The Deist’s story of Adam and Eve.

In case you weren’t sure of what I believe, I consider myself a Deist, a view which a surprisingly large portion of the population is starting to believe as well.
Now, Deism is NOT a religion, it is a belief. It is a belief in a higher power but not an omnipresent one. It is known as the “God as the clockmaker” belief: God created the universe millions of years ago and left it for us to figure out.

It’s a scientific perspective, basically. It’s what Jefferson, Franklin, along with many of the founding fathers believed.

Jefferson actually wrote his own version of the bible which I think is very fascinating and I would like to share it with you… ( I’m not trying to recruit, just so you know, you are welcome to disagree with me)

In the original story of Adam and Eve, Satan disguised as a serpent slid into the Garden of Eden and convinced Eve to eat a forbidden apple from the Tree of Knowledge.

In the Deist’s understanding, the story is the same, but says something different. First of all, the story is a metaphor and not to be taken as actuality. The Garden of Eden was actually Satan’s creation: locking up humanity from the real world. God, disguised as a serpent, sneaked into the Garden and convinced Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge thus opening the doors to Eden and revealing a whole new world to discover. God led us to a world with endless possibilities and gave us the opportunity to make our own changes, make our own miracles, and create the world that we think is best.

To me, it helps explain everything. But, that’s just my opinion.

Atheists vs. what?

The results are in and the number of atheists or “nones” (no religious affiliation) has almost doubled in ten years. This is cause for celebration in the atheist community.

But does this help atheists prove their point? What exactly are atheists fighting?

Richard Dawkins who leads the forefront on the atheist battle has some strong opinions: he believes in evolution, he is pro-choice, he is a lot of things Christianity is not. However, is he fighting Christianity directly?

Though I agree with Dawkins the majority of the time, I can’t help but get reminded of certain Christian leaders in this word war.

When I think of atheist, I think of revolting against the constraints of a higher power. Also referred to as “humanists”, atheists conform to only what they believe.

Now, considering my definition, is it right for an atheist to impose it’s opinions on another person, Christian or not? Is it following atheist belief to fight God and condescendingly, and at least seemingly, recruit people to their way of thought?

Though I do think it is comforting to think “I’m not the only one that feels confused about what I believe,” but when it is so similar to the tactics that the other side is using… well, it confuses me more.

When you have a show on Fox…

You get a little big headed. Often, you believe your opinions are valid and can be proven to be correct because, well, just because you say so.

Now that I’ve become to grace the surface of the neverending tyrade of Christians who “love the sinner, hate the sin”. Or, just hate everything.

Here’s Mike Huckabee who has been recently awarded his own show on the Fox News Network.

And here’s a video of him appearing on the View. Apparently, there is no proof that the GLBT population is discriminated against.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvoM0Zaorj8

And here’s statistics on hate crime provided to you by the FBI.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_07.htm

(I apologize for not uploading them — I’m not that technologically advanced.)

So according to the FBI, roughly fifteen hundred individuals were subject to hate crimes in just the year 2007. And Mr. Huckabee, how could you possibly forget Matthew Shepard: the poster child for homosexual hate crime.

Are we really to believe that this group is deserving of this? As “Christian” do you wish violence upon anyone just because you don’t agree with who they are?

How absolutely hypocritical.

Look back at the Silencing Christians video that had the audacity to say that GLBT individuals deserved abuse in the workplace by way of keeping them of ENDA; that they’re sexual orientation was enough for them to be fired abruptly or not even given the opportunity.

Again, there’s my theme. Define Christian. What does it mean? You parade around wearing “WWJD” bracelets like you’re God’s favorite–the example to set. But you let this happen. You ignore it.

Face it. It’s a scary truth: there is a very thick line between spreading the faith and spreading hate. But to let people blatantly cross it is even scarier.

Civility is strong. This is just tacky.

I’ve given you enough time to watch the video, but in case you haven’t watched it, here’s the jist:

Janet Parshall and her Christian Mafia are protesting the “homosexual agenda”. After gathering a few quotes, they have grounded themselves on the idea that the gay population is making efforts to overthrow them. They claim that homosexuals have overthrown their right to free speech because at a GLBT rally they began a protest and were asked to leave. After not leaving, the police stepped in and about ten people were put in jail for a day.

Seriously?

I am having trouble with where to begin on this subject. Even after a few days of thinking about how to wrap my head around it, I don’t know where to start.

The implications of “homosexual agenda” are false. No attempts are being made by GLBT individuals to conform Christians to their ways. In fact, if anything, it’s the other way around.

That’s an old argument though.

That’s how I feel about this entire subject. Christianity is losing this battle but they won’t give up without a fight.

And that’s where words like “indoctrinate” “homosexual agenda” and “special rights” come in.

Question Ms. Parshall: who did Jesus hang out with? I can guarantee it wasn’t you.

To leap so far as saying Christians are discriminated against and are being ignored is incorrect. It has nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with people finally getting frustrated with the battle. People saying “For the love of God, leave them alone. They are not doing anything to you.”

I will admit that I am an advocate for free thought and promote people have their own individual opinions, but when they are backed by lies and hatred and ultimately fear and paranoia, then the argument becomes distasteful.

Oh Janet Parshall

don't let that smile fool you

Janet Parshall is a key figure in the religious right movement. In this video entitled Silencing Christians, she is discussing homosexuality in America and furthermore how Christians are being ignored and discriminated against. If you choose to watch it, pay attention to the words she uses: indoctrinate, special rights, etc.

Also, question what these people could have been doing as better use of their time than fight “the homosexual agenda” (i.e. homelessness, poverty, famine).

I especially like the part where they argue the necessity for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Every since sexual orientation was added to the list of things you can’t fire an employee for, the group has been up in arms. This means that “the homosexuals” will talk about their sexual encounters with same sex partners! And people who cross dress, or trans-genders will use the lady’s bathroom one day and the men’s the next.

I’ll give you a chance to watch it and then I’ll give you the other side of things.

www.silencingchristians.com

To follow up on the previous post

Is violent rhetoric effective? Furthermore, are grotesque images?

When it comes to religious rhetoric, it seems like the most used language of the religious right is violent or “war-like”.

For anyone who’s seen Jesus Camp, the rabble rousing of Becky Fisher, the pastor of the North Dakota camp, took religion to a whole new level for viewers who had otherwise not been exposed to it.

The most powerful scene depicted twenty+ children holding plastic fetuses depicting various forms of the pregnancy cycle are screaming “No more, God! No more!”. The tears running down their face are horrifying, because in another scene of the movie Fisher explains how children are being molded by the leaders of the camp to be the revolutionary heroes of Christianity.

So is this what the religious right is planning? Are they planning to overthrow laws enacted by the government or, do I dare say, overthrow democracy entirely?

Since the air of the movie, the North Dakota Christian camp has shut down. Fisher was afraid of violence being enacted on the children.

Ironic.

What would google find?

Looking for an image to put on my profile, I did a google image search under “What would Jesus do?”.

Along with some pictures of Britney Spears and Madonna’s new boyfriend, Jesus (not the Jesus, obviously) I came across this:

The caption on the photo was “What would Jesus do if He saw this?”

(I’ve put the image at the bottom of the post. WARNING: it is very obscene)

So, of course, I went to the site.

Do You Know What Choice Really Means?

This is a “Chosen” Baby Aborted Baby 22 Weeks After Conception
This is what YOU SUPPORT when you “choose” to be “pro-choice”
This Is Choice – Choice is DEATH for INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE
Who Asked This Baby If He/She Chose to Die?

This is what being “pro-choice” is all about.
But, this isn’t a “choice,” this is a BABY!
This is an innocent, helpless and defenseless BABY who was aborted at the age 22 weeks after conception.
This is what YOU support and stand for when you vote for “pro-choice” candidates.

“Pro-choice” sounds “prettier” and nicer than saying;
“I’m for killing innocent, unborn babies, and I vote for candidates that support the murder of babies.”

The reality of being “pro-choice” means that innocent babies suffer, feel pain, and death, who pay the ultimate price of your “choice.”

WHO ARE YOU TO CONDEMN ANOTHER PERSON TO DEATH?

ARE YOU GOD?

www.lifebeginsatconception.com

Wow. I can’t seem to distinguish this as passion or a threat. Not that I’m a communication major or anything, but this kind of aggressive rhetoric is just asking for a rebuttal.

And here it is: the main argument is that you are objectifying a child. What do you think you’re doing by using the image as a weapon? And putting it on the internet where anyone can find it! I found this image on the third page of my google search, even with the filter on. Pro-life supporters are fighting this fight all wrong. And to be back by their God of peace and understanding… of forgiveness and faith… I’m speechless.

An image this graphic is sick. It doesn’t say a message other than that of grotesque violence and a defense against something they disagree with.

Just cause it’s a Catholic school…

Catholic school does not mean what you think it means. It’s not full of highly attractive virgin girls prancing in short skirts and it isn’t bursting with pious Christians demonizing political issues or preaching on piles of textbooks. It’s not the “here’s Jesus, he’s gonna be your BFF” sort of place.  In fact, for the first three years of college, I had no encounters with religion of any kind at all.

However, because of my Catholic school being what it is, there are certain thin lines that can be easily misinterpreted when it comes to the subject. It’s not a state school, so how do you handle religion being discussed on campus?

This tuesday during the last fifteen minutes of my broadcast journalism, a student (whom I won’t name) stood up at the front of the classroom and began what he said was an announcement. 

And out came a sermon.

It started out relatively innocent:

“I just wanted to tell you guys that I spoke at the FCA (Fellowship of Christian Athletes) meeting the other day. It was great. On my way home I saw a message from God-like an image on the dashboard-that I would be speaking with you today.”

But the speech took a quick turn and became increasingly condescending. 

“Once I went to a baseball camp in Ohio. And, you know, they grow corn in Ohio. At the beginning of the summer, the corn was about four feet tall. By the end of the summer the corn was twelve feet high. It was ready to be harvested…. Jesus is coming. And what if you die tomorrow or Jesus comes and you don’t have Him in your heart.”

Every jaw in that classroom fell to the ground. I think I blacked out entirely for about five minutes. 

“You’re sinners. You’re full of sin,” he continued. 

My professor quietly said, “I think it’s time to wrap it up.”

Finally he passed out some pamphlets and asked for those who wanted to accept Jesus into their hearts to join him in a prayer. I took the opportunity to see how my class was reacting. 

I didn’t notice anyone joining in. I think they were too floored by the abruptness of the witnessing/saving session. 

At the end of the class, the only thing to come out of my mouth, or anyone’s really, was an ironic “Oh my God”. 

This sort of event doesn’t happen everyday in a classroom setting. It’s typical on a busy street corner, and standard at churches, but what makes someone cross the line?

Consider the setting: It’s a Catholic school that believes in spiritual liberty, but it so highly identifies itself as a liberal arts campus. Where does religious freedom end and unwelcome, and possibly illegal, religious lecturing begin?

And what have the professors been trained to do in this situation? When they’re profession relies on molding young minds into intelligent, strong and opinionated adult brains yet the well being of the other students could leave them jobless. 

On a side note, the professor that witnessed the event first hand emailed colleagues immediately after the class to “warn” other professors of the attempt the student might make again. 

Religion, to put it simply, is touchy under any circumstance. And when push comes to shove, “touchy” can become harassment.