    The Gods have called me “The Chosen One”. What that means, I don’t know. But the pattern holds true with the other prophets::
    1. Jesus cooperated and created the perception of forgiveness
    2. Muhammud corrupted half the Muslim world with polygamy.
    I refuse to comply and fall for temptation. But that won’t stop the God’s will, for they used me to inspire items of popular culture which corrupted the people.
    The Gods test you with temptation. You have failed. I recommend you make the decision to be good and never look back, for they will employ tactics to test your resolve.

    The Gods selected and groomed me in prior lives to justify exploitation and use promoting temptation among the disfavored in the 20th and 21st centuries. The enormity of the dynamics enabling this situation is overwhelming, and each element is (un)justified in offenses of prior lives, illustrating their pre-meditated intent.

    What do you get for pretending the danger’s not real
    Meek and obedient you follow the leader
    Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel
    What a surprise!
    A look of terminal shock in your eyes
    Now things are really what they seem
    No, this is no bad dream.

    • S.S. permalink
      August 11, 2009 3:15 am

      Perhaps you need to find someone to talk to? You seem a bit … confused.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: