Please do not take any offensive “hate mail” written by Christians as an example of Christianity. We are not very good Christians; we who use words of hate. You must understand, however, that you have completely pissed us off. This site is just stupid. The concept is stupid. I can give you evidence against evolution if you so desire.
I do sort of agree that ID should not be taught in schools, but neither should evolution. It is wrong that evolution, classified as SCIENTIFIC THEORY, is taught as a fact. Teaching evolution in schools is just as offensive to us as teaching ID in schools is to you. We are all people.
The majority of Christians do not want to press our beliefs upon anybody else. The same cannot be said for scientists, it appears. Plus, while Christians want to bring wayward people to God for the wayward people’s sake, scientists want to study and elaborate on evolution because they think they can discover something wonderful and get rich off of it. So, there is still a difference between the two sides.
I think this whole fight is futile. It is written that God’s children will be hated by all, and I can see that’s the way it’s going. Everybody hates Christians…
-Yet Another Christian
mark
It’s no good. They’ve all got their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears. If they haven’t, then after they read something like that they’ll run off to the nearest bible worship building.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mark,
.
I hate to do this, because I may seem to be arguing against my own position here, but…:
.
‘3) if you reject evolution for being a theory, you also must reject 2)
do you reject 2) ?’
.
…that doesn’t follow. Every theory stands on its own evidence. If I found evidence that contradicted evolutionary theory, I could combat that theory whilst leaving ‘earth rotating around the sun’ theory perfectly intact.
.
I know that you and I both understand this. But the theists we’re trying to convince will grasp any gaps in our arguments as an opportunity to attack. Which doesn’t make them right, but it does waste a lot of our time in having to go back and fill in details to put them straight!
.
Like Hamlet said:
.
‘How absolute the knave is. We must speak by the card or else equivocation will undo us.’
(Hamlet, V.i.133-5ish)
.
Give ‘em something that even sounds like an inch, and they’ll take a light year.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Nikkiee,
.
‘They all seemed to be addicted to some type of natureally induced physcological drug.’
.
That strikes me as a really, really good comparison. I think filling the God Shaped Hole with a God Shaped Invention is like taking a drug. You can be presented with all the good sense in the world to oppose it, and giving it up will still be a wrench.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Maybe neurotransmitters involved in hypnotic suggestion? Not all people are susceptable to stimulation of these. Would be interesting to find out how many of the fanatics are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
uhm, yeah…..
Wow…..
Let’s all attack the Christian Guy!
Joking.
Didn’t he specifically say that he wasn’t here to start a fight?
Why do Christians and Athiests have to fight so darn much?
Can’t we all just be agnostic and live happily ever after, until we die, at which point we will either go to hell or stop existing altogether? Sounds like a fun ride to me…..
Evolution, Creationism, Inteligent Design, God, and even Flying Spaghetti Monster are all completely viable theories.
In my highschool, evolution is taught as a theory: “This is what we think MIGHT have happened…..”
I don’t mind it. I wouldn’t mind having ID taught, as well.
I would, personally, greatly enjoy a Religion Studies course at highschool. I want to learn about the Quaran, The Torrah(sp?), and the Bible in an elective class. What’s wrong with giving students the option (and the opportunity) to be informed, if they so choose?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“It is wrong that evolution, classified as SCIENTIFIC THEORY, is taught as a fact.”
That’s a good one. Evolution is sure taught as fact, except that then it would have been classified as SCIENTIFIC FACT. Theories are used to explain the facts. If we were certain about evolution, we would call it the only true explanation, but since we don’t yet have all the pieces of the puzzle, evolution is our best explanation, or THEORY.
In this way ID cannot even be called a theory because it has no bases in fact. That is the reason that ID should not be taught in schools, not that we disagree with the concept, but simply because it cannot be considered an explanation because it does not have a root in scientific facts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Evolution is a fact. There is plenty of evidence for changes in species over time.
Darwin’s theory explains the facts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Okay. I believe that ID is just a way for the Christian/Catholic/whatever Church to go against the theory of Evolution. I understand that they are kinda trying to level the playing field. I think it’s bullshit to try and put it into science class. “Why?”, you ask? Well this is why:
Schools are government buildings, correct? (Public schools I mean, I’m not talking about private institutions).
Anyone ever heard of separation between Church and State?
Church = religion. That includes any form. That includes creationism, ID (because let’s face it, everyone even the religious people, realize that ID is just a mask for creationism), anything taught from judaism, buddhism, islam, etc.
And yes I realize that in English classes, it is necessary to refer to the texts of these religions, but only to acknowledge them as literature and not in the religious sense.
So my question is, how come they just can’t accept the fact that Intelligent Design, is just a mask for creationism and it is no more science than the idea of reincarnation or the idea of a soul? It is all based on Faith. Not science.
(forgive the bad grammar)
All hail the noodley appendages.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve had a thought, if the bible say that gravity was caused by invisible demons pulling everything down the we would be talking about gravity in the same way as we talk about evolution now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A few issues ago Free Inquiry, or was it Skeptical Inquirer, had a couple of good articles on the Dover trial, one by a direct decendent of C Darin who was present at the trials, and another that summarized the decision, which declared ID was creationism masquarading as science. Critical evidence in this case was early drafts of that “Of Pandas…” book that was being pitched as a science book supporting ID, but in the early drafts it was all about creationism. References to creationsim had been changed to ID. I think the ID folks were lucky they weren’t charged with perjury.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Lamna – Nice idea! Sadly, you are not alone in coming up with it:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_falling
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Mike – that’s an interesting story! I’d love to see that article.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Cody,
.
Wow, I’d love it if we were all as open minded as you! If we all shared your attitude, then you’re absolutely right – there’d be nothing wrong with the existing religions.
.
Thing is, people don’t just *learn* about religions – they *believe* them. And religions are not just interesting stories. They are sets of laws, moral codes and even prescibed punishments.
.
They are not simply taught even-handedly in the same way as other academic subjects. They are repeated by rote to children, so that those children grow up with a belief system founded entirely on a religion held by their parents or religious leaders.
.
And these belief systems tell people who is right and who is wrong, who is righteous and who is sinful, who will be condemned and who will be blessed.
.
It sounds like you haven’t been indoctrinated in this way. Good for you! But it’s a plain and obvious fact that many people have been. And many others enter into a total belief shared by the people around them.
.
How comfortable are you that the world around you contains millions of people whose morals, whose behavioural principles, are based on beliefs in gods that you don’t believe in? Gods who cannot be proven? Gods who contradict our best attempts to understand our world? Gods who tell them that you are not among the reighteous, because you don’t believe as they do? Should such people have positions of responsibility that affect you? Is that fair?
.
Atheists are motivated to fight theists because all of this worries them profoundly. Theists are motivated to fight atheists because they truly believe in their gods, believe that atheists are sinful in their godlessness, and do not wish to have their belief systems threatened by something as trifling as reason.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ nikkiee,
.
Good idea! Would be very interesting indeed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
(By the way, a question for people who might be more tech-savvy than me. I stuck several posts on the ‘for my part, my christian beliefs’ thread earlier today. The third of them appeared with the message ‘Your comment is awaiting moderation’ after it, in a friendly yellow band. It’s still there now. Has anyone else had this? Have I foolishly said something that could offend the FSM? May I be keel hauled if I’ve done so foul a deed! RAmen.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have J. I think it eventually comes up. Aussie suggested that I change one, or a couple of letters/punctuation and retry (copy/paste). It worked. Hours later my original came up as well. Beats me?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
BTW That particular post of mine was tame!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@J
.
I’m looking for the articles. I can’t find them on the CSICOP or CSH web sites, so I may make a trip to the library.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cody,
I say this every time I have the opportunity, because I believe it so emphatically. I agree with you that it is good to teach religion in high school. I have no problem with that, as long as no one religion is presented as the True One, and as long as religion is not taught as science. It might be beneficial for our society for more people to learn about a variety of religions other than their own. It might help with some of the intolerance that is rampant in a country where “religious freedom” is supposed to be a right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Everybody hates Christians…” well we wouldn’t if they didn’t go against scientific facts. You say that most Christians don’t go pushing their religion yet here you are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Evolution is not a fact. Evolution is our name for an observable natural phenomenon, as well as a theory to explain the causes behind this phenomenon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@J
I think this is the article RE the dover decision I referred to:
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/dover.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Mike:
.
Thanks, Mike! I really appreciate the effort!
.
@ Nikkiee:
.
Right, so it’s not only me being watched! Guess I must have flagged an automatic content checker or something. It’s also a fairy tame post, although it does talk about punching a bit. It’s still not been cleared, but then it is the weekend! After a well-celebrated Holy Friday, any devout pastafarian moderator needs a couple of days to recover.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Cap’n Saucy,
.
I think you’re on the right track. We can teach religions alongside mythology in High School literature classes. It seems a natural fit.
.
@J
.
I had a post held up before. I think it was due to an unusually long link that I included. The link extended beyond the width of the blog format.
.
OEJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Mike,
.
Just read that article. Fantastic! Full of extremely useful quotations. That judge went miles out of his way just to point out once and for all how completely unscientific Intelligent Design is. I felt like cheering.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@J, here’s a link to a related article RE Darwin’s descendent attending the trail:
.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05355/625614.stm
.
The original aritcle written by him is very good. On par with “The Education of Shelby Knox”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@J
I’ve got one too, in this thread. I wonder what triggers this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks again, Mike!
.
From that article, and with reference to the anti-Republicn sentiment running through the ‘now I hate spaghetti’ thread just now:
.
‘Plaintiffs and their supporters have said they were called atheist and unpatriotic, and their children were teased because of the lawsuit.
.
Now U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III, a church-going Republican, will likely face the similar criticism, Mr. Chapman said.
.
“The decision is very brave of him,” Mr. Chapman said.’
.
I’ll say again: we mustn’t judge a church-going republican by his church-going republicanity.
.
Also from the article:
.
‘The Discovery Institute, though, says Judge Jones went too far when he discredited intelligent design.
“He totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it,” said John West, associate director of the institute’s Center for Science and Culture.’
.
What does it *take* to get through to these people? How much more thorough, reliable and even *sympathetic* a investigation of ID can you *get* than a six-week federal trial in which one of the defendants is Michael Behe and the judge is a Christian? They won’t be happy with anything less than ‘Oh sod it, you can be right’. A stupidity so terrifying it can’t even recognise its own destruction.
.
I wonder if The Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture could be prosecuted for deliberately misrepresenting itself?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Save me from the flying spaghetti monster! Save me Jebus, save me from his saucey stare!
It’s a shame non religous didn’t go on a religion killing spree before it became illegal; might have wiped one of the crazy beliefs off the planet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ J: The scary thing is, NOTHING will ever get through to them because they have their ‘faith’, which means that no matter HOW much evidence you can throw in their faces, they still’ll just bring out the old faith card and be perfectly happy. As long as the court system (at least in this case) isn’t letting them get away with it…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Suggest the christian chosen ones take a look at this.
The Cult Test
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_q1.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
From the cult test.
.
11. Insistence that the cult is THE ONLY WAY.
The cult is the only way to Heaven, or world peace, or enlightenment, or clean and sober living, or do-it-yourself psychotherapy, or whatever the goal is supposed to be.
There are corollaries:
* Only the faithful will be saved.
* Only members of our church will be raised when the Rapture comes.
* Only our sect will survive Armaggedon.
* Only our church has the correct interpretation of the Scriptures.
* Only our leader has the New Wine for the New Bottles.
For instance,
* “In the last days of the world, the people will be divided into the Servants of the Lord, and the Servants of the Anti-Christ. Members of our church are the Servants of the Lord, and we will be taken up into Heaven during the Rapture. Non-members will be listed in the roll call of the Anti-Christ.” [Jehovah's Witnesses]
* “Only our church has received this special new revelation from the Lord.”
* “Our leader is the only one with the magic formula for World Peace.”
* “Only our group is going to Heaven.” [Heaven's Gate cult]
* “Our leader is the anointed Messenger from God. And yours isn’t. So there.”
* “Only we have The Game and the great new social organization that reliably produces clean and sober man-days.” [Synanon]
* “Only our leader has discovered ‘the secrets of the Ancients’.”
* “Only our church has the correct understanding of the Bible.”
* “Only our church follows the commandments of the Lord correctly.”
* “Only our leader fully understands this new technology, this great new science of the mind.” [Scientology]
.
Remeind you of anyone?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And another from The Cult Test! (For the god-botherers who never follow the links)
20. Giggly wonderfulness and starry-eyed faith.
The cult wallows in an anti-intellectual euphoria.
It just seems like there are always a few cult members around who giggle a lot, and proclaim that it’s all so wonderful. “Praise the Lord! Sing hallelujah! Glory be! Thank you Jesus! It’s a Miracle!” (or something similar) is their standard response to everything. It’s like a giggly hysteria or mania. Those people have shut down their logical thinking minds for the duration, in trade for group acceptance and a world of spiritual make-believe.
You will notice that some members attribute every fortunate occurence to the deliberate actions of a God or some other powerful spiritual being who is looking out for and taking care of the cult members — “The Big Man is really looking out for us” — ostensibly, because the cult members are doing the right practices, the ones that please God. Every time something good happens, they proclaim that it’s another miracle, as if God has nothing better to do than wait on them hand and foot all day long, and arrange events to make them happy, and rig football games to make their team win.
You will also notice a phenomenon where one member has an intense emotional or sentimental experience, and gets all choked up, and calls it a religious experience, and the other cult members are all happy to jump in and validate the experience, and rave about how wonderful this organization is, and how wonderful the leader is, and how wonderful God is, and how wonderful it is that they are all making such great progress in following the guru’s teachings… Like sharks in a feeding frenzy, or cows in a stampede, the members happily egg each other on, and work themselves up into a real tizzy over nothing. (And they will really resent you if you rain on their parade by not playing along — by remaining calm and level-headed and being a little skeptical of the whole routine.)
.
Love the last sentence in parentheses
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Great link, nikkiee!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“scientists want to study and elaborate on evolution because they think they can discover something wonderful and get rich off of it. So, there is still a difference between the two sides.”
Of all the ludicrous points found in this post, I found this one the most laughable!
Those darn evolutionary biologists are always striking it rich! Ha Ha Ha Huh!
Short of winning the nobel prize or writing a bestseller, theres very little chance of getting rich doing research in biology. Most of us are just shooting for tenure, and baby that ain’t gonna make you rich!
“The majority of Christians do not want to press our beliefs upon anybody else.”
Okay this one may be funnier than the first! I won’t even address it.
“I think this whole fight is futile. It is written that God’s children will be hated by all, and I can see that’s the way it’s going. Everybody hates Christians…”
Ahhh the old “persecuted christian” card. I love it when you guys play this one! You all have the house, senate, and executive branch. Christians essentially control the free world, yet constantly whine about how they are so persecuted and hated for their beliefs.
Technically and legally, I can’t even run for office in my state because of my religious beliefs (or rather lack thereof). Now thats persecution! And you can be damn sure that it was christians who put this discrimanatory law in my states constitution. I guess I should just be happy that they let me vote!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
easy for posts to get lost
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nick the Infidel,
.
You’re right. Biologists don’t get into research for the money. They get into it for the women. Those biologists groupies are hot!
.
OEJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nick the Infidel –
Where in the heck do you live? The state’s constitution won’t let you run for office? Wow. I had no idea. Let me guess – New England?
Boy, FSM has a big job ahead if such a thing in codified in state law…
Still working on my Pirate regalia…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RAmen. I always forget that part. I am SUCH a poor Pastararian.
I need a plate of spaghetti…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There was a court case in South Carolina a few years ago where an athiest was barred from running for a minor local public office because he didn’t profess some religious belief. He persued the issue until it looked like the federal courts would be getting involved. Faced with the choice of having the federal government step in and tell SC their business, and letting this guy run, they opted for the latter.
.
Until fairly recently (five years maybe) interracial marriages were illegal in SC and Mississippi.
.
I grew up in North Carolina and we always knew there was something wrong with that state.
.
Nick, what state are you in?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I believe Nick is refering to the “swearing in” process most public offices require. Most of those oaths invoke God in one form or another. Anyone who would refuse to take that oath cannot be sworn into office.
.
OEJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I seem to recall that you can ask for a secular swearing in for testifying in court. Can’t you do that for public office as well?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, there is a secular option for swearing in to give testimony in a court of law.
.
The official Presidential oath of office does not contain the words “So help me god.” Chester Arthur was likely the first to utter those words and since then some presidents have used them and some have not.
.
Despite the secular example of the constitution, inclusion of the phrase “So help me god” as well as other references to god are contained in the official oaths of lesser political offices, especially at the state and county level.
.
I have no legal background, so this would be a great place for someone that does to chime in. From what I can tell no government office could deny service because of refusal to invoke god in the oath. So, my earlier comment was incorrect.
.
However, the chances of getting elected in the US as an openly atheistic candidate are extremely small. A savvy political candidate will profess piety whether they believe it or not.
.
OEJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m just a 16-year-old Australian Jew, but i have my own theory on creationism and evolution.
1. The 6 ‘days’ during which God created the earth might no be actual days. Who are we to decide how long a day is in the eyes of our Lord? God’s perception of ‘day’ might be different from ours. Hence, the time in which the world as we know it today came to be might not have been 6 days in the literal sense, but possibly six seperate periods of creation. (if that makes sense)
2. Who says that God actually directly made things? I believe he just set things in motion and intervened only to keep things on the right track. (I much prefer the idea of a more impersonal God like this)
3. So, from these two beliefs of mine, I come to the conclusion that God set things in motion, but allowed things to occur as they did.
Note that I don’t really believe this, but its an interesting way of looking at it: God is the catalyst that caused evolution. For all we know, it might be God behind the Big Bang. Can anyone else come up with a scientific explaination for the fundamental forces of nature (such as Gravity and Electromagnetic forces)? I’m looking for the one underlying principle behind them. Why not magic?
By the way, I don’t believe in the divine miracles chronicled in the Torah (or ‘Old Testament’ as you call it). They are remarkably similar to myths of Mesopotamian and other ancient cultures. Also, (this is just my personal view), Jesus did exist. He was a good man. He was a Rabbi. He gained a cult following the likes of which the ancient world had never seen. This cult following survives today as Christianity, a mere offshoot of Judaism. Before you flame Jews, remember that Jesus and all his disciples were all JEWISH. So there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Graustein
1. The 6 ‘days’ during which God created the earth might no be actual days. Who are we to decide how long a day is in the eyes of our Lord? God’s perception of ‘day’ might be different from ours. Hence, the time in which the world as we know it today came to be might not have been 6 days in the literal sense, but possibly six seperate periods of creation. (if that makes sense)……
.
Do you want to have this taught in schools as science or are you just making a point?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Graustian,
.
It is good to see that you think outside the religious box and postulate that the accounts of the Bible may not be “literally” true.
.
Now I challenge you to take another step and entertain the idea that god does not exist at all. Yes, there are alternate theories to the origins of the universe: the oscillating universe, exploding black holes, and the collision of multiverses to name a few. I don’t include the big bang as it is more an event than it is a cause. The origins of the universe is a question we may never be able to answer, but invoking god as an answer does nothing to further our understanding.
.
God is not an answer. God is resignation to stop asking the question.
.
OEJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Graustein:
“The 6 ‘days’ during which God created the earth might no be actual days.”
…and this makes the whole superstition *less* loopy in what way, exactly?
.
“Who says that God actually directly made things? I believe he just set things in motion and intervened only to keep things on the right track.”
…so who or what made God? Using this argument doesn’t remove first causes from the explanation, it just ignores them.
.
“For all we know, it might be God behind the Big Bang.”
…or a spaghetti monster. Or my mom. Or (less implausibly, to an almost infinite degree) an explainable, natural phenomena that we’ve not nailed down *yet*. As an example – thunder and lightning must have once seemed terrifying powerful phenomena that could have no possible natural explanation – it must be the gods arguing upstairs, right? Does anyone still believe this explanation?
.
“Why not magic?”
…because it’s as loopy and unreal as religion, perhaps? In fact, in many ways belief in magic *is* a religion.
.
“Before you flame Jews, remember that Jesus and all his disciples were all JEWISH. So there.”
.
So what? One fruitloop belief system begat another, because the world is full of people who’ll believe because they’re told to.
.
I can see that you’re trying really hard to think about all this, but you’re falling short of questioning the fundamentals – *why* do you believe in a God? What caused your belief to begin? When did it begin? What do you think would happen to you if you stopped?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Who says that God actually directly made things? I believe he just set things in motion and intervened only to keep things on the right track.â€
…so who or what made God? Using this argument doesn’t remove first causes from the explanation, it just ignores them.”
.
Retreat a little further, with each passing scietific descovery you guys have to retreat. Orgins of spieces, beginning if the universe, orgins of life. Each one shows that God is not needed and that is the only and that there a far simpler and mmuch more probable explainations to everything than a divine creator.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Graustian,
.
Just chipping in to agree with OEJ on everything he just said.
.
Suppose you said, though: ‘No, believing in God doesn’t mean you have to stop asking questions. You can believe in God and still spend your life pursuing scientific answers to the creation questions.’ In that case, the big creation question you have given yourself to scientifically answer is ‘Where did god come from?’ Is there a divine maternity ward bringing legions of gods into the universe, ir multiverse, or somewhere *outside* the universe? Did a bigger god create god?
.
Since this line of inquiry started by just making something up (in the manner of your comment ‘I’m looking for the one underlying principle behind them. Why not magic?’), all we have to proceed with is *more* making things up. You have created a science-free zone.
.
Meanwhile, forgetting about god and looking for answers to the origin of the universe scientifically is something we *can* do. It may seem to take ages, proceeding in baby steps, but there are lots of people working on it and large sums of money spent on equipment to test their hypotheses. Isn’t this better than just making things up?
.
Just as a little aside on your closing remark:
.
‘This cult following survives today as Christianity, a mere offshoot of Judaism. Before you flame Jews, remember that Jesus and all his disciples were all JEWISH. So there.’
.
Yep, you’re probably right about that! There’s an interesting few pages in The God Delusion in which Richard Dawkins refers to a paper by anthropologist John Hartung (I’ll put a link to the paper in a separate post, in case it delays moderation). The article stresses the narrow group that the Old and New Testaments were written to address. In short, they are for Jews. Dawkins:
.
‘”Love thy neighbour” didn’t mean what we now think it means. It meant only “Love another Jew”.’
.
And to continue with Dawkins’ summary of Hartung’s paper:
.
‘To give a brief summary of his thesis, Jesus was a devotee of the same in-group morality – coupled with out-group hostility – that was taken for granted in the Old Testament. Jesus was a loyal Jew. It was Paul who invented the idea of taking the Jewish God to the Gentiles. Hartung puts it more bluntly than I dare: “Jesus would have turned over in his grave if he had known that Paul would be taking his plan to the pigs.”‘
.
Hartung’s analysis of Revelation sounds interesting. We’re always encountering Christians who are very pleased about the idea of popping off to heaven while we godless types are left behind, and who draw our attention to the bible’s claims that there will be many liars and detractors in the days before The End. Well:
.
‘Hartung draws attention to the two verses in Revelation where the number of those ’sealed’ (which some sects, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, interpret to mean ’saved’) is limited to 144,000. Hartung’s point is that they all had to be Jews: 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes. Ken Smith goes further, pointing out that the 144,000 elect ‘did not defile themselves with women’, which presumably means that none of them could *be* women. Well, that’s the sort of thing we’ve come to expect.’
.
By this reasoning, to get to heaven you need to be four things:
.
– a man
– a virgin
– a Jew
– a Christian
.
Good luck with that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To read Hartung’s paper, visit http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/ltn01.html.
.
To read the sections of The God Delusion quoted above, buy a copy of The God Delusion an turn to pages 253 – 258 (London 2006 edition)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0