Luv Yr Enemies -- Jesus Christ

Obviously, the easiest way to defend Mr. Christ would be to claim that the vast majority of the murders, lootings, genocides and similar acts of pure, unadulterated evil attributable to his organisation actually occurred long after his death, and were carried out by less scrupulously moral underlings. However, this version of the "Lenin Good/Stalin Bad" defence, popular with communist apologists of a certain age, is hardly open to Mr Christ. If he's telling the truth in his bestselling book (and its bestselling sequel), then he has been, personally, in charge of the whole shebang and shooting match for the last two thousand years. If he did in fact die in 33AD, then he's a fucking liar for saying he wasn't going to, and why are we bothering talking about him? I dunno.

So it's pleas in mitigation that we're looking for, then ,given that Adequacy.org is not in the habit of denying obvious historical facts [Editor's note, by elby: this is not official policy -- we may very well choose to deny historical facts in the future]. Although we have to accept a history of sexism, homophobia, genocide, dodgy taste in architecture and reasonably laid charges of being an out-and-out bore, we would put it to you, the reader, that the Jesus Christ rap sheet, forbidding though it is, can be divided up into four major categories:

Crimes committed against people who, basically, had it coming (witches, heretics, choirboys) -- as that guy at Ruby Ridge found out, if you go out of your way to piss off The Man, sooner or later, you have to expect a reaction.
Crimes against individuals and races of dubious historical provenance (Joan of Arc, Native Americans, the "burning times victims) -- it doesn't matter how horrible you are to somebody if they never actually existed.
Acts which, while morally questionable, are undoubtedly protected by the United States Constitution (homophobia, sexism, buggery of choirboys)
and
Crimes which, though hideous in themselves, were the inevitable byproducts of the production of things generally acknowledged to be good (Catholic guilt, Catholic schoolgirls, basically everything to do with the Catholics)

So, given that the objective evidence seems to detail that Christ's manifold crimes never happened, happened to Bad People and/or had good consequences, why the hell are people all over Jesus Christ? After all, Christian believers are nicer than the average person, more moral, more interesting and even better in bed. Adequacy.org investigated this matter, and found out that the one serious objection to Christians, which accounts for the entirety of the hysterical politicised opposition to this otherwise harmless and beneficial historical figure?

What is this incredibly important political issue, which warrants such hysterical rhetoric?

Christians want to hang the Ten Commandments on the wall in schools.

Whoopy doo. Attack of the Fascist Christian Wall Hangings! Save us, Thomas Jefferson from these eeevil, dangerous wall hangings, likely to destroy the fragile democracy of America (while the UK gets along just fine with an established church) .

For fuck's sake, atheists. Grow up. Get a life. Love Yr Enemies. Love Jesus Christ.

	I can't believe I'm reading this (none / 0) (#1)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 07:59:07 AM PST

	Jesus was responsible, during his lifetime, for inciting the Jews to revolt in Israel. Not that he ever succeeded, but the point is there that he encouraged them to defy authority. He also hated the free market economy - look at that disgraceful affair where he knocked up market tables. He consorted with a prostitute and other degenerates. He encouraged people to think beyond their station in life, creating strife and social problems. Look at the history of the last 2000 years. How many people killed by Jesus and his henchmen? Countless millions. The idea of a God who would do this is absurd and primitive, we are much better of abandoning the whole idiotic idea. But for what? Allah and other Gods are even worse. The best idea is to embrace science, which nowadays has all the answers, spiritual and otherwise. Why teach about the Garden of Eden when you have the Big Bang and evolution? Why teach the ten commandments and such ethics when you have the precise mathematics of Game Theory and zero sum games? Its time to move on man.

	Science is boring. (none / 0) (#2)
	by TheReverand on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 08:17:43 AM PST

	Not enough sex. That's why religion is cool, because you get to break rules and feel naughty. You scientists on the other hand live boring lonely unfulfilled lives, with nothing but your "beakers" to entertain you at night. And don't get me started on hentai.

	Wrong (none / 0) (#4)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 08:27:42 AM PST

	Science allows me to explore my sexuality fully. Such breakthroughs as plastic, PVC, rubber, latex, electricity & electric motors, viagra, the pill, etc etc. Where would fucking be without all this? And scientists are well known for their free & easy attitude to sex. Till you have tried a hot science chick, or seen how they are expiremental and varied in their love, you don't know what it is like. You appear to have a very American attitude to sex, doubtless due to your puritan culture. Sex isn't about breaking rules and feeling guilty, its about raw fun. I'd rather have an atheist, scientific Frenchwoman with a healthy appetite, no hang ups, wild imagination and underarm bodyhair than some Southern Baptist any day. Wouldn't you?

	Nigga please. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
	by TheReverand on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 08:43:47 AM PST

	Such breakthroughs as plastic, PVC, rubber, latex, electricity & electric motors, viagra, the pill, etc etc. You obviously have a different view of sex than I do. There are so many things to be done to/with a woman without all your little "toys" that ten lifetimes couldn't satisfy it. You obviously are so revulsed by human contact that you have no choice but to bring in "latex" and "plastic". You are so sickened by touching the flesh of a sweet, sweet, woman, so disgusted to taste the rivers of the glorious fruits of a womans body, that you have to seperate yourself from it with a layer of plastic or PVC. You are a sad sad individual.

	toys (none / 0) (#24)
	by Nobody on Fri Aug 24th, 2001 at 08:03:09 AM PST

	Your argument seems to be that if you CAN manage without toys, you SHOULD. It would be no more ridiculous that because you CAN use toys, you SHOULD! I say get out your condoms / PVC / needles / corkscrew / pickaxe / forklift truck and be merry :-)

	BTW (none / 0) (#25)
	by Nobody on Fri Aug 24th, 2001 at 08:05:05 AM PST

	I left out a couple of words then... I meant "It would be no more ridiculous TO ARGUE that..."

	No, this act will only bring... (none / 0) (#21)
	by suick on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 08:05:31 PM PST

	...the damnation of humankind. You should not take a "free & easy" attitude towards sex--it was an honor given to humans by the minor god Drateru (of the boundless ceremony). As is clearly outlined in the text, sex should only take place before a group of elders during the holy month of Shimadh, and under no circumstances are those chosen to partake in this ceremony to use any instrument of non-human origin. As per the text: ...and with such an act, the demon stole Drateru's seed, and she could not be trusted to survive the followers. With shame, Drateru did then pluck the hairs from her crusted body, spreading them about the ground as a mark of her transgression. And she did lament, "The face of demonic temptation did surely inject an evil, and my weakness must not be forgiven." To think of sex without first performing the ceremony of Djnisku (where the elders pluck each hair from the chosen's body, to remind us of Drateru's own weakness), much less to think of sex with inhuman devices, is sure to invite the demons once again. And yes, it is people such as yourself--who have bastardized the word and the faith, who have cast off this sacred gift, who have given up the ceremony--that open the doors for all demons to burrow through the wombs of the faithful. c'mon, lower.

	Clearly Reverand, (5.00 / 1) (#5)
	by CaptainZornchugger on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 08:34:03 AM PST

	you are not familiar with the beauty of a pure, unadulterated, virgin beaker. The shimmer of the chemicals against her clear skin is enough to turn the most ardent religious supporter into a die-hard scientific believer. Many a evening in college, when the other chaps would go and try to woo the girls of this-or-that sorority, I would sneak away alone to the chemistry labs, to gaze in adoration, and even bond with, the multitude of beakers that waited for me there. And, oh, what a beautiful group they were too, In all different shapes, sizes, and measurements. There were so many experiments to be performed with them, so many chemicals they could be used to hold. I knew each and every one of them by name, and oh, how they longed for me when I entered the lab. Oh, how they loved me in a way that no human possibly could. Often, the sheer ecstasy we experienced over the course of the night was far more than I could bear, and after some of the more passionate of the excursions I was known to go home and sleep for days. But I always knew when the chem lab was to be deserted, and I always woke up in time to go back. And don't even get me started on hentai.

	rules (none / 0) (#23)
	by Nobody on Fri Aug 24th, 2001 at 07:59:52 AM PST

	So what you're saying is this: "rules are good because you can break them". Considering the wealth of possible counter-arguments, I can only conclude that you're joking! I laughed anyway :-)

	Oh you poor, poor fool. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
	by Electric Angst on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 08:37:15 AM PST

	The Big Bang is a nice explanation for how our universe came into existance, but it doesn't give any possible answers as to Why. Game theory may give you a good idea about the consequences of certain actions in various situations, but it doesn't do anything to define which consequences would be best. Science contradicts itself every day and is constantly changing. The fundamental ethics of the Christian church, in its various incarnations, have remained the same for thousands of years. Hell, something as fundamental as the Earth's rotation around the sun was discounted by scientific people for centuries, and you trust these people with your very soul? Science and logic is very good for mechanics, but totally worthless for ethics and morals (all you need to do is read the drivil of a certain Immanuel Kant to figure that out). Without meaning, all of our actions are worthless, and all the pain, suffering, joy, and hope you experience in your lifetime is nothing more than twitches . The fact that countries with a state church (such as the UK) are much more forgiving, kind, and liberal with their people than countries who embrace de facto atheism (such as the US) is no coincidence. The fact that the people of the atheist countries also try harder than anyone else to cling on to religion, often embracing charlatens and fools, is just more proof that our souls need feeding just as much as our bodies, if not more. A country that does not recognize the soul, however, is just as cruel as one that does not allow it's people physical food. I say, a State Church for the United States, immediatly! I believe that Paganism would be best for this situation, as it is by far the most tolerant-by-doctorine religion around, and the fact that Pagan Sabbats are positioned in a convenient, eight-holiday-a-year, each exactly the same amount of time in between each other, would make for a federal work schedule much more relaxing to the people of this fine nation. People could still hold whatever beliefs they wanted, and the nations nudity and sodomy laws would suddenly dissapear thanks to the church's influence. This is, quite simply, the only way to go. Without some form of spirituality in our daily lives, we may very well cease to be men and turn to monsters... -- In the dark times, will there still be singing? Yes, there will be singing. There will be singing about the dark times. -- Bertolt Brecht

	Kant never wrote a word of drivel in his life (none / 0) (#15)
	by jsm on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 09:18:02 AM PST

	You may disagree with him, but everything he said deserves to be taken seriously. He is the only philosopher (apart from Hume) who I would recommend reading in the original text rather than commentaries (Kant has been cruelly served by his expositors). The central idea of Kant -- that there is something /logically/ wrong in acting in a manner which betrays faulty practical reason is one of the most incredibly powerful ideas in moral philosophy. ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	What? (none / 0) (#11)
	by CaptainZornchugger on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 08:49:11 AM PST

	Science and logic is very good for mechanics, but totally worthless for ethics and morals (all you need to do is read the drivil of a certain Immanuel Kant to figure that out). I certainly don't disagree with your usage of the term 'drivel', here, but what in God's name makes Kant an acceptable example of the application of logic to morals? I understand that he is an example of applying science to morals very, very poorly, but I fail to see how that implies it can not be done! What about those like Spinoza and Descartes, who, although they had faith, attempted to derive a moral systems based primarily on logic? What about the French existentialists, like Sartre and Camus, who proposed systems of ethics totally devoid of any controlling power at all? And those are just a few of my favorites -- surely you realize there are hundreds of ethical systems independant of gods or goddesses that make more sense than Kant's.

	Ah, but you see... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
	by Electric Angst on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 09:01:18 AM PST

	...no matter what the ethical system, while it may claim to be based on nothing but logic, you can see that they all have faith at their core. (These systems are, thusly, no better than Kant, since they are hypocritical to boot.) Take Utilitarianism, for example. The greatest good for the most people. Well, what is good? There are those who define it as pure pleasure, and those who define it in other ways. It doesn't matter, though, because no matter what decision they make, they are ultimantly placing faith in their own version of good. -- In the dark times, will there still be singing? Yes, there will be singing. There will be singing about the dark times. -- Bertolt Brecht

	utilitarianism (none / 0) (#28)
	by Nobody on Fri Aug 24th, 2001 at 08:20:31 AM PST

	No-one here ever claimed that utilitarianism was remotely useful to anyone! :-)

	Ill Defined nonsense (none / 0) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 09:04:31 AM PST

	The Big Bang is a nice explanation for how our universe came into existance, but it doesn't give any possible answers as to Why. Why is religion any better at working out 'why?' than science? Science may not address 'why?' because science recognises that the question is impossible to answer. Religion is a fraud. Asking 'Why?' is fine, and is the proper remit of philosophy. As soon as you start to come up with concrete answers, you're a charlatan. Religion is just organised lies. Game theory may give you a good idea about the consequences of certain actions in various situations, but it doesn't do anything to define which consequences would be best. Again, a difficult question and one science does not address. Religion is no good for this either though, for similar reasons. This is a question of common morality and the philosophy of Ethics. Science contradicts itself every day and is constantly changing. The fundamental ethics of the Christian church, in its various incarnations, have remained the same for thousands of years. That science changes is its greatest strength, for it means it has humility, self criticism and scepticism. Why is religion better because it is incapable of changing and adapting to new times? Religion lacks criticism and insight, is what you are saying. Religion doesn't get better over time. Hell, something as fundamental as the Earth's rotation around the sun was discounted by scientific people for centuries, and you trust these people with your very soul? Soul? Who's to say I have a soul? Besides, you are obviously trolling - you know fine well that religion tried to stamp out this particular heresy. Without meaning, all of our actions are worthless, and all the pain, suffering, joy, and hope you experience in your lifetime is nothing more than twitches. Meaning is something I personally approach without recourse to organised religion. It is also something impossible to be sure of. Meaning isn't for everyone. The fact that countries with a state church (such as the UK) are much more forgiving, kind, and liberal with their people than countries who embrace de facto atheism (such as the US) is no coincidence. The UK is quite possibly the most secular society on Earth. With a 5% churchgoing population (precipitously declining), it is certainly one of the kinder and more liberal countries, because it has thrown off the shackles & prejudices of religion. This is, quite simply, the only way to go. Without some form of spirituality in our daily lives, we may very well cease to be men and turn to monsters... What exactly is `spirituality`? Please define, it sounds very vague.

	Oh my... (none / 0) (#16)
	by Electric Angst on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 09:18:48 AM PST

	So, you'd rather exist in a world without meaning, where the only truth is your cold, unfeeling science, and all feelings and emotions are just a coincidence of mechanical actions inside your sticky, organic frame. My friend, I fear that you are quite possibly a sociopath, a fear confirmed by your willingness to disregard any possible concept of good in exchange for permission to feel that your actions will have no greater consequence for you than the quick, physical phenomenon described in you godless 'Game Theory'. Well, think about this. Those feelings you have had to come from somewhere. Even if you claim that they're just a biological phenomenon, then I would say the very conscienceness that experiences them has to come from somewhere. Science has never explained that, but it was the very first puzzle religion solved. -- In the dark times, will there still be singing? Yes, there will be singing. There will be singing about the dark times. -- Bertolt Brecht

	Eh? (none / 0) (#17)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 09:31:27 AM PST

	Those feelings you have had to come from somewhere. Even if you claim that they're just a biological phenomenon, then I would say the very conscienceness that experiences them has to come from somewhere. Science has never explained that, but it was the very first puzzle religion solved. Really? Solved? I'd be most interested to hear how - do you have this amazing proof to hand? Does it stand up to even the most cursory analysis by a sceptical mind? Oh, I feel very sorry for you. Clearly you can't handle the possibility that your life might be meaningless, in the grand scheme of things, and have to run to religion, the great emotional crutch. It shows a supreme lack of intellectual courage. I stand alone. I determine meaning in my own life for myself. I battle with all the conclusions of science and use the only sure means of gaining knowledge - inductive & deductive reasoning (inductive reasoning isn't quite sound, so even then I have to admit that science might be completely and totally wrong). To know you don't know, and accept this, and wonder, is the most amazing and courageous course of all - so much better than jumping on the back of some unverifiable set of myths. You just need some humility.

	Humility is a religious ideal! (none / 0) (#18)
	by Electric Angst on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 09:48:06 AM PST

	You attempt to use humility as a boon of science is perhaps the most laughably absurd thing I've ever heard! Those who would claim to have extensive knowledge of events millions of years before their birth, who claim they have the ability to reprogram our very genetic code for the better (while they can't even build bridges that don't fall over!) I suggest you seriously consider the price your vanity has cost you. Can you truely think so greatly of yourself as a human being to believe that your measly little perceptions are all that there is to the universe? Religion isn't myth, religion is the acceptance of something greater than yourself, and as someone who's experienced that something personally, I find that it is simply the only worldview possible... (And should you ever experience it, I'm pretty sure you'll throw down your false gods of science that very instant.) -- In the dark times, will there still be singing? Yes, there will be singing. There will be singing about the dark times. -- Bertolt Brecht

	Umm, no it isn't (none / 0) (#19)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 10:00:37 AM PST

	Can you truely think so greatly of yourself as a human being to believe that your measly little perceptions are all that there is to the universe? Don't put words in my mouth. Maybe there is more to the universe. Maybe there isn't. We can't know, at this stage, and thats the end of it. Your attempts to use religious propaganda and false logic expose you as a religious maniac, blinded to rational thought. There is no point in arguing with someone like you, because you are so lost in masturbatory self delusion that you can't see, see the realm of human enquiry for what it is. Religion isn't myth, religion is the acceptance of something greater than yourself Prove this 'something' exists. and as someone who's experienced that something personally, I find that it is simply the only worldview possible... Clearly you are lost in `spiritual` rapture. It is people like you that commit mass suicide because the aliens are riding to Earth on the back of a comet. Quite frankly, my dear, I suspect you of some form of mental illness. Schizophrenics and paranoid delusionals are often pagans, because multiple voices in your head is similar to multiple gods, and lets face it, pagans are the biggest gulls out there. Presumably you have the occasional manic episode and think this is a spiritual experience, or perhaps you take strange mind altering drugs and think you have seen the face of God. Whatever it is, you aren't quite all there, are you?

	So, anything that doesn't follow you is Madness? (none / 0) (#20)
	by Electric Angst on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 11:19:24 AM PST

	And you're still trying to claim you're the humble one! You just attempted to diagnose someone with a severe condition, one that typically takes trained professionals significant amounts of observation time to see, because of a few paragraphs you read on a web log? This is exactly the type of hubris that atheists constantly display. They would rather call someone insane than accept the notion that their one, sole method of understanding the world is not the only method possible. See, it all comes down to a matter of method. Using just logic and emperical evidence, there is only a certain minute amount of information one may ever gain about the universe. Other methods if acheiving information about the universe do exist, however, and have been around for much longer, and with much more success, than those the atheist triumphs. See, the atheistic plan of ignoring everything not arrived at via their method of gaining information, attempting to discredit it, and even going so far as to curse the very scientists who follow their methods should they be willing to accept something outside of the atheists's allmighty Church of Reason. (One need only witness the mockery put upon scientists who are religious.) Then, at the very height of duplicity, the Atheist even will not even accept that their holy methods of deduction have been used to prove the existance of God. Using an ontological argument, Anselm of Canterbury was able to show that logic required the existance of at least one God, or "that which nothing greater can exist". -- In the dark times, will there still be singing? Yes, there will be singing. There will be singing about the dark times. -- Bertolt Brecht

	Anselm's proof (5.00 / 1) (#22)
	by CaptainZornchugger on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 10:19:10 AM PST

	Is perfectly reasonable if you accept the assumption that there is no difference between reality and fiction. That is, as far as I can tell, it makes a leap from imagining something is real (because if you imagine something to be the greatest possible, you must imagine it to be real) to asserting that it is therefore real, because we imagined it to be real. If your world works in such a way that something is real because you imagine it to be real, you are welcome to whatever gods you choose. I confess that I have not read the original work, so the interpretations of it I have read may have been watered down. Perhaps you would give your interpretation of Anselm's proof, if it is so scientifically reasonable as you claim?

	"meaning" (none / 0) (#26)
	by Nobody on Fri Aug 24th, 2001 at 08:11:27 AM PST

	"So, you'd rather exist in a world without meaning" No, he's just saying that he ACCEPTS this. Perhaps you suffer from the delusion that there is a greater purpose to life, or that everything has to have a meaning? This is just YOUR opinion. To suggest someone is a "sociopath" because of this common belief is incredibly narrow-minded. I think it's funny how some people use the word "godless" as if it has some really cold, unpleasant connotations. I'm quite happy with my own godless existence, but I still hold the view that I am one very small fish in a huge sea.

	At the risk of using a circular argument... (none / 0) (#27)
	by Nobody on Fri Aug 24th, 2001 at 08:17:34 AM PST

	Why do you have to ask "Why?" Why can't you accept life at face value? I'm not saying you are wrong for asking "why". (If the supposed answers that your religion offers you enrich your life, then good luck to you.) What I'm saying is that you are wrong to criticise someone for NOT asking "why". In many ways this is the difference a theist and an atheist. I assure you - it's not because we're afraid of the answer! And it's not because we can't be bothered asking! In some senses you could say that: Agnosticism = accepting that we can't answer why Atheism = accepting that you don't need to ask why