Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee - Saturday | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Sunday »

God is Not Great

My copy of Christopher Hitchen's new book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything arrived today.

There still remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum, of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking... I had already discovered these four objections (as well as noticed the more vulgar and obvious fact that religion is used by those in temporal charge to invest themselves with authority) before my boyish voice had broken... And here is the point, about myself and my co-thinkers. Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
I've only read the first chapter but this may be the best of the lot, and the previous three were outstanding.



 

Comments

Just by reading the title of the book I can tell it's a wonderful fiction of idiotic and unfounded anti-religion bollocks.

Just by reading the title of the book

and then making a judgment confirms you're just another mindless believer. I imagine then that just by looking at the cover of the Bible you came to the conclusion is was the word of a God.

Norm > Mulletar

user-pic

Christopher Hitchens ought to know a thing or two when it comes to wishful thinking.

i don't care if he has written a book that i would happen to agree with, i'm not willing to forgive him for being a horrible person, and i'm certainly not willing to buy his latest book. this guy is no friend of ours, and i kinda don't like that the informed, liberal, atheist community would embrace/promote something he puts out just because they happen to agree with it's specific premise. are you forgetting his past deeds? would you promote a book by Ann Coulter if she wrote one about some topic on which you both agreed but did so without renouncing her other awful views? i should hope not. and i don't see why you would do so in this case either. perhaps i'm just more offended by this contrarian lush than most people are.

I want to know how you got it so early. I didn't think it was due for release until May 1st. What gives? Did they release it early? Can i go pick it up at my bookstore now?

The criteria for me is not if I agree with or like the author, the criteria, is it well written and on a subject I'm interested in. The fact that I'm mostly likely to agree with it is coincidental. I read Reza Aslan "No God But God" because I was interested in what he had to say, knowing in advance that I disagreed with the very premise. And yes if Ann Coulter wrote a book on a subject I was interested in that wasn't just crap I'd read that too.

I'd pre-ordered on Amazon and they sent an email that it would be shipping early and it did. I don't know if it's in local bookstores, but think it quite likely.

Hitchens.

Here's a guy who subtitles his book "How Religion Poisons Everything," yet supports the Iraq invasion as a great "secular" act, because lots of religious people are being slaughtered.

Here's a guy who wrote a book in 2003 entitled "Why Orwell Matters," yet endorsed George Bush for president in 2004.

Here's a guy who condemns Bill Clinton as a "draft-dodger," yet fiercely defends Bush against charges of desertion, describing it instead as his having done the "gentlemanly minimum."

Thanks, but I already know why I reject religion-- I don't need to pay brain-rotted little Chrissie $16.49 to explain it to me . .

Have you read any Hitchens kali yuga, or are you just going by what you've heard? I don't mean seen him on T.V, I don't mean already-knew-because-of- something-else-he-said, I mean actually READ.

He's known for being an outspoken contrarian, but does that make him immediately a contradictarian, if you will? I would say it sure as fucking dosn't, but that's because I've read 90% of what the man has published, and he goes into great detail in some of his earlier works about why it's important to constantly be changing what you think.

But, according to you, why would anyone want to bother with that when they can judge his character on his past statements/mistatements and move right along? That's a bit easier isn't it?

I, personally, am willing to bet a large portion of your yellow and treacherous shit on the wager that you haven't read a single page.

On a more general note, a big WHAT THE FUCK goes out to most of the comments left here on a daily basis which still drag along that old "us and them" mentality. Oh no, one of them nasty "right wingers" happens to agree with us on a topic?

OH SHIT, MORAL CRISIS! THE WALLS ARE CRASHING DOWN!! AHHHHHHHHHHH!!

Rant over. Stop labelling everything you see and read what "they" have to say for a change.

"I, personally, am willing to bet a large portion of your yellow and treacherous shit on the wager that you haven't read a single page."

You lose.

http://www.slate.com/id/2109377

http://www.slate.com/id/2095578

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041108/hitchens

Yeah...anyone can dredge up Hitchens articles from Google. That doesn't prove you've read them.

Yeah...anyone can dredge up Hitchens articles from Google

And anyone can imply others are lying without evidence, but not here. Consider this a warning.

I had no idea Hitchens was coming out with a book. Cool.

Whats with the anti-Hitchens retort?

Alice, I Personally Find Hitchens To Be So Insufferable On TV That I Go Out Of My Way To Make Sure I Don't Watch The Box When He's On... The Only Time I've Ever Seen Him On TV Is On The CBC When They Televised One Of His Lectures... That Said, I Found His Lecture Interesting, And I've Found Some Of His Writing Lacks The Haughtiness His TV Appearances Exemplify

Seeing Every Word In A Sentence Capitalized Totally Blows My Mind.

Hitchens: as George Galloway memorably put it...an alcohol-soaked popinjay (or words to that effect). I think Hitchens is a brilliant laugh; the most perfect example of how a person of truly mediocre political committment can become enthralled by the glamour of imperial power. He is no better than a moth circling round an exposed light bulb.

I'm an agnostic. I lack the faith required to be an atheist.

If God had wanted me to believe he'd not have asked that I abandon the brains he gave me as a price for that belief.

If God had wanted me to believe he'd have been less sloppy and capricious about the number of utterly contradictory clues and demands he's left. He'd be more consistent in his message. He'd be more disciplined in striking down or at least correcting the profusion of contradictory charlatans with the utter gall to speak for him.

Any God worthy of the name is big enough and strong enough and wise enough to forgive my confusion amid the chaos he's created and the jumble of directions he's provided. Any God who expects me to be patient and loving and forgiving (to refer to one list of one creed's expectations of the righteous) certainly has those qualities in abundance.

Any God worth a damn will embrace a soul who chose to behave honestly and honorably and compassionately whether he believed in the myth or not.

If there is a God I may well go to hell. But it won't be for my disbelief.

Agnosticism is the admission that God, if he exists, is unknowable. It is not a rejection of faith. It is a rejection of certainty. None of us knows what we're talking about. Only Agnostics know that.

I am waiting for the audiobook from amazon. I am hoping he'll narrate it half-drunk, that is, at his best.

Frank: The only problem with agnosticism is that is a position sustained with no evidence. Atheism is the posiion based on the evidence and logic.

Atheism is the posiion based on the evidence and logic.

Don't you mean the lack of any evidence at all?

That said, while I think an invisible white-bearded super-being type of God is "utter bollocks", I think there are other less silly spiritual perspectives one can be "agnostic" about.

However, Agnosticism as a general term can be seen as an implicit validation of those bullshit Abrahamic God-being theologies, when really that concept isn't any more compelling than everything from Bacchus to Loki to Zeus. Are you agnostic about these gods too, Frank?

Alric,

I have the utmost respect for and really no objection to the Atheist position.

Yet science and logic are open to the revision of their conclusions, given a better theory or better evidence. I love that about science and logic.

I'd probably be a contented Atheist except for having experienced a wacky rift in the space-time continuum, independently confirmed by other folks, that I can't write off as a simple hallucination.

So my personal belief is that there is more to the world than any of us can know. Claiming that one understands it is the beginning of all faith-based atrocities.

Frank

The fact that we can neither prove nor disprove the existance of something does not put existence and non-existance on an even footing. Agnostics give a very low probability for the existence of a god and most atheists consider themselves agnostic atheists (a 6 on Dawkin's scale). PAP(Permanent Agnosticism in Practice) aver that we cannot say anything, one way or the other, on the question of whether or not God exists. The question, for PAP agnostics, is in preinciple unanswerable, and they should strictly refuse to place themseleves anywhere on the spectrum of probabilities. The fact that I cannot know whether your red is the same as my green doesn't make the probability 50 per cent (Dawkins, 2006). This has been discussed ad vomitum.

Boy, lots more in-fighting among the lefties again--can't those godless libruls just behave?

Oh, maybe they're not supposed to. As I said in that post (which was about the UFPJ vs. Moveon dispute over the Iraq accountability/funding debate):

Now as for the splintering among the left on this issue, that disturbs me far less than it delights the neocons. They're laughing at us, and are no doubt wondering why we can't march in lockstep like them. Well, that's not what a democracy's supposed to be about.

user-pic

As usual, the depressing emergence of ad hominem attacks on someone without reading the "something" at issue.

I disagree with Hitchens a good deal of the time, but by actually reading his material this at least gives people a departure point, preferable than the current one of ignorance, to argue and discuss the material presented. Is it crap? Is it compelling? I have no idea, however I suspect that the ensuing discussion will have a good deal more value than knee-jerk dismissals based on the title or author.

If you're so intellectually lazy that you won't even bother to read something that might make you think or give you a position to properly defend, what the hell are you doing here?

I guess the best thing you can say about Hitch is that he's a brilliant sophist. Which is also the worst thing you can say about him.

"As usual, the depressing emergence of ad hominem attacks on someone without reading the 'something' at issue."

So, you consider referencing what the author has actually said and then providing the links where it can be found to be an "ad hominem" attack? You need to get a firmer grasp of the terms you're using before you start accusing people of being "intellectually lazy."

Hitchens has thoroughly blown his credibility as a serious thinker. Thus, he is dismissed . . .

thoroughly blown his credibility

It is this contention that you have failed to prove. It is ad hominem if you dismiss out of hand the arguments made in his new book on the basis of examples you claim he got wrong before. The most that is justified is that one approach the arguments cautiously.

"It is ad hominem if you dismiss out of hand the arguments made in his new book on the basis of examples you claim he got wrong before."

I'm not dismissing the arguments in his new book-- I'm dismissing him. Period. And the reason for dismissing him is that he has demonstrated, repeatedly during the last six years, that he is not a serious thinker. It's the same reason I don't bother with Ann Coulter, or William Bennett, or Bill Kristol. It is possible, I suppose, that the next book any of these people produces could turn out to be the most important work in human history. Inductive reasoning tells me it's not very likely, though, and that I'm better off spending my limited funds and reading time on something else.

You imply that the arguments should be dismissed on the basis of your past experience. That is different from saying I'm not willing to give him another chance.

user-pic

the use of the term "irreducable" in the quote from hitchens is truly an example of "wish thinking". this is simple logic, any one of the four statements is plenty reducable and it's so obvious i won't waste my time, or yours, by showing you how.

also, his use of the terms "wholly", "maximum", "mimimum" and "ultimately" are sloppy, wrongheaded and easily refuted, fitting perhaps for a casual,off-hand polemicist such as myself but not for someone claiming to have logical objections to religion. logical objections to religion are not hard to find, or to make. hitchens is either lazy or, more likely (and i speak from experience) much too impressed with the sound of his own voice.

user-pic

i also agree in general with kali yuga about dismissing him, and not necessarily his points. if this makes me "yellow and treasonous"- well, up the jolly rodger.

Oh please Jonathan, waste my time. Pick one and reduce away. Do deal with it in context and be gracious, after all the hyperbole, not sloppy nor wrongheadedness, is not exclusvie to Mr. Hitchens. Further, I don't think on reading the entire book, a task you're unlikely to engage, you'll find the claims well supported by the evidence he provides. I'm now a little over half way through and find that the interesting detail, both in the form of personal anecdotes, and sources I consider reliable support his arguments in a way that is be both fresh and persausive.

Hitchen's support for the invasion of Iraq should not be recklessly grouped with the opinions of the Kristol/Coulter. Hitchen's recognized the futility of preserving the British-made nation state. For those of you who actually read Hitchen's prior to the War, you may recall his decades long support for the Kurdish independence movement. His hawkish stance made strange bedfellows in recent years, but it has been more akin to a binge of one-night stands than a marriage. the average joe/jane doesn't read Hitchens, nor has he ever exerted any real influence in the mainstream media, so I don't know how anyone can blame the guy for the march to war. It would be like blaming Chomsky if we got out of Iraq tomorrow.

Can anyone recommend a good book on atheism.

I don't know what in particular you are looking for. If by books on atheism you mean a history of disbelief then I do not have a book, but a link for a documentary you might be interested in. If you want books written by atheists about religion and the dangers of belief then I have some aside from the popular: The God Delusion by Dawkins or Harris' End of Faith or Letter to a Christian Nation.

  • A 21st Century Rationalist In Medieval America by John Bice (Fairly New)
  • When Will Jesus Bring The Pork Chops? by George Carlin (Humorous, though not just criticizes religion.)
  • The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy by Dennis McKinsey (If you are interested in Bible Contradictions, this is the ultimate source!)
  • Brain Power by Karl Albrecht (This is just on improving thinking skills; any person could benefit from this)

I'm sure others here have far better recommendations. I've just bought a copy of The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty but haven't gotten a chance to read it so I can't recommend it, but I've heard it's good.

This is just another controversial book to attracted reader. Somehow, we American become obsessed with everything controversial nowadays.

Yeah, just like that American yokel Dawkins. Wouldn't be surprised if he bangs his cousins! We should be reading important news like Anna Nicole's favorite ice cream flavor or Seventeen magazine. C'mOn ppl gEt WiT dA pRoGrAm. oKaY?!

RE: Atheist books. Try 'Why I am not a Christian' by Bertrand Russell

user-pic

I'm not familiar with Hitchens' other work, so I cannot comment on his being a serious thinker or not. I don't even know if I can claim to be a serious thinker although I'm working on it. What I'd like to know ,and maybe someone here can help me, is whether or not his historical facts are acurate? Has he done his research? I am afraid I have not always been a history scholar. Please be gentle with me, I am only exploring the idea that there is nothing . . . beyond.

user-pic

A good book , Ron, the singular won't do. Start randomly choosing from the non-fiction section of any semi-decent public library, especially the science, philosophy, history, sociology/psychology areas. Finding a credible non-fiction book NOT directly or indirectly, touching on (at least), atheism WOULD be a challenge. For that try the diet, oops, the paleolithic diet touches on evolution, cave men, and such, umm, gardening? No, hybrids, selection, genetics, well... auto-mechanics, maybe?

But "Why Darwin Matters,the Case Against Intelligent Design" by Michael Shermer is a very contemporary, right-here-and-now kind of report. It has a excellent photo of George W. Bush "au naturel" holding up a placard on the cover jacket, i.e., the Emperor has no clothes.

And, check out the lower right hand corner or thereabouts of this blah-blah-blog... and you will see that the list of current reading that used to be there IS GONE.

What I'd like to know ,and maybe someone here can help me, is whether or not his historical facts are acurate? Has he done his research?

I'm no history scholar myself either, but as far as religion and atheism goes, I'd definitely say Hitchens has done his homework.

"I'm no history scholar myself either, but as far as religion and atheism goes, I'd definitely say Hitchens has done his homework."

Yeah, At the business end of a bottle of single malt scotch. The guy is a drunken, self-induldged schmooser.

"I'm no history scholar myself either, but as far as religion and atheism goes, I'd definitely say Hitchens has done his homework."

Yeah, At the business end of a bottle of single malt scotch. The guy is a drunken, self-induldged schmooser.

user-pic

Challenging and Daring, it seems. Like minded, probably, but the only argument for dubja that made any sense to me in 2004, would be that somebody was convinced we needed an idiot to get out of the mess dubja created in the first place. but I'll definitely read the book. I just wonder whether my agnosticism would survive it.

Yeah, At the business end of a bottle of single malt scotch. The guy is a drunken, self-induldged schmooser. -- Talon

If that's the best you can do, in making a constructive contribution to the debate, you have no place here. Why don't you just fuck off, and leave the debate to others, m'kay?

Fifty years from now, it will be explained in better detail why we invaded Iraq and Hitchens was right. The invasion was about a) oil, b)Islamic terrorism using Iraq as a base, and c) Saddam moving Iraq and all oil producing nations toward selling oil through Euros and not USDs, which would have destroyed the US economy. But, never mind all that now while emotions and religiosity are running high.

Religions have caused all the major wars in the entire history of the world, including such "state" religions as socialism, communism, and fascism in which the state is a "god" and the -ism is the religion.

Every country that is "not" religious, has more respect for the individual, and makes more progress than those who are religious. It is now time to grow up and put childish fairy tales, and mythic religions away in the toy box...

If one were to have to invent a god and a religion, human kind would be better served if this imaginary god was a "god of logic and reason" not the god of the bible. For proof, please go to: www.evilbible.com....where you can get a good dose of what Hitchens is talking about...if you don't like Hitchens.

Personally, Hitchens comes right out of the European tradition, which in counter to the US view...is not politically correct. Being PC is nothing more than being a liar, afraid to speak your mind, and living a timid, little life.

deevee

I am a believer but I think Hitchens is really smart and a really good writer. Me thinks he is a little too obsessed with religion to not care about it. I plan to read this book.

Are you really brave?

Read the Book of Mormon. There's a nice little lesson on the ultimate in open-minded in Moroni 10:3-5. For claiming to be so open, there's an awful lot of stereotyping here, guys. Perhaps not every faith is created equal.

P.S. #11.) Thou shalt not make blanket statements about all us yanks. How's that for a lack of P.C.? :) Have a good one.

So you want us to pray. Been there done that, nobody home. Every faith is indeed equal because they are all based on belief without evidence. If you're under the blanket it's hard to see.

Moro. 10: 3-5 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how amerciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and bponder it in your chearts. 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would aask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not btrue; and if ye shall ask with a csincere heart, with dreal intent, having efaith in Christ, he will fmanifest the gtruth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may aknow the btruth of all things.

Every faith is indeed equal because they are all based on belief without evidence.

That should be amended to read "Every Western/Judeo-Christian faith". I can give at least three examples off the top of my head, two backed up with direct quotes from canon, of Eastern faiths that aren't based on belief without evidence. In fact, Buddhism, for example, explicitly says if you believe without evidence, you're doing it wrong. That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of self-professed Buddhists or Buddhist sects that do believe without evidence, but they're doing it wrong.

That should be amended to read "Every Western/Judeo-Christian faith".

If there is evidence it is no longer faith. It is true by definition.

fede che è la logica degli imbecilli.

Faith is the truth of imbeciles. --Luigi Cascioli

user-pic

Hitchens..Hitchens..... Do you really think that God cares about another "hit" against him from you? Your arms are to short to box with God! After you have made your book money trying to cast aspersions on God and after you have played the fool.. God will be there and you will be an old man facing eternity and wondering was it worth it all to play the fool for a price and miss God and his heaven. What profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul?

I heard Hitchens speak on NPR, and once I got past the Larchmont Lockjaw, I found him to be coherent and consistent. I wasn't sure whether to plop a sawbuck down to get his latest, so I went on this website. I teeter-tottered for awhile, I must admit, but, frankly, the anti-Hitchens element's arguments sounded like the usual crap I hear from close-minded people. So, pat yourself on the back. Perhaps if you had made your argument without the hackneyed "drunk" references, among others, you might have swayed me. I think I'll also pick up a nice cup of java at the Barnes and Noble while I'm there.

I saw Hitchens on Lou Dobbs and I immediately went out and bought it. And it really is great. It's so funny, I'm sitting in class and christians are saying" Who would write a book like that" and "why are you reading that" Blah blah. I'm used to being heckled from close-minded christians. After I finish this I'm going to look up some of his other stuff and of course Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris' stuff.

God will be there and you will be an old man facing eternity and wondering was it worth it all to play the fool for a price and miss God and his heaven. What profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul?

Tolliver, Tolliver...do you ever smell your own bullshit?

From God is Not Great:

Thus, those who invoke "secular" tyranny in contrast to religion are hoping that we will forget two things: the connection between the Christian churches and fascism, and the capitulation of the churches to National Socialism. This is not just my assertion: it has been admitted by the religious authorities themselves.

The only problem I find with atheism is that it brings too much God into the picture. I don't like to define myself in terms of a negative. I prefer to think of myself as a realist -- or a seeker of reality at least -- since to be human is to be delusional, to some extent. I don't think any of us can escape that.

Religion demands, on pain of death, or worse, on pain of social ostracism, that you profess certainty without evidence. It destroys and breaks one of the most beautiful, precious natural drives that is unique to the human animal. No, not sex, though it does a pretty good job of mangling that worthy drive too. Worse, religion kills curiosity. Science, meanwhile is humble. It demands skepticism even in the face of abundant evidence. Science requires a truly independent and unfettered mind: in order to function properly, it has to remain mindful that it could be wrong about reality.

The only problem I find with atheism is that it brings too much God into the picture. I don't like to define myself in terms of a negative.

Funny, if you check out my typekey profile I make this same exact point with a hint of sarcasm. Many atheists reject the usage of the word finding it to be rather useless. I agree. Freethinker is a word that is seldom used today unfortunately.

user-pic

Hitchens, like all of us, is a fallible human being. Forget the author's name. Read the book. He has obviously done lots of research. All of us can do our research (if we chose) to find facts that support or challenge his facts.

There are startling things in his book. The polio issue, AIDs issue, gang rape issue, .... the list goes on and on.

Like Hitchens or not, if the things he writes about are true, it should make any religious person question themselves.

All mental endeavors have changed with them times (been updated, dropped, revised) over the last 2000 yrs. So has religion...except for the worst. More and more myths fabricated.

All humans need a good dose of humility. Have the courage to say "I Don't Know" when you don't know something. Try it...its exhilarating!

I have been vigorously searching the web for information about Hitchen's book tour for "God is not Great." If any of you can find out some of the info for me I would really appreciate it. Thanks!!

I am ever so grateful that someone who has a standing in literary world has finally said all I have felt since I was ten years old, attending a congregationist church. I NEVER believed the Bible stories other than fairy tales and looked around in wonder at all the adults sitting there thinking, "Do they actually believe this stuff?" By the time I was a young adult, married, with family etc. I knew there was no one up there running this world. It was at this point that I became skeptical of all religions and then of most governments. I cannot agree with the people who say that Hitchens book, "God is not Great" is shallow and ranting. Finally someone has said in a very detailed way and put together all the pieces I have picked up in my 73 years and packaged them very well. Anyone accusing Hitchens of ranting has not read the book in its entirety or is being too defensive. Talk of ranting, try listening to our "religious leaders" when they have a captive audience!! Thank you Mr. Hichens, I feel validated if not still quite lonely. I am also fortunate to have my husband of 53 years who entirely agrees with me, you and the book.

Excellency...Soo why does your religion giv eyou the right to judge me? it does not...you sick people...what horrors you do behind closed doors....what secrets lie not of your doings,a means to an end,an agenda indded...to control the masses,keep that money coming in ...all for me and whom i choose to be worthy,for i am god,dont ya know ....where do i comment to have you read it? anyone who wants to condemn,remember your religion,your faith. anyone who knows for certain all things i want to meet. Anyone who writes a book like this is a pure genious,his opinions i respect becasue they are factually based and soo soo true. anyone want to do the research?,it will take yrs,but when you come to the conclusion that indeed this man need to run for president of the usa and get the whole thing straightened out. Unless you agree with being treated as if you are not intitled to your own mind and what you put in it,unless you wish to deny self of that which you seek and have a right to believe in and learn about,key word,learn... At least he respects others faith,at least if one wants to call him an idiot and an anti religious what ever,at least he's a smart ass,instead of a genocidal maniac running loose,as we still have today,all in the name of religion,not love,which is suppose to be the foundation of that which we profess any faith in,but yet have such a hard time acting such out in our hearts of judgements and rules we cannot even abide in,no one can,only the self righteous whom claim as this very very bright man stated,one who thinks him to be god himself,at least if he is hurting no one,leave him alone,but often these very thoughts lead someone to believe they have every right to be blessed and given the right to speak for god himself,who ever his is,i like to imagine whats in our univers,there's enough trouble here on earth,hate,a condition of the human ego that disregards there religion,a sect,a group,whom are human beings,who seperate and divide,eventually....division is common in these sects,with al the money the churches have,set up that way soo they can have it all,if they soo had a heart,there would be no such state of our world as starvation,homelessness,untreated medical conditions,medicines,genocide,but never mind,its not our children there killing. iv have never seen anything wk but love. everything else destroys for lack of knowledge.

soo when does your religion give you the right to judge me? it doesnt you sick people. pick and choose your ignorance carefully as you may,you still cannot hide behind the ignorance of your bible of your god who picks you over all people to judge me? Shall we do unto thee what you have done unto thee world? oh no your too good for that,because of your mob that follows you who shows an even more apparent ignorance of how they treat others based on what your teaching them...excellency....where do i comment to have you read it? anyone who wants to condemn,remember your religion,your faith. anyone who knows for certain all things i want to meet. Anyone who writes a book like this is a pure genious,his opinions i respect becasue they are factually based and soo soo true. anyone want to do the research,it will take yrs,but when you come to the conclusion that indeed this man needs to run for president of the usa and get the whole thing straightened out. He is the messiah of the true faith....the other one has blood stains on there hands of hate...come on,teach the world this mystery of truth,if love is the greatest,then most certainly all other things factually true based upon the churches and its followers and teachers cannot even be blamed for there ignorance if they too want to learn really how to love,instead of relive this age old ignorance from soo soo long ago. at least truely now,all they can do it kick you out of church,burning is illegal now,but not following the very doctrine i teach... At least he respects others faith,at least if one wants to call him an idiot and an anti religious what ever,at least he's a smart ass,not a dumb ass that would burn me if he saw me readin g the bible or the koran or buddisum or what ever-it is my damn right,not your holier than thou stainless sinless life that you will never live. as well as all the sexual perversion that goes on in churches,the curiosity is high of who is having sex out of wedlock,huh....while the whole while the pastor is doing the teenager,he cant get any morals from his need to copulate,he hasnt any morals of how he gets it,just that he gets it...how is your occupation any greater than mine? dont talk to me about holiness when you havent the credentials to be preaching such heritics,you horr dog you...instead of a genocidal maniac running loose,as we still have today,all in the name of religion,not love,which is suppose to be the foundation of that which we profess any faith in,but yet have such a hard time acting such out in our hearts of judgements and rules we cannot even abide in,no one can. only the self righteous whom claim to be more forgiven than you,that all are not saved unless they believe in jesus,scary religion to say the least,but few get it right and are a shining example of love... as this very very bright man stated,one who thinks him to be god himself,at least if he is hurting no one,leave him alone,but often these very thoughts lead someone to believe they have every right to be blessed and given the right to speak for god himself,who ever his is,i like to imagine whats in our univers,there's enough trouble here on earth,hate,a condition of the human ego that disregards there religion,a sect,a group,whom are human beings,who seperate and divide,eventually....division is common in these sects,with al the money the churches have,set up that way soo they can have it all,if they soo had a heart,there would be no such state of our world as starvation,homelessness,untreated medical conditions,medicines,genocide,but never mind,its not our children there killing. iv have never seen anything wk but love. everything else destroys for lack of knowledge.

Religious people sure are sensitive.

Navigation

Support This Site






advertise_liberally.gif

Google Ads

Advertise Liberally Blogroll

All Spin Zone
AMERICAblog
AmericanStreet
ArchPundit
BAGNewsnotes
The Bilerico Project
BlogACTIVE
BluegrassReport
Bluegrass Roots
Blue Indiana
BlueJersey
Blue Mass.Group
BlueOregon
BlueNC
Brendan Calling
BRAD Blog
Buckeye State Blog
Chris Floyd
Clay Cane
Calitics
CliffSchecter
ConfinedSpace
culturekitchen
David Corn
Dem Bloggers
Democrats.com
Deride and Conquer
Democratic Underground
Digby
DovBear
Drudge Retort
Ed Cone
ePluribis Media
Eschaton
Ezra Klein
Feministe
Firedoglake
Fired Up
First Draft
Frameshop
GreenMountain Daily
Greg Palast
Hoffmania
Horse's Ass
Hughes for America
In Search of Utopia
Is That Legal?
Jesus' General
Jon Swift
Keystone Politics
Kick! Making PoliticsFun
KnoxViews
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Left Coaster
Left in the West
Liberal Avenger
Liberal Oasis
Loaded Orygun
MaxSpeak
Media Girl
Michigan Liberal
MinnesotaCampaign Report
Minnesota Monitor
My Left Nutmeg
My Two Sense
Nathan Newman
Needlenose
Nevada Today
News Dissector
News Hounds
Nitpicker
Oliver Willis
onegoodmove
PageOneQ
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon
PinkDome
Politics1
PoliticalAnimal
Political Wire
Poor Man Institute
Prairie State Blue
Progressive Historians
Raising Kaine
Raw Story
Reno Discontent
Republic of T
Rhode Island's Future
Rochester Turning
Rocky Mountain Report
Rod 2.0
Rude Pundit
Sadly, No!
Satirical Political Report
Shakesville
SirotaBlog
SistersTalk
Slacktivist
SmirkingChimp
SquareState
Suburban Guerrilla
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
Tapped
Tattered Coat
The Albany Project
The Blue State
The Carpetbagger Report
The Democratic Daily
The Hollywood Liberal
The Talent Show
This Modern World
Town Called Dobson
Wampum
WashBlog
Watching the Watchers
West Virginia Blue
Young Philly Politics
Young Turks

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives

scarlet_A.png

Chess Tactics Training

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2014 Norman Jenson