eChurch Blog

I was busy reading an op-ed in the New York Times by Nicholas Kristof, in which he notes the following:-

Just a few years ago, it seemed curious that an omniscient, omnipotent God wouldn’t smite tormentors like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. They all published best-selling books excoriating religion and practically inviting lightning bolts.

Traditionally, religious wars were fought with swords and sieges; today, they often are fought with books. And in literary circles, these battles have usually been fought at the extremes.

Fundamentalists fired volleys of Left Behind novels, in which Jesus returns to Earth to battle the Anti-Christ (whose day job was secretary general of the United Nations). Meanwhile, devout atheists built mocking Web sites like www.whydoesGodhateamputees.com. That site notes that although believers periodically credit prayer with curing cancer, God never seems to regrow lost limbs. It demands an end to divine discrimination against amputees

As he noted the ‘mocking‘ website www.whydoesGodhateamputees.com, it reminded me of an excellent article from Mariano over at the brilliant Atheism is Deab blog, that I reproduce here, with kind permission:-

Fundamentalist Theologian Asks: “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” and “Why Does God Hate Amputees?”

Indeed, a rigidly dogmatic theologian has demanded answers to the questions “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” and “Why Does God Hate Amputees?”

The theologian has even advanced the issue by proposing an experiment that will, once and for all, ascertain the answer.

The theologian has authored a website titled, “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” This person will remain nameless because they remain nameless on their website (they used to title the website “Why Does God Hate Amputees?”).

The dogmatist proposes that “Is God real, or is he imaginary?” “is one of the most important questions you can ask yourself.”

He concludes that “If God is real and if God inspired the Bible, then we should worship God as the Bible demands.” But that “if God is imaginary, then religion is a complete illusion.”

Guess what? Religion is a complete illusion even though God exists. Unless we are employing the only definition of “religion” with which the New Testament agrees,

Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world (James 1:27).

Of course, the theologian reasons that “Belief in God is nothing but a silly superstition, and this superstition leads a significant portion of the population to be delusional.”

Now comes the invitation to conduct an experiment:

But how can we decide, conclusively, whether God is real or imaginary?

Since we are intelligent human beings living in the 21st century, we should take the time to look at some data. That is what we are doing when we ask, “Why won’t God heal amputees?”

If you are an intelligent human being, and if you want to understand the true nature of God, you owe it to yourself to ask, “Why won’t God heal amputees?”

Note the qualifiers: if you are intelligent, a human being, and if you want to understand the true nature of God. If these things apply then you will ask “Why won’t God heal amputees?” Fine, but is the question the point? Cannot many answers be proposed? It would seem that the answer is more important than the question. Yet, the question is the starting point.

This fundamentalist theologian has actually devised the experiment whereby to scientifically determine whether or not God exists.

The experiment is prescribed thusly:

For this experiment, we need to find a deserving person who has had both of his legs amputated. For example, find a sincere, devout veteran of the Iraqi war, or a person who was involved in a tragic automobile accident.Now create a prayer circle like the one created for Jeanna Giese. The job of this prayer circle is simple: pray to God to restore the amputated legs of this deserving person.

I do not mean to pray for a team of renowned surgeons to somehow graft the legs of a cadaver onto the soldier, nor for a team of renowned scientists to craft mechanical legs for him. Pray that God spontaneously and miraculously restores the soldier’s legs overnight, in the same way that God spontaneously and miraculously cured Jeanna Giese and Marilyn Hickey’s mother.

Let us take a moment to note that the references to Jeanna Giese and Marilyn Hickey’s mother. Jeanna Giese is referenced due to the fact that it was reported that via a “prayer circle…Jeanna was the first human to survive rabies without the vaccine.”

Marilyn Hickey is known in Christian apologetics circles as a health and wealth teacher aka prosperity “gospel” preacher aka name it and claim it proponent or sarcastically stated: blab it and grab it.

Marilyn Hickey claimed that upon finding out that her mother was found to have a brain tumor she was out of town and so she “sent God’s Word long distance to my mother’s brain.” Shortly thereafter, “she was X-rayed again by her doctors, there was no evidence that any tumor had ever existed!”

It should be noted that if God healed these people then praise be He! If not then they may have been mistaken, seeking to defraud, etc. Yet, overall; God can heal people and can do so even if the evidence is not sufficient to convince an atheist.

Now, I have responded to this issue in the essay Evilbible – the Polemical Saga Continues, part 1 of 5. Thus, my concern in this essay is to focus on the details of the proposed experiment.

Why do I refer to an obvious atheist as a fundamentalist dogmatic rigid theologian? Because he is speaking as such. How so? Allow me to repeat the terms of the experiment adding emphasis and then parse them in order to elucidate:

For this experiment, we need to find a deserving person who has had both of his legs amputated. For example, find a sincere, devout veteranIraqi war, or a person who was involved in a tragic automobile accident.Now create a prayer circle like the one created for Jeanna Giese. The job of this prayer circle is simple: pray to God to restore the amputated legs of this deserving person.

I do not mean to pray for a team of renowned surgeons to somehow graftrenowned scientists to craft mechanical legs for him. Pray that God spontaneously and miraculously restores the soldier’s legs overnight, in the same way that God spontaneously and miraculously cured Jeanna Giese and Marilyn Hickey’s mother.

Note that, in keeping with the spirit of experimentation, the proposal is extremely detailed. We will instantly begin to realize why this atheist is, in reality, a theologian:

1) The God whom the theologian has in mind is one who is subject to experimentation—this represents a theological position: God may be experimented upon or be otherwise subject to experimentation.

2) The amputee must be “deserving”—this represents a theological position: God considers some people “deserving” of healing (apparently if you are not healed then you are not deserving).

2.1) We must first ascertain this God’s standards or else we would not know who this God considers “deserving” (except, perhaps, base it on who is healed).

3) The “deserving” person must have had both of his legs amputated—not just one and it cannot be a female (alright, “his” may be taken generically).

4) The examples are even more rigid: one must be sincere, devout, a veteran and it must be the Iraqi war. Not, for example, a veteran who fought in Desert Storm only in order to have the US Government pay for his college (alright, being an example we may disregard this).

5) Examples two: must be a person and must have been involved in an automobile accident that may be described, perhaps by definition, as having been tragic. It could not be a horse, could not be a motorcycle accident, etc. (alright, being an example we may disregard this).

6) Next a “prayer circle” must be formed, not a square—ok, just kidding with this one ) but…

7) The prayer circle must, you got it, “pray to God”—this represents a theological position: God may be prayed to, God hears prayer, God responds to prayer.

8 ) The prayer is prescribed as requesting (or demanding?) that God would (or should?) restore the amputated legs—this represents a theological position: God can do such a thing, God will do such a thing (technically the experiment is meant to prove this but let us state it this way since it is the presupposition of the hypothesis).

9) That God would do this for the “deserving person” was covered in 3

10) The “healing” could not be done via a “team of renowned surgeons.” Could it me one renowned surgeon but not a team? Could it me a team of surgeons as long as they are not renowned?

11) The “healing” could not come about due to successful grafting of the legs of a cadaver. Could it be the grafting of the legs of a living donor or two?—this represents a theological position: God would not (or is not being allowed to?) work through “team of renowned surgeons” through grafting.

10) The “healing” could not be done via a “team of renowned scientists.” Could it me one renowned scientist but not a team? Could it me a team of scientists as long as they are not renowned?

11) The “healing” could not come about due to successful crafting of mechanical legs—this represents a theological position: God would not (or is not being allowed to?) work through “team of renowned scientists” through crafting.

12) God must perform the healing “spontaneously.” Oddly, spontaneous means occurring without apparent external cause but the experiment is proposing the action of an external cause. Yet, I would imagine that what was meant by spontaneous is instantly—this represents a theological position: God’s miracles are (or should be?) instant and cannot taken any longer than an undefined span of time.

13) It must be done “miraculously”—let us just say “Granted” and yet—this represents a theological position: God can perform miracles (miracles that are spontaneous).

14) It must be done “overnight” and apparently not during the day, or over two nights—this represents a theological position: same as above.

15) Lastly, the miracle must take place “in the same way that God spontaneously and miraculously cured Jeanna Giese and Marilyn Hickey’s mother”—this represents a theological position: God may be experimented upon in that it is expected that concocting the same circumstances will produce the same results.

Number 15) may actually be the most important presupposition in that it also plays off of a misconception. The misconception is that there is a formula whereby we can get God to do as we please—yes, even things which we considered benevolent. The misconception is that we can pray anything, throw in a “In the name of Jesus” after it and it is a done deal (or is it, “In the name of Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus!”).

Succinctly, I will simply state that this misconception is premised upon a misunderstanding and misapplication of certain texts of scripture which, only upon their surface (the un-contextual surface), seem to imply as much. Yet, since I have already dealt with these with relation to evilbible.com’s contention that Jesus Lied I will leave the interested reader to consider that essay.

The concocter of the experiment, the one who asks “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” and “Why Does God Hate Amputees?”, is a theologian because he presupposes what God is like before even determining whether God exists, and then concocts an argument whereby to seek to prove that his particular concept of God exists.

If the experiment were ever to be realized and failed it would only disprove this particular atheist theologian’s contempt of God.

Atheist must understand that the moment they state, “Why does God…” or “Why doesn’t God…” or “If God was then God would…” or “God wouldn’t…” or “God should…” or “God shouldn’t…” or “If God existed then God would want to…” or “God would surely…” or “If God was love then…” etc., etc., etc. they are expressing opinions about their own theology and there is no reason to call into question God’s existence due to the atheist theologian’s God being disproved by experiment or logic.

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have issued the following statement to the College of Bishops:

Dear Bishop,

In July, during the first wave of the Swine Flu pandemic we issued national advice with regard to the administration of Holy Communion.

This advice was based on information and guidance received from the Department of Health which was geared to the situation at that time and the projected levels of risk suggested by the potential course of the pandemic.  Since then the scientific understanding of the Swine Flu virus has advanced, further experience of the course of the epidemic has been gained,  and the first stage of a vaccination programme, targeted at those most at risk from the virus, is nearing completion.

Throughout this period, our advice has been driven by the interests of public health, particularly for the protection of the vulnerable.

In the light of continuing consultation with the Department of Health, and with updated information on the course of the Swine Flu pandemic, we believe that we can now advise that the normal administration of Holy Communion ought to resume.  This recommendation is subject to the guidelines issued in June which set out good hygiene practice for public worship and which allows for local discretion in the event of outbreaks of pandemic flu in particular centres of population.  We shall also continue to monitor the situation.

We wish to thank you for your patience and cooperation during this challenging period for both Church and Community. We are thankful that the pandemic has so far proved less severe than was feared.

Please pass this on to your colleagues in the diocese.

With every blessing,

+Rowan Cantuar               +Sentamu Ebor

Quite interesting this research, as it does fly in the face of those that criticise faith schools as being socially divisive, however, just as a small word of caution, this research was funded by the Church of England.

Let’s face it, it doesn’t matter how much groups such as the Secularists and Humanists criticise Christian faith schools, by and large, they are jolly good and non-faith parents will jump through hoops to get their kids in!

The report, Strong schools for strong communities: Reviewing the impact of Church of England schools in promoting community cohesion, is available for download here.

And this is the press release from the Church of England website

BBC

A study funded by the Church of England found faith schools were rated higher than others by Ofsted inspectors on what is called “community cohesion”.

The church says its schools take all faiths seriously and look for common ground while respecting difference.

Campaigners against faith schools say the Ofsted checks do not go far enough.

The research, carried out by Professor David Jesson of York University, involved the analysis of Ofsted reports on 400 secondary schools and 700 primary schools.

He examined how schools were rated by inspectors on their new legal duty to “promote community cohesion”, which came was introduced in September 2007.

Prof Jesson says at primary level, faith schools were rated the same as non-religious schools.

But among the secondary schools surveyed, faith schools were rated higher.

Of the 74 secondary faith schools surveyed, 24 (32%) were rated “outstanding” at community relations.

Of the 337 non-faith secondaries analysed – 55 (16%) were given the same grade.

‘Divisive’

In his report, Prof Jesson said there was “clear evidence that faith schools were awarded substantially higher inspection gradings for promoting community cohesion than Community schools”.

“This finding… runs completely counter to those who have argued that, because faith schools have a distinctive culture reflecting their faith orientation and are responsible for their admissions, they are ‘divisive’ and so contribute to greater segregation amongst their communities.

“This is clearly not supported by this most recent Ofsted inspection evidence.”

Church leaders have been stung in the past by claims that faith schools divide communities and increase segregation.

The Reverend Janina Ainsworth, chief education officer for the Church of England, says schools with a religious foundation have a particular role “in modelling how faith and belief can be explored and expressed in ways that bring communities together, rather than driving them apart”.

“In Church of England schools that means taking all faith seriously and placing a high premium on dialogue, seeking the common ground as well as understanding and respecting difference.”

Opponents of faith schools have criticised the criteria used by Ofsted to rate schools on community cohesion.

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, chairman of the Accord Coalition, says inspectors should consider admissions policies and the religious education curriculum of faith schools.

“Building community cohesion is vitally important and we congratulate all those schools that have been working hard to meet the duty,” he said.

“The most pressing issue is whether the criteria used by Ofsted are sufficient.

“While school linking projects and classroom discussions of diversity are commendable, inspectors should also consider the impact on cohesion of discriminatory admissions and biased RE lessons.

“Occasional meetings with other groups have little merit if the children move in closeted circles most of the time and do not receive a broad education in class.”

Quotas

Three years ago religious groups in England joined forces and thwarted government attempts to force them to have quotas of children of other faiths (and none) in their schools.

However, a voluntary agreement was reached that in new faith schools, 25% of places would be reserved in this way.

Faith schools, when they are oversubscribed, can use religion when allocating places along with other factors such as distance, aptitude or whether siblings already attend.

About a third of state schools in England are faith schools – a majority of these being Church of England and Catholic, with a smaller number serving Jewish, Hindu, Sikh and Muslim communities.

About 14% of Scotland’s state schools are faith schools – almost all are Catholic.

A spokesman for the Department for Children Schools and Families said: “We know that many faith schools have been working very hard to promote community cohesion through programmes such as ‘Faith in the System’ which encourages schools from different faith groups to work closely together.

“We applaud the efforts that have been made in this area.”

Cross posted from Barry Rubin (Don’t forget to subscribe to his blog)

Finally, we know the long-awaited terms of the U.S.-Israel agreement on freezing construction on settlements. It is a good plan and represents a considerable, but well-crafted albeit unilateral concession by Israel. No licenses will be granted or apartments started on the West Bank for the next ten months. And Israel doesn’t consider east Jerusalem to be part of the West Bank.

The U.S. government praised the decision, after all it was pretty much what President Barack Obama has been trying to obtain for nine months and has worked hard to negotiate. “We believe the steps announced by the prime minister are significant and could have substantial impact on the ground,” said George Mitchell, Obama’s special mediator.

But, of course, it will have no impact whatsoever. On the contrary, the Palestinians and Arab states will complain that it isn’t enough, that it doesn’t mean anything, and that they have more demands. Their openly stated demand is that Israel just hand over all the West Bank and east Jerusalem in exchange for nothing.

In giving something in exchange for no material gain or even a gesture from the other side, Israel can only hope that the president appreciates this gesture and remembers that he did not deliver on his promise to get some concession from the Arab side to match it.

But will it be appreciated and even kept by the Obama Administration? Will the world, or even Europe, give Israel any credit for taking one more effort to show that it wants peace? Is it going to be widely understood as demonstrating—unfortunately—that the other side doesn’t? Is this going to affect the knee-jerk media view of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “hardline”?

Well, probably “no” but it’s worth a try. Obama will be president another three to seven years and he should be shown that Israel wants peace and is willing to cooperate with his efforts to a reasonable extent.

But that’s also why there’s a time limit. It’s not a high price to pay or keeping the United States happy and showing President Barack Obama that Israel wants peace, is cooperative, and is willing to make him look good.

Certainly, it won’t please the Palestinians, for reasons different from what you might think, Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas is not so happy. He’s complained in an interview that Obama is “doing nothing right now” regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

“I hope he’ll take a more important role in the future,” Abbas said. The Palestinians “are waiting for the United States to put pressure on Israel so it respects international law, so it takes up the road map….It can do two things: put pressure on the Israelis so they reject settlements, and put pressure so they accept withdrawing to the 1967 borders.”

Can you see the humor in this? Here’s Obama who campaigned and continues to say that his predecessor was “doing nothing” on the issue and that’s why it hadn’t been solved. Could Obama have possibly tried harder? He made it his most outspoken issue, talked about it constantly, met with leaders, put forward plans, pressured Israel, reached a deal with Israel that involved considerable Israeli concessions, and asked for—but didn’t receive—Arab help.

Could the lesson be more obvious? The problem isn’t Obama or Netanyahu; it’s Abbas. He is the one refusing to negotiate with Israel and is making a president who promised talks within two months look bad. He betrayed his promises to Obama not to try to turn the Goldstone report into a mob to lynch Israel.

Why is Abbas behaving this way, because he’s frustrated that progress isn’t being made? This claim is rather ironic since he’s the one blocking progress. The real reason is that he wants Obama to get him everything he wants without him making any compromises or concessions.

It isn’t going to happen. And the Palestinians, Arabs in general, and lots of Muslims will blame Obama. This must be a shock to him since he tried so hard and leaned over backwards to make them happy. And this disrespect is coming from Abbas, leader of the group which Obama has tried hardest to help in the whole world.

Ironically, too, this is the first real foreign policy success for the Obama Administration after ten months in office. Yet the White House isn’t eager—or not likely to be successful—in so claiming since so many people never want to credit Israel’s compromises. Once Arab sources criticized Hillary Clinton’s enthusiasm, the administration backed down in its praise and looked for still new, albeit small, ways to show that it is tough on Israel.

Objectively, though, bilateral relations are good, due in no small part to this step.

If the Palestinian side was sincere about negotiating seriously and making peace, it would respond rationally. Ok, they could say, it is only for ten months but we can use that period to make so much progress that it will be extended. Even better, they could understand that if they made a peace treaty and got a state there wouldn’t be any more settlements in the territory they would be ruling (though there would be on land swapped with Israel).

But, of course, Abbas and the PA don’t intend to do anything serious diplomatically in the next ten months, or twenty, or thirty. All he wants is that the United States force Israel to “accept withdrawing to the 1967 borders” and give up demands for settling Palestinians only in Palestine, not Israel; ending the conflict forever; having an unmilitarized Palestine; and insisting that it recognize Israel as a Jewish state rather than an impending victim.

Let’s all watch, see, and draw appropriate conclusion about what actually happens. And for those who didn’t learn this lesson the last half-dozen times—most importantly from the fate of the 1990s’ peace process, Israel’s withdrawal from south Lebanon, Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip—this can be a less costly way of understanding that it is the Palestinian side that is blocking peace and that support for Israel is the proper response to this situation.

PS: Read Netanyahu’s statement which has a number of interesting points.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

I noted the so called ‘Progressive Christian’ “Changing Attitude Blog” patting themselves on the back for joining with Humanists and Secularists to ‘run to the world’ in an attempt to remove the right of faith groups, to restrict employment to Christians whose private conduct and beliefs are consistent with the Bible’s teaching on sexual ethics.

It was no surprise to see Ekklesia also represented in this motley crew, who for the most part, spend so much time condemning the church that they appear to me, to be a group in opposition to the church frankly.

Oh, I nearly forgot to mention that the good ol communist controlled, Israel hating TUC, are also part of this ‘cutting edge’ consortium, birds of a feather mock together, and all that….

Christian Institute

A coalition of secular campaigners, gay rights activists, transgender organisations, trade unions and “progressive faith” groups has united to remove all religious liberty safeguards from the Equality Bill.

Calling itself the Cutting Edge Consortium (CEC), the group includes the British Humanist Association, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, the Muslim Women’s Network, Liberal Judaism, Ekklesia, Unison and the TUC.

It has called on Parliament to remove what it calls ‘religious opt-outs’ from the Bill.

The Bill already dramatically narrows safeguards in sexual orientation employment laws which protect the religious liberty of churches and other faith groups.

Under the current law, religious groups can restrict posts to Christians whose private conduct is consistent with the Bible’s teaching on sexual ethics. These posts must be for the purposes of organised religion, which could include jobs like a youth worker.

But under the Equality Bill the Government is specifying that this protection can only apply to posts that mainly involve leading worship or explaining doctrine.

The Bill’s explanatory notes make it clear that this protection “is unlikely to permit a requirement that a church youth worker who primarily organises sporting activities is celibate if they are gay, but may apply if the youth worker mainly teaches Bible classes”.

The groups involved in CEC say that even this limited protection is unacceptable. They voiced their opinions at an open meeting at the House of Commons this week, hosted by Labour MP Clare Short.

Maria Exall of the TUC, and in a lesbian civil partnership with Government minister Angela Eagle, said: “It is vital that progressive faith and secular voices are heard loud and clear supporting the Equality Bill and equal rights for LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered] people.”

Several CEC members have already called for the Equality Bill to restrict religious freedoms.

In June the British Humanist Association said the Bill should undermine faith schools’ religious ethos.

And last year the TUC said private businesses and charities should be forced by law to promote political correctness including ‘gay rights’.

The Equality Bill is due to complete its final stages in the House of Commons on 2 December. It will then pass to the House of Lords.

From the Sydney Morning Herald:-

A spate of attacks in Iraq killed five people and struck a church and a convent on Thursday, with one bomb at a busy market claiming two lives as shoppers stocked up for a Muslim feast and holiday.

In the deadliest incident, two home-made bombs exploded in the market in Mussayib, 60km south of Baghdad, killing three men and wounding 28, including two women and two children.

The attack occurred at around 11am local time, police said, and came as food markets were bustling ahead of the first day of Eid al-Adha, a festival and feast that marks the end of the hajj in Mecca, on Friday.

Separately, a car bomb at a taxi and bus station in Yusufiyah, also south of Baghdad, killed one man and left 10 people wounded, police said.

Both towns lie within a confessionally mixed region known as the Triangle of Death because of the frequency of attacks during the worst of Iraq’s insurgency in the wake of the 2003 US-led invasion that toppled dictator Saddam Hussein.

Thursday’s fifth victim died when a magnetic “sticky bomb” attached to his car exploded on a highway towards the east of the Iraqi capital. A passenger was wounded.

In the restive northern city of Mosul, meanwhile, a church and a convent were struck by bombings, causing severe damage to both but leaving no casualties, religious leaders said.

One of the attacks hit the St Theresa Convent of Dominican Nuns in the western Jadida (New Mosul) district, according to Father Yousif Thomas Mirkis, chief representative of the Dominican order in Iraq.

“These attacks are aimed at forcing Christians to leave the country,” he told AFP, noting that the bomb had been placed inside the convent grounds and caused damage to its building.

Another bombing struck the Church of St Ephrem in the same Mosul district, causing major damage to the Chaldean church building, said Patriarchal Vicar George Basman.

“We cannot pray there,” he said, referring to the damage. “There were no casualties because it was a working day.”

Thousands of Christians fled Mosul, 350km north of Baghdad, last year because of violence that claimed the lives of 40 people from the community.

Since the invasion in 2003, hundreds of Christians have been killed and several Iraqi churches attacked.

A report this month by Human Rights Watch said minority groups in the north of the country, including Christians, have fallen victim to a struggle between Arabs and Kurds for control in several disputed districts.

Though violence nationwide has dropped dramatically compared to 18 months ago, attacks remain common, especially in Baghdad and Mosul.

A total of 410 people, including 343 civilians, were killed as a result of violence last month.

Click here for previous posts on Iraq

Cross post from the excellent Atheism is Dead Blog by Mariano:-

What is the problem with the self made man? That he worships his creator (man here meaning non-gender specific personage).

I have often noted that atheism, or many atheists, do not seek to be rid of God but merely replace a supernatural God with a natural one.

Indeed, two of atheism’s consoling delusions are the delusion of absolute autonomy and lack of ultimate accountability.

God states, “You shall have no other gods before me.”

The atheist states, “I shall have no other gods before me” or “I shall have no other gods besides me.”

Let us consider the concept of iTheism, then the history of iTheism and then specific examples of iTheists.

Atheism is thus premised upon the original of original sins: iTheism. This denotes placing oneself on the ultimate pedestal; there may be people who are more knowledgeable than we or more capable in this or that way but ultimately we, the iTheists, are the supreme authority. The iTheist determines what is right/good/moral and wrong/evil/immoral, what is true and false, the iTheist sees god reflected in their mirror.

The original, original sin was committed by lucifer, who was not an atheist, and became satan when he became an iTheist. As it is elucidated in Isaiah ch. 14:

How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart:
“I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.”

From this premise, known as the five I wills, satan has not had one single new idea and why bother as this one has worked wonders as he waters the seed of rebellion within the heart of humanity.
In Genesis 3:1-5 it states that satan, referred to in the text as “the serpent,” (also see Revelation 12:9, 20:2) told Eve:

“Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’” Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Note the steps 1) question God’s statements, 2) contradict God’s statements and 3) urge rebellion in seeking equality with God.

In atheism of the iTheism sort this works out thusly: 1) question that there is a God to make a statement in the first place and therefore fulfill questioning God’s statements, 2) even though there is no God to make a statement, contradict those statements claimed to have been spoken by God (?cause you, in your unfathomably finite wisdom, know better) and 3) become equal with God, meaning to make yourself God and thus, replace God with you the iTheist and urging others to do likewise—especially the naturally rebellious and overactive libidoed youth.

This pattern repeats throughout history until the very end when,

the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God (2nd Thessalonians 2:3-4).

Now, consider a statement made by Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (which was established in the USA, a country premised upon the concept of freedom of religious expression)[1]:

The United States of America, for example, is a proudly rebellious nation. We fought a Revolutionary War kicking out the king, dictator, lord. There is value in not bowing to traditions that imply subservience to a Master–we are not slaves. Yet most religious language suggests the opposite: we must worship that which is above us and adore or obey the Father/Mother/Creator who guides our lives. [emphasis in original]

What was the straw that broke the iTheistic camel’s back: the concept of god as God as the king, dictator, lord and Master because we are not slaves and must kicking God out. Since most religious language suggests the opposite he rejects it because, being an iTheist, he cannot conceive of, or allow anyone/thing, above him which he must/should/would want to worship, adore and obey.

Of course, as I noted in my essay The Totalitarian, Dictatorial, Tyrannical Worldview iTheists actually do not escape anything when they reject God but merely jump from the freeing pan and into the fire.

Larry Taunton interviewed Richard Dawkins: The Atheist Evangelist and wrote the following:

“You’re not telling me that as a civilized 21st-century man that you get your morality from the Ten Commandments?” He was incredulous. To him, it was as if I were saying, “The Easter Bunny gave us these laws, and they fall into three categories … .” “What aspects of the Ten Commandments do you find objectionable?” I asked. After an animated exchange and a brief search for a Bible, Dawkins went straight to the opening line of the Decalogue: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” The idea of a personal God who demands exclusivity of worship offended him. Given Dawkins’s worldview, this seemed like a logical protest. After all, the other nine commandments hang on that one.

Do you see the point? Anything and everything that is premised upon “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” is instantly and ad hominemly rejected because, as an iTheist, Dawkins cannot allow any gods before or beside he, himself.

What Richard Dawkins does not seem to consider is that without premise “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” the commandments which follow would be about as authoritative, alive, potent and enjoining as Dawkins’ very own New Ten Commandments (of which he lists 15). Which is to say that they would be yet another mere list of moral assertions promulgated by a temporary bio-organism who formulated them upon bio-chemical reactions in its brain as it lives on a pale blue dot in the universe’s backwaters.

This is clearly not about ritualistic, dietary and otherwise behavioral laws in general; this is about the iTheist not wanting God to get in the way of their self worship.

Again I turn to Friedrich Nietzsche who understood that the death of God would lead to the deification of man as we shrug off the celestial monarch and replace Him with terrestrial monarchs. In his Parable of the Mad Man he states that after murdering God the question is posed, “Must we ourselves not become gods…?” in that we would concoct, by necessity iTheistic, “festivals of atonement…what sacred games shall we have to invent?”

As for satan, the text continues:

Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit. Those who see you will gaze at you, and consider you, saying:
“Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world as a wilderness and destroyed its cities, who did not open the house of his prisoners?”

All the kings of the nations, all of them, sleep in glory, everyone in his own house; but you are cast out of your grave like an abominable branch, like the garment of those who are slain, thrust through with a sword, who go down to the stones of the pit, like a corpse trodden underfoot.

Cast off your crowns my dear iTheists, repent and cast them at the feet of the true King, Jesus the Messiah, who said,

Behold, I stand at the door and knock.
If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me (Revelation 3:20).”

[1] Dan Barker interviewed by the “Unitarian Universalist Infidels,” reprinted from Search of Reason, Vol. 1, Issue 1, Spring 2004 (apparently, an ongoing search)

Even with the recent  ClimateGate scandal, the BBC has been harping on about the utterly mad proposal from the Department of Health, that advised the killing of one in three cows in Britain, to reduce methane emissions and help combat glogal warming.

Thankfully it would seem that this mad cow proposal has been rejected and the Biased BBC blog has picked up the story.

I would say that you have got to laugh, but the level government insanity is quite troubling actually and I bet dairy farmers weren’t laughing when they first viewed these proposals.

It’s still not good for the ‘unofficial’ church in China:-

By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN (AP)

BEIJING — A court in northern China has sentenced five leaders of an unauthorized Protestant church to prison terms of up to seven years on charges including illegal assembly, rights groups reported Thursday.

The sentences are among the harshest in recent years for members of so-called “house churches” — congregations that refuse to register and accept the authority of the government’s Religious Affairs Bureau.

Arrests stemmed from a Sept. 13 raid by police and hired security guards on sunrise services held in a dormitory building by the 50,000-member Linfen Fushan Church in Linfen, northern Shanxi province, rights groups and the advocacy Web site Boxun.com reported.

Those sentenced late Wednesday by the Linfen Intermediate Court included the church’s pastor Wang Xiaoguang and his wife Yang Rongli, who both received the maximum sentence. Yang was apparently targeted for her efforts to petition local authorities on Wang’s behalf, Boxun said. Others were given sentences of between three and four-and-a-half-years, it said.

The trial was called at the last minute and the court permitted only one family member of each defendant to attend, the reports said. Local authorities had previously refused to allow lawyers to meet with the accused.

The reports said the five were convicted on two charges: “illegal land occupation” and “assembling a crowd to disrupt public order.” No other details were given. Monitoring groups frequently cite such charges as evidence of government harassment of nonofficial churches.

Yang had been detained the day after the raid while carrying a protest to the Shanxi provincial government offices in the capital of Taiyuan, reports said. Another 10 people were detained over the following days, although it was not immediately clear whether they had been released or would also face trial.

Calls to several departments of the Linfen Intermediate Court rang unanswered on Thursday. A man who answered at Fushan police headquarters hung up after a reporter identified himself and calls to other local government departments went unanswered.

According to the U.S.-based China Aid Association, local authorities had earlier chosen not to prosecute church leaders under harsh anti-cult legislation that could have brought more severe sentences. That seemed to indicate they would continue to allow the church to exist, although reports said police continued to be posted outside church offices.

Officially, China’s communist government requires all Protestants to worship in the non-denominational Three-Self Patriotic Movement, while Catholics must meet in the Patriotic Association. Both are beholden to the Religious Affairs bureau, while the degree of tolerance for unregistered churches varies from location to location.

The number of Christians in China is estimated to be about 50 million to 130 million.