Giving in to the psychopaths

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/7787082/Bangladesh-blocks-Facebook-over-Mohammed-images.html

The fear of attacks from radical Muslims has won out over free speech again:

"Chief telecommunication regulator Zia Ahmed said that access to the site has been temporarily blocked because it was publishing caricatures that may hurt the religious sentiments of people in the Muslim-majority nation.

Ahmed said the government had asked local internet service providers to block the objectionable content, and that access to Facebook would be restored if the offending material was removed.

Muslims regard depictions of the prophet, even favourable ones, as blasphemous.
Thousands of Muslims protested in Dhaka on Friday against what they called Facebook's "blasphemous content" because of a page called "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" that encouraged users to post images of the prophet.

The ban disappointed some Facebook users, estimated by the Bangladesh ISP Association to number nearly 1 million in a country of 150 million people.

"The government should have stopped the objectionable page rather than blocking the entire site," Facebook user Farzan Hasan said."

Wrong, they shouldn't block anything, it's what free speech is all about and what these fanatics are unable to understand.

The Holy Water It Burns!

http://www.ksbw.com/news/23669301/detail.html

"Two Florida teachers allegedly poured holy water on another teacher because she is an atheist, WPLG-TV in Miami reported.

The station said that Leslie Rainer and Djuna Robinson have been removed from their classrooms. The veteran and self-proclaimed Christian teachers work at Blanche Ely High School.

In April, they were reassigned after another teacher, Schandra Rodriguez, who is an atheist, said they poured holy water on her during an incident at the school on March 11.

"Miss Robinson obtained a little bottle with some perfume in it in jest, and the students will all confirm she never went close to Miss Rodriguez. Miss Rodriguez was on the other side of the classroom and that was basically it," said Johnny L. McCray Jr., Rainer and Robinson's attorney.

The accused teachers said it was a joke. Rodriguez, however, said they did it because she is an atheist.

Rodriguez is still teaching at the school, and some said it's not fair.
"If we are going to ban talking to students about God, then the atheists should also be banned from telling kids there is no God," said the Rev. Kirby Thurston.
The Broward School Board is investigating the allegations. According to McCray, students are also being questioned about what happened."

Biblical Prophecies Notes:

Biblical Prophecies Notes:

Before the end comes, the Gospel will be preached to the entire world

Bible prophecy: Matthew 24:14
Prophecy written: During the first century
Prophecy fulfilled: Fulfilled in history, currently being fulfilled

In Matthew 24:14, the Bible says that the Gospel (the news about Jesus and his offer of salvation and eternal life) will be preached throughout the world. The Bible also says that sometime after this happens, the end will come. The Bible has been preached throughout the world for a long time. But now, with the increasing worldwide availability of television and the Internet, there is greater potential for the Gospel to be preached to everyone, everywhere. - Copyright © George Konig, Ray Konig and 100Prophecies.org


Obviously a clear motive for some to preach the Gospels.  Seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy that could easily occur without divine intervention.

There will be false messiahs before Jesus returns

Bible prophecy: Matthew 24:23-25
Prophecy written: During the first century
Prophecy fulfilled: Many times throughout history

Jesus prophesied in Matthew 24 that there would be false messiahsbefore his return and history has provided us with many examples.

Perhaps the most destructive of the false messiahs was Simon bar Kochba, who unleashed such great harm on his people that the injuries are still visible today.

Kochba lived during the second century of this era. With the help of the highly revered Rabbi Akiva, who declared that Kochba was the promised messiah, Kochba organized a rebellion against the Romans who occupied and controlled the land of Israel.

The Romans, at great cost to themselves, eventually defeated Kochba's rebellion, and destroyed villages, towns and settlements throughout the land of Israel, and forced a new exile of Jews from the land of Israel, the effects of which are felt today. Even now, the majority of Jewish people live outside of the land of Israel. - Copyright © George Konig, Ray Konig and 100Prophecies.org

Again this feels as if it is self-fulfilling.  There are advantages (in the minds of some) to making claims about being the messiah.  It`s a power thing.  Humankind's thirst for power is at work here.  How many false messiahs must there be before the return happens?

Jerusalem will be trampled upon

Bible prophecy: Luke 21:23-24
Prophecy written: During the first century
Prophecy fulfilled: Currently being fulfilled

Jesus prophesied that the Gentiles, which is a word that refers to non-Jews, would trample upon Jerusalem until the end times.

It is interesting to note that when Jesus gave this prophecy during the first century of this era, the Jews had considerable control over the city of Jerusalem, even though they were forcibly incorporated into the Roman Empire. The Jews had a Temple in Jerusalem and were able to carry out various Temple functions associated with Judaism.

But, about 40 years after Jesus prophesied about Gentiles trampling upon Jerusalem, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple and forced Jews into exile. Even today, nearly 2,000 years later, the Jews still do not have enough control over Jerusalem to rebuild their Temple on the Temple Mount. - Copyright © George Konig, Ray Konig and 100Prophecies.org

There's no doubt that Jerusalem remains a source of conflict even today.  However, many experts on the Israeli-Palestine conflict will argue that while religious motives may play a factor, it certainly goes beyond that.  Right-wing evangelicals in the West do seem to have a biblically motivated reason for giving strong support to Israel.  Sadly, this comes at the cost of rights and freedoms of the Palestinians.

All who believe in Jesus will be saved

Bible prophecy: John 3:16
Prophecy written: During the first century
Prophecy fulfilled: Currently being fulfilled

In books, movies and Internet articles, so much attention is given to the prophecies that foretell the future of the world that we sometimes overlook the prophecies that foretell our own futures, on an individual basis. Consider, for example, John 3:16, in which Jesus prophesies that anyone who believes in him will be given the gift of eternal life with God. - Copyright © George Konig, Ray Konig and 100Prophecies.org

Whether or not this is coming true cannot be proven.  Given that there is no reliable evidence of an afterlife and that those who follow Jesus are saved it's hard to call this a prophecy.  A promise is more appropriate.  One that cannot possibly be determined to be true until after death.  At which point it becomes irrelevant because of the problem that we are unable to communicate with the dead to find the answer.  

 

Isaiah foreshadowed the virgin birth of Jesus

Bible prophecy: Isaiah 7:14
Prophecy written: Between 701-681 BC
Prophecy fulfilled: About 5 BC

In Isaiah 7:14, the prophet Isaiah addresses the "house of David," meaning the family and descendants of King David, and speaks of a virgin being pregnant with a child, and giving birth to the child. Isaiah says this in the context of it being a sign from God. He also says that the child would be referred to as "Immanuel," which means, "God with us."

The New Testament books of Matthew and Luke record details involving the birth of Jesus, who was born about 700 years after the time of Isaiah, saying that he was born of the virgin Mary and is the Son of God. Because he is the Son of God, Jesus literally can be referred to as "God with us."

Non-Christian scholars have challenged this interpretation. They say that the Hebrew word "almah," which is the word that Christian Bibles often translate as "virgin," actually means "young maiden" or "young woman." It should be noted that the Old Testament uses the word to refer to young, unmarried women, and that unmarried women were culturally and religiously expected to be virgins. One example can be found in Genesis 24:43, where it speaks of a person being sought as a bride for Isaac. - 

 

I have to side with the criticism given above.  A mistranslation seems likely.  As for nothing that unmarried women were expected to virgins, well it's just that an expectation.  It doesn't mean that all women will follow that path unless they are being forced to against there will.  Furthermore, in order to except this view one would have to accept the idea the the Son of God was indeed born of a virgin.  I dare say this is still disputed considering that the virgin birth is not mentioned in the four gospels.  Not exactly a point that most would simply gloss over. The virgin birth also has the problem that the Bible states that Jesus was a  a "direct" descendant of King David through the male line.  How can this be if he is God's son?  In order for me to accept this argument I would have to accept the miracle of the virgin birth, which means I would have to accept the possibility of miracles and by extension the existence of God.  Therefore, this argument only works if you accept those premises.  Otherwise, it's a poor prophecy to use as an example of proving Biblical prophecies.

 

The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem

Bible prophecy: Micah 5:1-2
Prophecy written: Sometime between 750-686 BC
Prophecy fulfilled: About 5 BC

In Micah 5:2, there is a prophecy that reveals that Bethlehem would be the birthplace of the Messiah.

As pointed out in the book, 100 Prophecies, by George Konig and Ray Konig: "The prophecy is effective in a simple way: It eliminates all other cities and towns throughout the world as a place in which the Messiah could be born. It narrows the possibilities to one tiny village just south of Jerusalem."

And throughout the span of the past 27 centuries, from the days of the prophet Micah up through the present time, Bethlehem is credited as being the birthplace for only one person who is widely known throughout the world. And that person is Jesus Christ.

The New Testament books of Matthew and Luke name the town of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus. Matthew 2:1-6 describes the birth of Jesus as the fulfillment of Micah's prophecy.

In recent years, however, some non-believers have attempted to discredit Matthew's interpretation of Micah 5:2 by claiming that the prophecy refers to a person named Bethlehem, not a town name Bethlehem. This claim has been widely circulated on the Internet by a college professor who describes himself as a former Christian minister.

The first problem with this claim appears in Micah 5:1. In that verse, the prophet establishes that he is speaking of Bethlehem the town, not Bethlehem the person, by setting up a context in which he contrasts the great city of Jerusalem with the humble town of Bethlehem.

A second problem with the claim is that there is also evidence outside of the Bible that shows that Micah 5:2 was regarded as a Messianic prophecy involving the town of Bethlehem. Here is an excerpt from the Jerusalem Talmud, which is a collection of Judaism-related writings completed about 1600 years ago:

"The King Messiah... from where does he come forth? From the royal city of Bethlehem in Judah." - Jerusalem Talmud, Berakoth 5a. - 

 

There is an idea that suggests Jesus was born in Nazareth.  This can be explained when you consider that The story of the travel to Bethlehem by Mary and Joseph to take part in a survey is almost certainly fictitious. Mary and Joseph would not have to take part in a survey of the Roman Empire, as they lived in the area of Judea that was still a client kingdom, not a province, of the Roman Empire. The reason for this particular fabrication is that Hebrew prophesy foretold that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.  Who is to say the authors of the Gospels didn't simply read the prophecies in the Old Testament and create a story to match the prophecies?  Again, in order to accept that he was born in Bethlehem requires believing the historical accuracy of the Gospels and disregarding other historical explanations.  One would think that the birth of the Son of God would not have many contradictions in the story.  After all, it would be the greatest event in the history of humankind. 

 

The Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah

Bible prophecy: Genesis 49:10
Prophecy written: As early as 1400 BC
Prophecy fulfilled: About 5 BC

In Genesis 49:10, Jacob is blessing his 12 sons. This blessing was also a prophecy. Jacob told his son Judah that his descendants would be rulers and that one of his descendants will be an ultimate ruler. According to the NIV translation: "The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his." Christians acknowledge that this is a reference to Jesus Christ, whose kingdom will have no end. Jesus was born about 2000 years after Jacob died. Jesus' ancestry is traced back to Jacob's son, Judah, in Luke 3:23-34 and in Matthew 1:1-16. Today, there are some estimates that claim that there are as many as 2 billion Christians worldwide who follow the teachings of Jesus. 

 

 

Here again is the problem of Jesus' ancesteral line, which ignores the problem of God being his father.  Unless this is Mary's line?  I do not know enough to be sure about that.

 

The Messiah would be a descendant of King David

Bible prophecy: Jeremiah 23:5
Prophecy written: Sometime between 626-586 BC
Prophecy fulfilled: By the birth of Jesus about 2000 years ago

In Jeremiah 23:5, as well as in other Bible prophecies, we are told that the Messiah would be a descendant of King David.

The New Testament books of Matthew and Luke trace back Jesus' genealogy to King David. (Some scholars believe that the genealogy in Matthew is Jesus' legal line, through his adoptive father, Joseph, and that the genealogy in Luke is Jesus' bloodline through Mary).

 

 See my objection to the previous prophecy.  Stating that it was a legal line creates a back door to the bloodline objection if God is the father.  Luke being the only Gospel that considers it to be through the bloodline of Mary is concerning.  Why wouldn't the other Gospels mention this.  I hate to sound like a broken record but written facts about the Son of God should be better documented.  Or am I asking for too much?

Creationists Can't be Scientists

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/revoking-degrees-from-creation-scientists

An argument for why creation scientists should be stripped of their degree:

"There's been some talk about universities revoking PhDs of scientists who later go on to become creationists or otherwise were always creationists and it was never known to the dissertation advisory committee. As it is right now, it's only talk, but I hope to god (no pun intended) that this becomes a reality.

Yes, I believe that "creation scientists" should be stripped of any and all scientific credentials and degrees. The reason is simple: "creation scientists" hold to outdated mythology and poor methodology. They reject simple things that are the key building blocks to modern science. Evolutionary biology is the single most important, fascinating, and beautiful theory in modern science, and it is the very crux of what nearly all of modern science is dependent on. Why should we approve people as "scientists" when they reject such a key component of modern science?

"Creation scientists" (I put the term in quotation marks because there really is no such thing, it's an oxymoron) falsify evidence and misinterpret results to justify their "young earth" stance. Further, they spit in the face of so many of today's great scientists and the work they do, replacing scientifically valid trials and experiments with unproven, outdated mythology. It's completely and totally unacceptable.

Historically it might have been acceptable, for individuals in the likes of Newton, Copernicus, and those guys because of the simple fact that evolutionary biology was unheard of at the time. "Creation scientists" like to use these names to justify that creationism is scientifically valid. They do so erroneously and forgetting that evolutionary biology is largely a work of the late 19th and 20th centuries.

"Creation scientists" do little for science today, and in fact, in some ways regress it. Hence I believe that these individuals should absolutely be stripped of any and all scientific credentials, including terminal/doctoral degrees. This is also the reason why I will not write letters of academic recommendation to individuals who want to study science at the undergrad or graduate level yet reject evolutionary biology (note I did not say I don't recommend Christians. There are plenty of Christians who accept evolutionary biology"

I Deny That I'm Not Ignorant!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004740-503544.html

In a case of "Only in America" a political candidate was attacked for believing in evolution:

"Alabama gubernatorial candidate Bradley Byrne is attacked for suggesting that evolution, as opposed to creationism, "best explains the origin of life."

The spot, from a shadowy group called the "True Republican PAC," also criticizes Byrne for suggesting the Bible is "only partially true."

Byrne, a former Democrat, is one of a number of candidates for the Republican nomination, and his opponents include "ten commandments judge" Roy Moore and Tim James, who last month released an ad in which he said, "We speak English. If you want to live here, learn it."

What's even more astounding/sad/hilarious is Byrne's response:

""As a Christian and as a public servant, I have never wavered in my belief that this world and everything in it is a masterpiece created by the hands of God," he said. "As a member of the Alabama Board of Education, the record clearly shows that I fought to ensure the teaching of creationism in our school text books. Those who attack me have distorted, twisted and misrepresented my comments and are spewing utter lies to the people of this state."

He also said that, contrary to the ad's claims, he believes "every single word" of the Bible is true."

You see? His opponents have it all wrong. He's as deluded as they are and proud of it.

Catherine Deveny: Offensive Atheist?

http://au.christiantoday.com/article/atheists-say-the-ugliest-things/8148.htm

"Atheist Catherine Deveny has just been fired by the Melbourne Age newspaper.

Even this godless newspaper has finally decided that enough is enough. While she was not dropped for her militant and fundamentalist atheism, she was dropped for some despicable and disgusting comments she made about Sunday night’s Logies ceremony."

Her firing isn't what I want to focus on. The author of the article couldn't have pointed out how the comments she made were out of line and left it that but, in typical fundie fashion he goes on to criticize her atheist views.

"Of course she has said plenty over the years which should have resulted in her getting the sack. She recently appeared at the Melbourne International Comedy Festival with a show entitled, “God is Bulls**t: That’s the Good News”."

No Bill, saying "God is Bullshit" is an opinion and you shouldn't be fired for any opinion like that. I could write into your organization and say that your crap is offensive but I'm not going to bother.

“Strap yourself in for a death-defying ride through Catherine’s spiritual journey from wannabe Catholic altar girl to atheist eye candy. Includes diversions to the megachurch experience, the cult of the Quakers, taking on Cardinal George Pell in a faceoff and her diagnosis that God has Narcissistic Personality Disorder – even though he doesn’t exist. A big finish. Trust me.”

Riotously funny I am sure. She has managed to offend a good 80 to 90 per cent of the world’s population with that routine. That should have been enough for the Age to get the hint that she is not worth her paycheque."

There are a lot of religious people out there and so we should avoid offending them at all costs. Right, or we realize that not everyone of those 80-90 percent of people have a stick jammed up their ass and are willing to laugh.

"I have no idea what she is going through now. She appears not to have the slightest bit of remorse for her barbaric attacks. She may in fact simply become more hardened, more bitter, and more twisted. But we can all pray that despite this cold steel exterior somewhere deep down inside there is still a soft spot that God can work with.

I for one am absolutely thrilled that she no longer has the Age as a vehicle to pour forth her wretched rants. She has finally got what was coming to her. But we must remember to pray for her. She desperately needs to come to the foot of the cross, and find the mercy, grace and forgiveness that she so very much needs.

Indeed, we all need the cross, and some of us have already made that decision to renounce self and put God first. Let us all pray that she makes that decision as well, in what may be a time of crisis for her."

I can't speak for Deveny but I know I wouldn't want a hypocrite like Bill 'she's bigoted and hateful and I'm glad she got sacked but I care for her as well', to pray for me.

Attempt to Remove God From Presidential Oath Fails

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/07/1618631/atheist-fails-in-bid-to-remove.html

Setback in the push for separation of Church and State:

"A federal appeals court on Friday rejected an effort to strip the word "God" from presidential oaths.

Citing largely technical reasons, a three-member appellate panel ruled that California attorney Michael Newdow and his allies weren't in a position to legally challenge the oaths. Newdow, an atheist, had hoped to avoid formal invocation of the deity's name in the 2013 and 2017 inaugurations.

"The only apparent avenue of redress for plaintiffs' claimed injuries would be injunctive or declaratory relief against all possible president-elects and the president himself," noted Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. "But such relief is unavailable."

The appellate court further determined that Newdow's related challenge to the oath taken by President-elect Barack Obama on Jan. 20, 2009, was moot, since there was nothing that could be done after the fact. (The president took the oath twice, once on the Capitol steps and again at the White House, because Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Obama flubbed their lines the first time.)

"Whether the 2009 ceremony's incorporation of the religious oath and prayers was constitutional may be an important question to plaintiffs, but it is not a live controversy that can avail itself of the judicial powers of the federal courts," Brown stated.

Newdow, who is also an emergency-room physician in Sacramento, Calif., has been challenging religion in the public realm for many years but with little lasting success. Most famously, in 2004, the Supreme Court rejected his claim against the suburban Sacramento Elk Grove Unified School District's use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The court's 2004 decision, much like the new appellate panel decision, centered on technical rather than substantive constitutional grounds. By a 5-3 margin, the high court determined that Newdow lacked the standing to sue because he didn't have sole legal custody over his daughter, on whose behalf the suit was brought.
Newdow subsequently sought to remove "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency. A federal judge rejected the effort, reasoning that the phrase simply amounted to a national slogan.

In March, in yet another case brought by Newdow, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Sacramento-area Rio Linda Union School District's use of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

"The pledge is one of allegiance to our republic, not of allegiance to the God or to any religion," Judge Carlos T. Bea wrote in the March 11 decision. "Furthermore, Congress' ostensible and predominant purpose when it enacted and amended the pledge over time was patriotic, not religious."

As have judges in other cases, Bea also questioned Newdow's standing to bring the lawsuit.

Newdow consistently argues that he is personally harmed by the religious references. His presidential oath lawsuit specifically targeted use of the phrase "so help me God" by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, who delivers the oath to the president-elect.

"For those ... watching the inaugural ceremony with their children, this action - by the nation's highest judicial official - is especially intrusive and harmful," Newdow argued in his original complaint.

Newdow further noted that the phrase "so help me God" is not included in the version of the presidential oath spelled out in the Constitution. He asserts that the phrase has only been used regularly since the 1930s.

Groups such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation and Atheists United joined Newdow in his Washington lawsuit.

One member of the appellate panel Friday, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, said he would have gone all the way and ruled that the God reference in the inauguration doesn't violate the First Amendment."

I'll never understand the need to invoke the name of an imaginary being in order to serve better as President.