Sunday, January 16, 2011

Dear Erick Erickson, Please Forgive Me For Existing

Erick "Supreme Court Justice David Souter is a Goat Fucking Child Molester" Erickson of Redstate.com had this to say in response to the Tucson shooting spree that seriously wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, among others, and killed six people, including a Federal judge:

"Through it all though, well meaning people on both sides of the ideological and partisan divide are not talking about the one thing that should be talked about — a saving faith in Jesus Christ."

I guess Rep. Giffords, who is Jewish, should count herself twice lucky. Not only was she not killed, she still has time to be "saved." I am sure that she will no doubt be grateful for Erickson's concern.

"In all the discussions we’re having, let’s not forget that bad things have happened throughout history, but we are seeing more and more a pattern of violence from those who reject Christ and we are seeing the most extreme rhetoric from those who reject the only real truth while embracing every other historic fad and nonsense as variations of truth."

Yeah, he's right. Militant Muslims reject Christ (though if I am not mistaken, they do recognize Jesus as a prophet of God) and they are increasingly resorting to extreme rhetoric and violence. Oh, wait:

"For a taste of what I’m talking about, look at Timothy McVeigh. Raised a Catholic, McVeigh self-admitted that there was a god of some sorts, but that he was agnostic, had no belief in hell, and had drifted far from anything having to do with Jesus Christ."

So much for that militant Muslim thingy.

"The topic of faith in Christ makes people cringe."

For me, it's not so much cringeworthy as eyerolling.

"But whether you believe it or not, here is the reality: beyond us is a world we cannot see with our eyes. It impacts us on a daily basis."

Like Dark Matter and Dark Energy? How about solar radio bursts? The magnetic field?

"It is a world of very real angels and very real demons. It is a world of a very real God and a very real Satan, a very real Heaven and a very real Hell."

Oh. Boy, was I way off. So, not only are angels, demons, God, Satan, Heaven and Hell real, they are "very" real. So, when bonobos engage in promiscuity, they're just behaving like the animals that they are. But when members of homo sapiens engage in promiscuity, it is because they are possessed by demons and/or are tempted by Satan (sorry, couldn't find the English version!). Acts of altruism by chimpanzees are again just animal behavior, but altruism by humans is special, as long as the person doing the altruistic act has a deep, abiding faith in Jesus Christ. Thus, Agnostic Adam, who volunteers at a food bank a few hours a week, gets killed in a car accident after spending a night with and getting a blow job from Steve, is going straight to the ovens because that blow job and Adam's agnosticism made the Creator of the Universe very upset.

"The back and forth and accusations and lies surrounding Jared Loughner should be a constant reminder to us that there is more at play in our world than what we see. And, frankly, at times like this I am more and more mindful of the great chasm in this world between the saved and damned."

Of course, Erick Erickson has that smug assurance that he is among the elite few who are "saved." However, the great chasm I see in the world is between the haves and the have-nots. The chasm between people who live in safe neighborhoods and those who live in places where the simple act of going to the market or to a well two hours away on foot is to risk being raped or murdered. The chasm between people who have access to basic health care and those who do not. The chasm between people who have shelter and those who do not.

There are good people in the world, both secular and religious, who devote their lives to trying to bridge these chasms. For example, some of my wife's family members, who are devout Catholics, will go back home to the Philippines once a year on medical missions to provide medical care to the poor. Is it my place to tell them "Great work on those medical missions, but you can jettison that Catholic crap, you know"?

"Political rhetoric did not make Jared Loughner do what he did. His embrace of evil led him down a road down which we should be in constant prayer no others dare travel."

Hold on there fella'! While I am not one to jump on the "blame Sarah Palin's target map" bandwagon with regard to this incident, the simple fact is that we won't know for sure what led Loughner to go on his shooting rampage at the supermarket unless and until he tells us. What does seem clear is that Loughner did not exactly have a firm grip on what we call reality. In the coming weeks and months, we may get a clearer picture of what drove him to commit murder. But what certainly did not cause him to do what he did was Satan whispering in his ear "Go on Jared, pull the trigger."

To circle back to Erickson's earlier about "a pattern of violence from those who reject Christ," if he is referring to those of us in America who are atheists, agnostics or members of other religious faiths, what does he base this on? How many vocal atheists have committed murder, rape or theft in this country and are there statistics that show an increase in such violence? Unless Erickson can produce this, I have to assume he just pulled that statement out of his ass. What is a fact though is that Erick Erickson did threaten to shoot U.S. census workers if they came to his house*. Then again, it's okay if Erick does it, because he's like "saved."

* My original version of this post was worded incorrectly in that I had wrote that Erickson threatened "to shoot U.S. census workers who came to his house."

27 comments:

Spanish Inquisitor said...

I'm reading Dan Barker's "Godless" right now, and what strikes me about these whack-nut Christians like Erickson is how insulated they seem to be from the annoying tendrils of reality. It's like they live in a big bubble, surrounded in turn by layers and layers of bubble wrap, and are not touched at all by what goes on around them. All of the people they deal with from daybreak to sundown are people who think like them, who have constructed a view of reality out of one book and constantly reinforce themselves, always looking to make sure that nothing intrudes into their well-formulated sense of reality.

Erickson writes like that's the world he lives in.

the chaplain said...

SI:
That's a pretty accurate description of the fundogelical bubble. I love the bubble wrap bit. ;)

Gideon said...

Another infidel pussy... can't take a contrary opinion. Must be taking lessons from Philly Chief.

Philly running your life, too, son?

LOL!

Twit.

Gideon said...

Btw, the "atheist" regime in Soviet Russia took out more people in a few years than any other regime or religion in all of history. There's your vaunted infidel morality for ya!

Learn your history, fool.

Tommykey said...

Dude, it has nothing to do with not being able to "take a contrary opinion." But you don't get to come here, shit on my carpet, and then complain about being shown the door.

When you're ready to act like a civilized human being, by all means feel free to comment. Until then, I am not interested in interacting with you here. Acting like a douchebag is not the way you try to convince someone of the truth of your religion.

Gideon said...

I was merely making a comment and you deleted it. I wasn't here to "shit" on anyone.

Suit yourself. However, I'd say there is more benefit to debate than just surrounding oneself with those that agree with you.

Anyway, I apologize for the name-calling. I'll be decent if you can.

Fair enough?

Tommykey said...

Christians are always welcome to comment here and I have had a few in the past. Most have been quite civil and polite. I don't surround myself with those who agree with me. It's just that I'm such an obscure blogger, I don't get much traffic from either theists or atheists.

Now, this comment thread is for a post I wrote in response to something written by Erick Erickson. I was not bashing all Christians, and neither was SI, or do you equate Erick Erickson with all Christians, ergo, publicly disagreeing with Erickson equals an attack on Gideon?

Gideon said...

When you mention John, (SI) you delve into an area of personal experience where evidence of deep-seated animosity toward God and Christians not only exists, it is flaunted readily and almost gleefully. This attitude, I have come to believe, may have much to do with his seemingly close affiliation with Philly Chief, a viral, rabid opponent of the faith. John's use of the term "whack-nut" is more than enough reason to believe he has more than an intellectual investment in your post... it's more of an opportunity to bash Christianity through an unrelated event like the Tuscon shooting, even inferring that Christianity could/should somehow be linked to it.

Whether or not Erikson is or meets my criteria for being a Christian at all, having no previous knowledge of the man, is moot. So is John's opinion of his remarks being typical of Christian attitudes or behavior. In my experiences with you infidels, (a term I use to describe vehement deniers of God's authority) I've had ample evidence shown me of there being more than an analytical interest in topics about God and/or Christianity, it's usually an occasion for God/Christian-bashing. When I counter, I'm usually mocked and derided... how would you expect, after all of this, that I would suspect any other motive seeing this post?

Yes, I may handle people roughly, sometimes, though it's generally in response to the way I'm treated. However, I have a genuine interest in you infidels and your spiritual welfare. There are probably many Christians out there that could do it more in the way you might expect, yet I don't see much of that happening. I believe (again, from personal experience over many years) many Christians don't have the interest in following Christ's example of going the extra mile with unbelievers.

I know what is in store for those that refuse Christ's salvation. That awareness is what inspires me to act the way that I do... because, there were others that went that extra mile for me.

Does that make sense to you?

Spanish Inquisitor said...

Btw, the "atheist" regime in Soviet Russia took out more people in a few years than any other regime or religion in all of history.

It's when Gideon writes stuff like this that I begin to think he's really a POE.

When you mention John, (SI) you delve into an area of personal experience where evidence of deep-seated animosity toward God and Christians not only exists, it is flaunted readily and almost gleefully. This attitude, I have come to believe, may have much to do with his seemingly close affiliation with Philly Chief, a viral, rabid opponent of the faith.

And it's when he write this kind of stuff, I know he hasn't a clue about what he's talking about. First off, I don't have animosity towards god, no more than I have animosity towards Halloween goblins. One can't dislike something that doesn't exist. Any animosity I have is towards irrational thinking, exemplified by what people like Gideon write, and what people like George Bush, Ted Haggard and a multitude of extroverted and hypocritical Christians do with that irrational thinking.

Second, I was an atheist long before I knew who Philly Chief was, and Gideon insults me by saying that my "attitude" is somehow not mine, that I'm just parroting someone else, that I don't have a mind of my own. Gideon can't fathom that anyone rejects his delusional beliefs, honestly and through the use of reason, so there must be some other explanation. Voila', I'm under the influence of someone who consistently dismisses him as an idiot.

John's use of the term "whack-nut" is more than enough reason to believe he has more than an intellectual investment in your post... it's more of an opportunity to bash Christianity through an unrelated event like the Tuscon shooting, even inferring that Christianity could/should somehow be linked to it.

Third, Erik Erikson is a delusional, hypocritical Christian with a political agenda. "Whack-nut" is just my personal shorthand for that description. HE was the one who pulled Christianity into the dialogue, not me. Yet Gideon accuses ME of making an issue out of it. That's where Gideon shows that he doesn't even understand the meaning of the word "hypocrite".

When I counter, I'm usually mocked and derided... how would you expect, after all of this, that I would suspect any other motive seeing this post?

Gideon also has a false persecution complex. He is not mocked, ad hominem-like. What he says and believes is mocked, because what he says and believes is pure and utter nonsense. Anyone else that said what he says would get the same reaction. It's not personal. He seems to masochistically enjoy trolling atheist blogs with his nonsense. He should have a thick skin is he likes to do that. If he doesn't want his silly beliefs mocked, he shouldn't put them out there for scrutiny. But like most other Christians, he'll never understand that, believing till he dies that his beliefs are so true, they are above ridicule and scrutiny. They are not.

Spanish Inquisitor said...

I know what is in store for those that refuse Christ's salvation. That awareness is what inspires me to act the way that I do... because, there were others that went that extra mile for me.

Does that make sense to you?


No. What you "know", and what you can support and convince others of, are two different things. Your knowledge is nothing more than your personal beliefs, and they have been soundly and consistently rejected here and at my blog, among others. If you feel the need to proselytize, set up a soap box on some corner.

On the other hand, if you are interested in honestly debating the value and truth of your beliefs, abide by a few rules that all atheists will expect of you.

1. Don't quote scripture. It's just a book.

2. Support what you assert with evidence.

3. Respond to our usually well thought out and reasonable questions designed to probe the truth of your assertions, rather than (a) quote scripture and/or (b) ignore the question.

Gideon said...

Well, it seems my last comment got eaten or flew off into cyberspace, somewhere, but, I'll try again. (This should be a lesson to everyone about Blogger's inefficient posting system - always SAVE everything you write! I should know this well, by now)

John, my charges against you are not unfounded, you are biased in your view of God and Christians, anyone spending any time on your blog will see that quite readily. You may not be quite as profane as some, yet your animosity toward God and His people is very noticeable and transparent.

Also, your beliefs are not beyond refutation, much of the 'science', today, is speculative, and there are not any Christians that will dispute the basic tenants of it. It's when you get into subjects like origins and dogmatically preach that it had to have happened in a certain way, unobserved by you or anyone else alive, today, that you have reduced your "empirical" observations to the same level of ambiguity that you place my faith.

I don't have any persecution complexes, in fact, it's infidels like Philly and now you that seem bent upon following me around, making charges about my motives and/or my character, that are on the cusp of being what you afflict me with. I'm quite happy, thank you, with my beliefs and my estimation of my self-worth. I could certainly be doing other things with my time, however, I like what I do, and, for the aforementioned reasons, continue to do them.

I am in no way insecure or doubtful about my faith, anyone is welcome to come to my blog and challenge me on it. You have chosen not to and you moderate me, (only me) so that might be in and of itself good indication that you are the one that is unsure of himself.

Anyway, time is a factor with me, today, so I'll leave it here. Besides, the way Blogger's working, today, I can't afford many rewrites.

Toodles!

Gideon said...

Well, whaddya know... that comment caught!

See, John? Miracles DO happen!

LOL!

Spanish Inquisitor said...

I don't have any persecution complexes, in fact, it's infidels like Philly and now you that seem bent upon following me around, making charges about my motives and/or my character...

'tis to laugh...

You contradict yourself, Giddy. I'm following you around, now? Just look up there. Who made the first comment on this post? Who called who a pussy?

Really, all I can do is laugh, Giddy, because you're so...laughable.

Gideon said...

And so, Tommykey, here is all the proof that you need to see how John accepts contrary views... he doesn't.

I'm laughable, because, I don't accept HIS views. He won't and cannot refute anything that I say, but, I'm still laughable in his mind.

And, John, I didn't follow you here. As I explained in my original comment, the one that mysteriously evaporated, I merely clicked on Tommykey's avatar on your blog, as I don't see him commenting on a regular basis and wanted to check him out. Your being here had nothing to do with my visit. Don't get a big head over this, okay?

I had also commented that you seemed to have more integrity than most of the other infidels, letting me (after moderation, of course) continue commenting on your blog, where Philly had banned me months before. Perhaps... just perhaps, I was wrong in that, hmmm? Maybe you've allowed the Philly 'virus' to infect your thinking now, as well? After all, we both know how virulently, perhaps insanely malevolent he is toward Christians.

Anyway, rave on. I'll let Tommykey make up his own mind about me, unlike... well... some people.

Tommykey said...

Okay, and I now declare these proceeedings closed. Any further comments here should relate to my post. Gideon, any problems you have with SI should be taken up with him on his blog. Fair enough?

Gideon said...

Like I said, my coming here had nothing to do with him.

Gideon said...

You might like to check your spam filter (Blogger has them, now) and see if it is swiping comments. Maybe lengthy comments are finding their way in there.

Anyway, regarding your post, whatever else this guy Erikson is, he's right about people not returning to God. Things are only going to get worse along these lines as time winds down. The meaning of Genesis 6:3; "My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh" becomes clear when you consider the deteriorating effect that time has upon our race.

If the Spirit has a restraining influence upon us now, (see also Revelation 7:1-3) just think about what can happen once that influence is removed... and it will be! (Chapter 8) It will be a combination of God's retribution, mingled with man's own evil penchant for violence and the satanic forces aligned against him, all let loose at once.

So, you see, Tuscon is nothing. Nothing at all, in light of all of this which is to come. I know you think all of this is bullshit, SI certainly does, he and his crew. Nevertheless, society is at a loss to explain why these things happen and I've just told you why they do happen and why they will continue to happen.

A golden age is approaching, however, humanity is first going to have to pass through the darkest age it has ever encountered. All because they forgot their God and desired self-rule over benevolent divine rule.

Anonymous said...

Below is a quote from a post on Honjii's Harangues entitled, Extreme Religion, Score God: Untold Millions, Atheists: 0. Honjii makes some good points along the lines of this discussion.
You can read the whole post here if you want: http://honjii.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/extreme-religion-score-god-untold-millions-atheists-0/

"Let’s take a look at that moral code of the holier than thou, shall we? Let’s see now just how many witches were killed, in Salem, by atheists? Score: Christians 24, Atheists 0. And let us not forget the carnage of The Inquisition, The Crusades, religious wars in Ireland, terrorists attacks, and all the crap going on in the middle east at present, just to name a few. I don’t even know the score for these, except that for atheists it is always 0. These are examples of what happens when religion is taken to the extreme, when you take your particular religious book as the last word so that your view of the world becomes so warped you think it is ok to throw insults and bombs. Granted, insults and terrorism are at opposite ends of the scale, but the reasoning (or lack of) behind it is all the same. That’s why just as extreme sports are more dangerous than regular sports, so is extreme religion. "

Gideon said...

"Let’s take a look at that moral code of the holier than thou, shall we?"

Holier than thou? That would be the infidel attitude, now, wouldn't it? After all, it's infidels that think they are so good that they don't need expiation... that having God rule over their lives or having association with those that know they need God would be a detriment to their pride and ambitions. Let's get things in their proper perspective before we attempt any further analysis of that baseless and (of course) anonymous comment.

I think it's safely been established, too, that most of those atrocities cited by Mr. Anonymous were, in fact, committed by non-Christian infidels. After all, a true follower of Christ would naturally mimic His behavior and attitude... which precludes killing or persecuting others. So, with that fact established, any atrocities committed would necessarily have been at the hands of infidels.

People love to quote the dark ages as an example of Christian intolerance and malevolence. What they fail to understand is that the Catholic Church is a pagan institution; actually, a satanic cult. It is NOT a Christian organization, even though it may call itself that. I could call myself Ben Franklin, and, if I did it for long enough, I might even believe I was Ben Franklin. However, that wouldn't make me Ben Franklin. Lot's of people call themselves Christians, too, that have no idea what that entails. They couldn't even find Genesis in the Bible!

Infidels, in general, are educated in an infidel system that is biased toward infidel ideology and attitudes. One thing you'll never get in a secular school is an accurate portrayal of history. Your head will be filled with evolutionary CRAP and anti-theistic nonsense, as well, with absolutely no recourse to truth other than through a Christian education.

So, yes, it is possible to have a warped view of the world, such as been demonstrated by the humanist approach to understanding it. The arrogance of secular science, in it's domination of society as the self-proclaimed enlightenment, is proof that there have, indeed, been atrocities perpetuated throughout history, which it now perpetuates in it's promotion of infidel/pagan 'scientific' dogma.

the chaplain said...

I think it's safely been established, too, that most of those atrocities cited by Mr. Anonymous were, in fact, committed by non-Christian infidels. After all, a true follower of Christ would naturally mimic His behavior and attitude... which precludes killing or persecuting others. So, with that fact established, any atrocities committed would necessarily have been at the hands of infidels.

Ah - the No True Scotsman fallacy. Last resort of those trying to distance themselves from the more embarrassing representatives of the righteous.

Spanish Inquisitor said...

Why are you trying to convince Gideon with principles of logic? You can't reason with someone who wasn't reasoned into his beliefs.

He wouldn't know a "No True Scotsman" fallacy if he drowned in a swimming pool filled with them.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for donating to Planned parenthood, see link for our good works

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/LateTermAbortions/abortedbaby05.html

Thanks!

Anonymous said...

Tommyfag,

atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people in the 20th century.

(Not including the 50 million killed by abortion in the US.)

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/11/23/atheism-kills/

Glenn

Tommykey said...

Anonymous #1. You're welcome!

Anonymous #2 aka Glenn:

Get emotional much? Calling me Tommyfag? Way to prove your Christian love to me. Most of what Planned Parenthood does has nothing to do with abortion and in fact I used their services some years ago during a difficult time in my life.

As for your anti-atheist rants, what do the actions of Josef Stalin have to do with me? I'm not a Stalinist or a Bolshevik or anything like that. As I have pointed out on my own blog and elsewhere, the tyrannical regimes of Stalin and Mao occurred in Russia and China, two countries with long histories of autocratic rule. I submit that Russia would not have produced a Josef Stalin had there not been an Ivan the Terrible. And as for China, during the Taiping Rebellion in the mid-19th century, which was led by a failed aspirant to the Chinese civil service who styled himself to be the brother of Jesus Christ, an estimated 20 million people died.

Spanish Inquisitor said...

Tom

I assume that "Thank you" to Anonymous #1 was sarcastic.

As for the old, tiresome, atheist dictators canard, let's assume that Anonymous #2 is correct, that hundreds of millions of people died because of people like Stalin (ignoring that idiotic link that cites, of all people, Dinesh D'Souza, and lumps Hitler, a Catholic, in the figures).

Exactly what does that say about the truth of Christianity, or theism in general? That because one ego-maniacal power hungry communist killed all those people, and incidentally proclaimed himself an atheist, ergo Christianity is true? I don't think so. We're not debating a dichotomy between atheism and Christianity, we're debating a dichotomy between atheism and theism.

The logic isn't there. There is no nexus between the genocide of Stalin and the truth of Christianity. Why not Arapaho shamanism? Why not claim that the Arapahos were correct and had discovered the truth about religion, because Stalin was a killer, so we should all convert to Native American theism (which incidentally is based on a respect for nature)?

Not to mention the fact that Stalin didn't kill all those people because they refused to accept atheism. His was not a religiously motivated, doctrinal purge of society, as, say, the Spanish Inquisition was.

Sometimes it would be nice if these drive by commentators had brains, and used them, rather than Chick tracts.

Gideon said...

"As for your anti-atheist rants, what do the actions of Josef Stalin have to do with me?"

Exactly, Tom. And, what do the antics of pagan, pseudo-Christians have to do with God or REAL Christians? Inconsistent much?

Chaps... bad argument. Back to your knitting, there, girl.

John... *sigh* These malevolent tirades of yours are beginning to sound a LOT like Philly-babble. Not good for someone of your age, y'know. The blood pressure thingie n' all...

So, Tom... wife still working? I was wondering, since you haven't posted anything new in a while...

;-)

the chaplain said...

Gideon:
My comment was an observation, not an argument. Surely you can tell the difference between the two, Giddy.