Click picture for a larger version.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Sure would be if we were Jews.
That’s the problem with fundies. They still think the Ten are in effect when in actuality if you are a christian by THEIR OWN tenets, the all the old laws and the ways of their prophets are all covered by following two simple commands.
Love God, love your neighbour as yourself.
It simplified the code, that is why their own leader said that. That is the reason why the jews don’t believe he is messiah. It is the heart of the legal matter. Yet fundy christians don’t seem to get it.
I am now of the volition that most christians are just jews who believe in Jesus.
Cursor_
WOW,
You got the point.
I got the point and in about 500 years most of the people in the US Bible belt will get it too. PLT! : /
Cheers
And then there are the neocons, that in fact are Christians who believe in Bush…
Tee hee.
#1 – Cursor_
Would that it were true. Would you mind citing the chapter and verse where Jesus says to throw away the Old Testament? You see, every flavor of Christianity that I’ve ever heard of, still talks about the Garden of Eden, the seven days of creation, the flood of Noah, etc., etc., etc.
In fact, I was under the impression that in the original flavor of Christianity, Catholicism, the only one that ever was the only one, they still teach the Old Testament.
Besides, it was Christianity that resurrected Hell from Zoroastrianism.
You’ll have to forgive me, if you can, for saying that unless Hell has no residents, Jesus is pretty damn far from all-forgiving. Eternal damnation is about as long a grudge as anyone can maintain, longer actually since it will last longer than the universe itself.
So, as far as I can tell, Christianity is no better than Judaism. In fact, I’ll go as far as to say that the differences are so slight among all of the flavors of the Zoroastrian-Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion that from the outside, i.e. atheism, and probably all Eastern religions, and even probably agnosticism, that it’s really hard to call it anything but what it is, one religion with many sub-sects. Further, the sub-sects are mostly taught to hate each other and want to kill each other.
If only we could remove religion from the world completely and voluntarily (it has to be voluntary), we’d at least get rid of one of the many reasons for which people kill each other. The Zoroastrian religion and all of its sub-sects is sure as hell not about loving thy neighbor, unless his/her viewpoint on the imaginary sky spoiled brat megalomaniac happens to be the same as yours.
@Scott: One can not put new wine into old wine bags. Jesus spoke many times in the New Testement about how the laws that said “An eye for an eye” were now done away, replaced by a Higher Law: that of the spirit, of forgiveness over vengeance. Remember Peter who saw the vision of unclean animals and God telling him to partake, and he said “Lord, I can not, for it is unclean”. To which the Lord replied “Do not call that which I have called clean unclean”. In that one strike, the New testement shows that the old laws about food regulations and exciling the leper, the disfigured, the Gentile, were thrown out with the book of Leviticus and the Laws, replaced by the Higher Laws of doing good.
Sadly, most modern Christian sects keep forgetting that, which leads to laws focusing on punishment rather than reforming – something the British turned away from in the early 1900’s, and now the US has embraced (thanks to a lot of money to be made in mega-prisons).
#6 Not much could be quoted…
Isn’t odd that for a religion based on a Jesus there is very little of what Jesus actually said? Everything he is purported to say and teach is all second hand, though the eyes of others and they do not agree. So there is nothing to quote of what Jesus actually may or may not have have said. But lets not let the facts get in the way of a good bible thumping! The good load made his good people…sort of stupid…so that CBN and the 700 Club can lead them to God’s glory on high -can I get a Amen!! It would be funny if it wasn’t true.
I think Cursor was saying is that Christianity is in fact an offshoot of Judaism and evidence strongly suggests it was a ‘made-up’ religion. The similarities between the Roman state religion “Sol Invictius’ and Christianity are striking even down to the virgin birth part as well.
To date there is is no real historical evidence which suggests a Jesus the King exists(Christ is not his last name – Jesus H for Henry Christ – it comes from the Greek ‘Christos’ meaning ‘King’ same as Messiah). For someone to have caused all the trouble he is purported to have caused I would think more evidence of his existence would have survived.
Perhaps its the same as Marco Polo’s trips to China – Chinese hardly even bothered mentioning it as it was not that important – to them.
Well some other religions have more solid footing like Judaism and Islam – which means nothing really as both get bastardized as well.
That’s why I believe in Joe Pesci, he’s the kind of God you’d want on your side – no BS and gets things done. đ
Cheers
For all the atheist/antiheists here,
Take a look at what Michael Shermer (he is the guy from http://www.skeptic.com) says regarding hostile and condescending arguments about religion and how it won’t get you where you want. His article in Scientific American is excellent.
#8 Why are you surprised that there is little of the original words of Jesus in the Bible? The Bible was, after all, compiled about 300 years after Jesus’ death in order to prevent civil war in the Roman empire between the Jews and Christians. The Bible is a composite of stories available to Constantine and selected for the purposes of stabilising the society around the up-and-coming new thing. It is a political manifesto built for social purposes.
_YAWN_
these conversations that routinely come up on this lovely blog should serve as words to the wise: “don’t mess with another man’s beliefs about God — it only fosters hatred”, that’s why in America we should keep religion a private matter so that we can all breathe free.
When did Dvorak blog get so anti-christian? What’s up with that?
Jesus came not to cast aside the commandments but to show that one needs to understand their spirit and not reduce them to the laws of men which are subject to bickering and bartering — as though one could calculate or sue one’s way into Heaven.
In the Gospel according to Matthew,Jesus is quite clear that simply following tradition and simply adhering the letter of the law is to “nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition”
Those who would push to make religious tenets state law are actually heretics who would put themselves in the place of Jesus as the ones who declare what is the Word of God.
âRender unto Caesar the things which are Caesarâs, and unto God the things that are Godâsâ
Allen, I see comments from both sides.
Christians are anti-atheist, so what’s up with that?
9–Ethanol, nice site there, thanks.
But you TOTALLY mischaracterize the article. NOWHERE does the article say or imply that religion shouldn’t be derided for the hodgepodge of irrational self-contradictory fairytales that it is.
Further, it overly equates atheism to a religion–a common fault as all to evidenced here==or maybe just by MM? Anyhoo, it says that atheism needs to be more than just against something, it also has to have positive values? Strawman! What atheist isn’t also for having a good job, good family, nice house, several hobbies and so forth?
While most of what the article says line by line is true, the orientation of the article is totally falacious. Your interpretation is even more removed.
But as stated, nice read nonetheless.
bobbo — totally with you on this one
atheists are not amoral — being a good person is good for you– it’s just common sense.
examples
+being nice to your wife and children makes your home a nicer place
+being nice to your coworkers makes work a nicer place
+being generous to charities makes your hometown a nicer place
+picking up litter makes your neighborhood nicer looking
+killing people destroys families
+sometimes war is necessary
+stealing things makes other people hate you
+cheating on your wife will break her heart
etc., etc., etc.
you don’t need a deity to tell you these things, most “morality” is simple common sense
#12
I think it’s more anti-stupid than anti-christian.
#6, Scott,
Eternal damnation is about as long a grudge as anyone can maintain, longer actually since it will last longer than the universe itself.
Yup. That about sums up my wife’s attitude about that blouse I washed. Well sheet, if it was to be âdried cleaned onlyâ then she shouldn’t have put in with the other clothes.
And flowers only work in the movies.
Grog,
Did you read the article at all, or just bobbo’s comments?
Bobbo,
Michael Shermer is an atheist. His point, essentially, is to stop being rude jerks to people who actually have different belief systems from you (when I say you it is the collective you not actually you bobbo as you generally are respectful). This goes for all people, no matter their belief system. Stop being such complete jerks to other people. Now, if they are trying to kill you, steal your property, etc. that is a different story. But in conversation, discussion, blog postings and so on, a little civility goes a long way.
I have noticed my reading of this blog has gone way down in the past year because of the anti-religion bashing going on here on a daily basis. I love the intelligent banter that happens on almost every other topic, it is the virulent anti-religion crap that is overboard here.
When a religious nutjob attacks you does it help you understand his/her position and beliefs? No? Well atheist/antitheist rants bashing all religion do nothing to further mutual understanding and respect either.
Geez, I just re-read my last posting and realized I sound a little like a 60s era hippie preaching love while dancing around. Ha!
#19 if you read my post, you would know that it was in direct response to bobbo and not in response to the article you posted, in which many commonly expressed themes are touched on and isn’t really that new or interesting.
19–Ethanol, you are right. I am wrong. How did I miss this?:
“It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind. As Carl Sagan cautioned in âThe Burden of Skepticism,â a 1987 lecture, âYou can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who donât see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it.â
Whats funny is the condescending part can’t be avoided.
#12 – Allen,
I can’t speak for the whole blog. I’m not anti-Christian. I’m anti-theist. I dislike all flavors of Zoroastrianism equally. They’re all divisive, violent, and patently amoral. They also each have followers legislating from their beliefs in order to impose them on others. The net effect of religion has been highly deleterious, as evidenced by its huge number of deleted humans.
(Obviously, I haven’t yet read the articles posted by ethanol in post #9. I’ll get there after this. My next post may have a different tone. But, I doubt it. My brain is fairly ossified.)
#9 – ethanol,
There are some very good points there. I would still say for my part though that I try (and may not always succeed) to keep it clear whether I am discussing religion which I despise or religious individuals, most of whom I respect, many of whom I like and/or love.
I do not think that this article has changed my position much on that. Even when I get into heated discussions with religious individuals, at least personally, I make sure that it is with people who enjoy the debate as much as I do. On a blog, of course, that is harder because each statement is an open statement for anyone to read.
WRT Shermer’s article, I think that one thing he has correct, but is not clear enough about in his writing is that there are atheists who simply do not believe in god and there are antitheists who are actively against religion. When he means antitheist, he should probably use the term. Those who, unlike me, do not take a position against religion may feel slighted by their inclusion in the same group with true antitheists.
#10 I know
“thatâs why in America we should keep religion a private matter so that we can all breathe free.”
LOL, What’s the icon for sarcasm?
#13 “In the Gospel according to Matthew…” You see that was my point what Jesus is purported to say is according to what someone else thinks and they don’t even agree with each other about simple things like Jesus’s last words on the cross. Maybe he said “Peter I can see your house from here…” Who knows? No one will ever know and so even if simple things are so wrong what about the really important things?
So all you hear are from Christians are quotes from everything but what Jesus said or taught as it was either ‘according’ to this guy or something entirely removed from Jesus like Romans Corinthians and so on.
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesarâs, and unto God the things that are Godâs”
So what does that mean…really I want to know.
Money is Caesar’s and God has your soul? WTF? Tell that to Pat Robinson and all the others, and the Church does not pay TAX – what happened to all the rendering all of a sudden?
That was an active denial on my part – it was too easy to resist – but not three times before the cock crows – oh wait, they disagree on that as well – damn!
Just be nice to everyone…easy.
Cheers
#25 âRender unto Caesar the things which are Caesarâs, and unto God the things that are Godâsâ
So what does that meanâŚreally I want to know.
— It was spoken in response to the question of whether Jews should pay taxes to Rome, and is widely understood to mean that Jesus considered matters of state unrelated to one’s relationship with God.
#25 – TIHZ_HO,
When I want to render unto god (i.e. never), I just throw all my money in the air. What god wants, he takes.
Our entire economy is based on coveting.
#26 Or….this which is also wildly accepted
The Jewish Kingdom was occupied by Rome with King Herod installed as a the puppet false king. Jesus from the house of King David and therefore the rightful heir to the Jewish crown – hence “King of the Jews”
The Jews wanted to free themselves of Roman occupation….
Roman Centurion: What’s this thing? “ROMANES EUNT DOMUS”? “People called Romanes they go the house?”
Brian: It… it says “Romans go home”.
You know the rest… đ
Of course therefore what’s Rome’s is Rome’s so Rome is to leave what’s rightfully the Jewish Kingdom’s alone. Not too difficult to understand. Nothing to do with God – until later…
When the religion of Christianity was construed by Rome a new spin on the ball was needed so it could supplant Rome’s state religion, Sol Invictius with the Roman Emperor as its divine head. E.G. Jewish ‘Christians’ who held the Sabbath on Saturday were then forced to hold the Sabbath on Sunday. Did you ever think why that holy day is called Sunday? Dec 25th which was “Dies Natalis Solis Invicti” or “birthday of the undefeated Sun” and so on…
There is not one coherent Christian religion – its beginning went through many twists and turns or to put it another way many spins on the same ball which is Jesus. đ
Problem for many Christians is that just a little history or even bible reading* and their faith can fall apart – unless they simply willing to ignore it – and many do.
*The four gospels which are meant to be infallible impugn each other on even on simple tenets. One states Jesus was aristocratic and another states he was a poor carpenter even where he was born differs and many more such as Jesus’s last words – Why hast thou forsaken me” to “Into your hands I commend my Spirit” so which was it – the papers got it wrong? How can one determine which is correct without impugning the bible which one cannot do. Its impossible…
Cheers