Large family of people convicted of murder: no body recovered....

The Planet
March 2012

More than 15 million members of a family have been convicted of murder in a shocking trial lasting almost 2000 years, and 6 million family members sentenced to death for the murder have been killed in gas chambers and by lethal injection.

The charges were laid more than 350 years after the alleged murder by the First Council of Nicaea, led by several men, including the so called "St. Niclaus," who currently works as Santa Claus in north America, where the case is currently located.

Despite the prosecution having moved forward with the death penalty for so many of those charged, no body has ever been recovered and there there is no substantiated evidence the deceased person, a 33 year-old male, existed at all. There are no eye-witness reports of his existence and no testimony was provided by anyone who ever lived with, knew or saw - or even was alive - at the time the alleged deceased was said to have lived.

No member of the alleged deceased victim's family has ever appeared as a witness. In fact, no family members have ever been discovered by the defence or the prosecution. Description of the alleged victim - a blond, blue-eyed, pale-skinned male - are inconsistent with descriptions of alleged family-members, who are described as "middle-eastern" and "Jewish" people with dark skins and black or dark-brown, curly hair.

Several 'witnesses' for the plaintiffs have been shown to be frauds, and the testimony of others has been rejected because they were either not alive at the time of the alleged murder or, if they were alive, had no first-hand knowledge of the events either due to being infants or to having heard about the alleged events third-hand many years after the alleged events.

Corroborating evidence was presented by four men but was rejected, as the evidence is highly contradictory and lacking corroboration and substantiation by any other witness. Two of these witnesses do not report the alleged victim's birth and the two that do provided no substantiation, documentation or proof of any sort.

Beyond that, none of the four witnesses was a contemporary of the alleged deceased, each having lived long after the time of the alleged murder, respectively 65, 150, 220 and 350 years after the alleged murder.No record of birth has been discovered for the alleged victim or for any alleged family members - mother or father or siblings, despite the alleged existence of material - an alleged death-shroud - that might provide DNA.

In fact, the current owners of the shroud have refused to produce the item or to have it tested. The item was never entered into evidence and the source of potential evidence has, itself, been proven a fraud. Suggestions that the alleged victim is was not human so was able to "rise into the heavens" following the murder, have been proven impossible by biologists.

Certain disputed documents suggesting the alleged victim's mother was human and the father "supernatural" have also been disproved by biologists as the alleged victim was male. A 'human'  with only a female human parent would necessarily be female, the realities of biology and genes having been taken into account.

The alleged site of the murder has never been discovered and no eye-witnesses to the murder have ever come forward, nor did any of those reported to be present at the alleged scene, report or corroborate having been at the event. Experts say the total lack of corroboration by any of the several hundred witnesses alleged to have been present at the murder is strong evidence that the murder never happened and indeed the so-called victim did not exist.

Despite a complete lack of any evidence for the person in question or for the murder, and despite the passage of nearly 2000 years, more than 15 million people stand convicted still, for a murder, according to experts from around the globe, did not and could not have happened.

The prosecution in this case represents an equally-large number of plaintiffs who have categorically refused to accept there is utterly no evidence on which to proceed but who have, for nearly two centuries, refused to accept the facts and to withdraw their case and who continue to call for the deaths of the remaining charged family members.

Frustratingly, although there have been many competent judges sitting the case, and many, many experts have been called to testify, the prosecution refuses to accept admitted evidence, verified and corroborated historical documents, or the corroborated and substantiated evidence of mass fraud and has, on many occasions, fired and carried out death sentences against sitting judges.

In order to yet prolong the proceedings, the prosecution has developed a system of producing witnesses from the relatively new field of "apologetics," which was developed in the last century. None of the members of this field suggest they were present at the time of the alleged events, but they say, regardless, their role and goal is to rehash already-discounted 'evidence' until such time as the defence accepts it. The prosecution and its witnesses, the apologists, staunchly and loudly support life-long incarceration and after-life torture for all participants in the defence.

The case continues with no end in sight.

Every once in a while...

Image courtesy www.LifeHacker.com

I miss my dad. Maybe it is more accurate to say I miss the dad I wish I'd had - not that the man who was my dad wasn't a great man; he just had his weak points, like how stubborn he was... but then, the apple didn't fall very far in my case.

I remember once we had this weird little argument about writing by hand versus writing on the computer. I said I enjoyed writing things by hand: I find it more creative because it gives me a better, literally direct connection with what I'm thinking.

He disagreed with me and hauled out his always-annoying preamble, "You should," in this case followed by, "learn to type because it is way faster and allows you to write as fast as you think." He totally missed the point about the connection to the writing and the value of slowing down and joining brain to page by hand....

So today, almost nine years since my dad died, I came across this article on writing by hand. It's good. Click here to read it.

So frustrating to come across this and not be able to forward it on.

I respect all religions ... except yours and that one and that other one....

Like this one?...

Opener: This blog has LOTS of links in it. If, after you read the blog, you go back and read/watch everything linked here, you'll be half way to genius!

Over the last two days, I engaged, as I am wont to do, in a 'conversation' with a person who was, to quote them, raised in a religious home.

Such growing up is all well and good but, once one is an adult, one should perhaps put some adult consideration to the things one grows up believing. One should also make an effort to understand what one believes, because, if one does not, and they get into it with me, well, it doesn't go well.

The original discussion began with comments related to a recent decision in Quebec regarding an overview class on religions - plural - and ethics. I read the reports and it seems that the course meant to introduce students to the variety of religions practised by people who live in Quebec, not to indoctrinate the students with any particular religion.

Not surprisingly, the parents in one family brought suit, alleging that this course prevented them from devolving their particular brand of religion to their kids. I think it might have been the ethics part of the course, the part that would suggest one person's rights have no precedent over another person's, they disagreed with. Some christians feel theirs is the ONLY religion that has merit, history, archaeology and all that. Which of course is bullshit.

I will acknowledge here that I can be bloody blunt and how blunt I am is directly related to how ridiculous people's comments are. They correlate directly: the dumber the comments, the more blunt I am.

So here's how it all rolled out. The first bunch of comments are here for context. ALL initials have been changed to protect the innocent, and the guilty - the most guilty being represented by NIV; I am represented here by MOI, being an all-caps version of Moi, being the French form of ME.
"JW: It is called the education system ... there is nothing wrong with kids learning about other cultures and to become educated as I think that is the point of the education system. If the parents disagree then home school.

BF: I think they're crazy. Teaching about religion isn't the same as teaching religion. I'm glad this was overturned.

BF:The writer's got no case. If you don't like the way the public system works there are private systems for individual religious beliefs. I believe teaching children to follow one religion before 18 is child abuse and should not be allowed. If adults want to choose religion they can. Leave the poor kids alone.

GJ: I loved the acerbic remark made by an advocate of public schools when charter schools became a brief fad in _________ 15-20 years ago... "Charter schools are great preparation for life in a gated community." 

Public schools have a great cross-section of people of all attitudes, income levels, faiths, degree of social conscience and attractiveness. They're sort of  LIFE in that regard. Customizing curriculae to suit parents, on religious grounds or any other, is a non-starter... as you point out, HM (original poster), that's to be done at home.

NIV: I always find it interesting when people say "I want my kids to choose when they get older about religion (sic)" - how are they supposed to do that if they are not exposed to it in the first place?

MOI: It isn't a question of having the OPTION of educating our children, it is a responsibility.

Schools have NO place providing religions education to children for several reasons:
1. there is no basis to the claims that the product actually exists
2. There is no consensus, even family to family, on how and when the product should be consumed
3. There is no agreement at all on which parts should and should not be included
4. There is, proof, however, that education suffers greatly from the inclusion of stories about people made from dirt, boats packed with "the entire world's animals" and strident protestations that observable, testable, verifiable, falsifiable FACTS do not actually exist.

Last time I checked, the key goal of an educational institution is to teach their students HOW to think, not WHAT to think.

BF: While I generally agree, MOI, I think there's a difference between religious teachings and teaching people about religion (he's making this point because I contradicted myself, so he's right to make it). Making children aware that many people believe many different things, most of them completely outlandish, has it's place and purpose.

MOI: I absolutely agree. Understanding religions is important, because despite specific religions' deficits, it is important to understand how they work.

More to the point, understanding religions, how they work, how they were established and by who, serves a great purpose in terms of understanding where to draw the line when taking on or accepting things that are not grounded in fact.

MOI: To NIV's comments, learning about religions -plural - and being exposed to a religion are not at all the same thing.

Exposure can result in infection but a good education will usually prevent infective exposure in the first place.

NIV: @MOI, I'm not going to get into a religious debate with you, but my point was that if kids don't know anything about different religions (my emphasis), whether being exposed to it from their family beliefs or other means, or learning about it (some kids are being kept even from LEARNING about different religions), then how do they expect kids to make choices for themselves about it. I totally agree with Janette's comment - there is nothing wrong with learning about different cultures and religions.

NIV: I don't agree with exposure being an "infection" - we all have our own beliefs on things - to slam or put down what other people believe is just wrong - we need to respect everyone's beliefs, whether or not it is the same as yours. (Also my emphasis, as this is the key to the writer's demise)

MOI:  (please read this carefully... there is no name and nothing here, with the exception of the last question, that refers specifically to anyone)

I don't agree that beliefs should be respected simply for existing and that people have them. Case in point: In some countries in the world, people believe that women having any pleasure from sex is wrong - and add to that, they still think that women are responsible for men's sexuality in the sense of 'tempting' them. As a result of that belief structure, little girls have their inner labia and clitoris cut out, without aesthetic, usually in the middle of the street - because such circumcision is a community event.

Now, my friend: do you respect that belief?

MOI: I agree absolutely that people and children should learn ABOUT religions but being exposed to A religion is an entirely different thing, and that's what I mean by 'infection.'

Children rely on adults to tell them the truth, so when an adult takes a kid into a religious setting, the child trusts what they're hearing from the adult (which comes with a certain fervour on the part of the adult), is true.

Kids don't have very good critical abilities - which is to say, they don't have a developed capacity to analyse information; so when adults say, for instance, "This 600 year-old man called Noah loaded two of every animal on the earth into a boat," kids believe that is true because the adults say it, and the kids don't have the analytic capacity to comprehend that two of each of just the genus "spider" would weigh 5000 pounds, so the story can't be true.

It is, in my opinion, critical for kids to know about religions - all of them - in a way that sets none of them apart or implies any of them are true or have more merit than any other.

For the record, the Ethics and Religious culture sounds an excellent course. It strikes me that the parents who were opposed to their children understanding that their family's religion isn't the only one, have some serious issues.

Here are the details:
https://www7.mels.gouv.qc.ca/DC/ECR/index_en.php

(Now. I have not mentioned NIV at all. I haven't witten anything directly to NIV and I have, I believe, kept my comments general, meaning not directed at anyone. Here's where it goes weird really fast... )

NIV: Congratulations, MOI, you've succeeded in officially offending me. I take issue with lumping me in with those fanatics (and I did this when and how?) who have used their beliefs and morals taught to them and twisted them around to suit themselves and I really resent being lumped into that category (Um.... ). I had a religious upbringing, and I am NOT out doing things that I shouldn't be doing - I do know the difference from right and wrong (ok... ). You can keep your atheism to yourself (So, atheism, we might understand, is not one of the things this writer is willing to accept. Also, an important distinction: atheism is a 'belief system' in the same way that OFF is a TV station or 'bald' is a hair colour). I'm done here.

MOI: I didn't dump you into ANY category. You said, and I quote, "We need to respect everyone's beliefs whether or not the same as yours," and then I asked you, based on my example above, if you were going to stand behind that statement.

I did not, however, dump you into ANY category; you, however, just identified yourself as belonging to a category - religious. (sorry for repetition... poor self-editing but this is how is in the original so this is how it stays)

Nobody, and certainly not me, said anything at all about whether you personally know the difference between right or wrong.

But, based on your answer here, and the fact that you choose to be offended, I can tell you this: what didn't note in your "respecting everyone's beliefs" statement is "as long as they're the same as mine and as long as their definition of right and wrong is the same as mine."

I know this because of your last point: "You can keep your atheism to yourself." THIS, my friend is proof that you don't believe your own statement; you certainly do NOT respect my point of view.

NIV: Nor do you respect mine - AND NO, I ABSOLUTELY DIDN'T SAY as long as they are the same as mine - I said that you have your beliefs and I have mine (ah, no, you said I could keep my atheism to myself).  I said - I'm done here. No further comment unless you can be nice about it.

MOI: How do you get that I don't respect your beliefs?? Holy crap, NIV, I'm responding to YOUR comments! I also grew up in a christian home and come from 10 generations of Baptist MINISTERS.

I'll say this again - and this has NOTHING to do with ANY specific person: beliefs deserve no respect simply for the fact that they exist - and that is evidenced by the little fact of female circumcision I posted above: that practice deserves no respect, nor does whatever religion or part of religion it derives from.

NIV, I quoted you. I'm not slamming you or your beliefs. I'm just asking you if you will support what you say here.

NOBODY said you don't know right from wrong. YOU made that suggestion.

YOU said I was lumping you in with fanatics.

NOBODY said or suggested in any way you are "out doing things [you] shouldn't be doing. YOU introduced that idea into the conversation (and I will note here that I am fantastically interested in exactly what this person IS out doing that they shouldn't be, because that was the comment of a guilty mind, as was the "know right from wrong" comment).

You also said, and again I quote you, "You can keep your atheism to yourself," which is neither nice nor respectful. Telling someone, essentially, to shut up is NOT an indication of your respect for their position.

Now. I ask you again: do you, in fact, stand behind your statement that "we need to respect everyone's beliefs, whether or not the same as yours? (sic)"

If yes, do you respect the fundamentalist christian practice (this and the following underlines are my emphasis... you'll get it in a sec) of refusing medical care, particularly where it relates to children, even to the point people - and children - die from lack of medical attention? This practice is based on the biblical assertion that god answers all prayers - and that promise is reiterated by the figure of Jesus.

Do you also respect the islamic practice of wife-beating, which is founded in the Koran?

What about the biblically founded marriage practices some mormons adhere to - multiple marriage, for instance, which occurs often in the christian bible (yes, I can absolutely tell you where these verses are and who is said to have practiced multiple marriage) and in the koran?

I am only asking if you fully support your statement. I'm sorry to know you're upset by being asked to confirm support your own position.

I think the original post had to do with what amounts to a survey course - meaning an overview course on religions - plural - and ethics and whether "forcing" kids to learn about religions and ethics in a general way was a good thing.

I say YES. An understanding of religions, and the differences and similarities between them is a good thing. Same for ethics - and maybe more so with ethics, because ethics tells you why everyone has rights, how responsibilities apply to those rights and why YOUR rights do not trump someone else's. See Jessica Ahlquist for example.

As for the idea that all beliefs should be respected simply because they exist, hells no. See the widespread rape and abuse of children and by members of the catholic church for example.

(I have redacted a bunch of humorous but non-relative stuff here. If you really want to see what I removed, let me know and I will post the deleted bits into comments)

NIV: ‎This debate is going nowhere. Here is what you said: "THIS, my friend is proof that you don't believe your own statement; you certainly do NOT respect my point of view." So, that's how I got that you don't respect mine (What? Because I pointed out that due the writer's suggestions that I keep my atheism to myself, it is obvious they don't respect my point of view? Hello circular reasoning - this is a big part of learning how to be a christian and of christian apologetics).

In any event, of course I absolutely do not support any of the above things you mentioned  (such a slippery avoidance of all references to all of what she doesn't support being part of the christian tradition...) - but again, these are radicals who have twisted the teachings they learned, e.g. Book of Mormon (which mormons will confirm is a 'newer version' of the bible - meaning it's pretty much a ripoff, crap revision), or the Koran (which is ALSO based on and references the christian bible), and used them for their own interpretation, which are very wrong.

My point that was missed, is it seems to me that Christianity seems always be slammed or put down or what not (sic sic sic...), yet it seems none of the other religions get near as much scrutiny (such an interesting comment from someone who hasn't even slightly scrutinised their own religion... ). 

There are a lot of things that need "fixing" in all religions (this is a really interesting statement, given that things are always being 'fixed' in religions so that religions conform with morality - y'know, like how we don't haul our non-religious or other-religioned neighbours out for public stoning and we don't force raped women to marry their attackers, which is biblically mandated, by the way... ). Are we done now? I know I am.

(but then they're back... )

NIV: It is simply common sense - what I meant about respecting other's faiths and beliefs - the example of Christmas - this has been under attack for a long time - the point being if someone wants to say Merry Christmas, or Happy Hanukah, or whatever, then THAT should be respected - not subjected to scrutiny. NOW I'm done.

MOI: Ok. So, respect belief except mormon and islamic. Got it. Also, christmas is based on a pagan holiday so pagan beliefs are ok... right. How do you feel about the holidays for the other 20 or so gods who were born of virgins on December 25th?

MOI: Oh... Sorry... Didn't see your last point that religions shouldn't be scrutinized... Looking at them too closely does expose their inconsistencies...

"

So, long story short, NIV was not amused.... Later, the person who posted the original story messaged me privately following this discussion to say that NIV had called to find out if I am employed by his company (I am not but I do contribute to them occasionally), and also to refuse a job with that company because I had participated in the conversation above. I  think that is called shooting oneself in the foot or, alternatively, cutting off one's nose to spite one's face; or, more colloquially, full-on ass-hattery....

No word if NIV has sought medical help to correct the triangulation that surely occurred from having their body crammed into such a tight, tight corner....

Ah, no, I wasn't speaking specifically to you....

For those to whom this is not obvious, one’s Facebook page is a collection – a peg board of sorts - of all sorts of stuff; opinion, references to things, photos, shares, links. If one goes to a friend’s page, one must be prepared to see and read things one might not otherwise seek out.

Likewise, if one goes to a friend’s page - meaning one consciously clicks on that page or has consciously added that friend’s page to one’s own stream - one cannot complain about the information the friend posts. 

There are two choices; follow friends and suck it up or don’t follow them. Period.

Telling them what they can and cannot post – not allowed.

Inserting veiled threats? Also not allowed, juvenile and not intelligent….

Bottom line? You, dear reader, have the right to come here, read this and comment on it if you wish. You do not, however, have the right to not be offended by what is here (or on my Facebook, if you’re subscribed to my page).

You also don’t get any points for making the false assumption that anything I post is meant in any way to be ‘advice,' nor do you get to show off that you're belly-button-gazing by assuming I'm speaking to you personally. I am not. What I write and post is information and that is all it is (except in the rare occasion that I DO post something for a specific person - and they will absolutely know it is there for them). 

If you take to heart anything I write here, take it personally or are offended by it, that’s not my issue. You choose to read so you have the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of that choice.

I am well-educated and old enough to have had a life of experiences so yes, occasionally I do think I’m right about stuff and yes, perhaps more often than occasionally. But YOU dear reader, are in no way forced or coerced into agreeing with me or even reading what is written here….

This is the conversation that ensued from my having posted the above general interest article on my own personal Facebook. The commenter below chose to come to my page, read the post (which I did NOT write but with which I fully agree) complained about having read that article and then suggested that I was targeting them. Ridiculous. 

This person is a senior administrator at a school for gifted students, and occupies a prominent spot in the "should know better than to argue illogically" category.

To be clear, I in NO way coerced, cajoled, enticed, entrapped, dragged, induced, pleaded, begged or even invited the following person to come to my page, nor did I send the page or the link to them. They came upon my page by choice, so their implication, “you shouldn’t post stuff that makes me uncomfortable” is annoying. 

Here's the article; please read it.

(The Truth About Christmas [NSFCWCC] (Not Safe For Christians Who Celebrate Christmas)

Commenter:

I don't understand the need for provocation, unless you get a kick out of being a provocateur. Besides, isn't it a bit lazy, especially for someone who touts himself an Ivy League academic to use the Bible, a text that one doesn't believe in, to establish anti-Biblical "fact?" (Moi: the bible is excellent at disproving itself, for the record, so yes, many intellectuals use it in the way described here. The commenter is referring to Christopher Hitchens, who read – and fully comprehended -  more in his 62 years than 20 other people read in their lifetimes combined and was able to quote, reference, cross-reference, adjudicate, and elucidate the bible in an immensely scholarly way ….)

It's a bit like shooting someone for being an NRA member. You are better than this.(this, in case it isn't obvious, is a bit of a slam....and yes, it might be appropriate to shoot certain NRA members; particularly those who are unaware and uninterested in the NRA's political policies and bent).

Moi:

Did you actually just say you don't understand the need?? Seriously? You don't understand the need for people to UNDERSTAND what they're actually doing?

People have the constitutional right in this country (being Canada, if anyone is interested) to believe whatever they wish. They also have a corresponding RESPONSIBILITY to understand their beliefs and by understanding them NOT to inflict them - and convolutions and outright falsehoods - on others, like me, who like FACTS and who don't wish to be marginalized, scorned, hated, mistrusted for saying "HEY, wait a minute, here's how this particular thing actually came together."

Commenter

I understand the need for thoughtful conversation, which this isn't. I understand that people can understand what they are actually doing. I am pointing out that this comes across as provocation, no matter how well intentioned it claims to be. It doesn't come across as a serious exploration of anything other than "Aren't I clever?" (Merry Christmas, bitches???} And, going straight to "Are you advocating for a dictatorship/1984 style of Just Do What Big Brother Says???" is the presentation of a false dichotomy.(really?, when this commenter is telling me not to question things? um.... )

People have a constitutional right to believe what they want. I would suggest that a corresponding responsibility might be to have some respect and decorum with those, whom you claim to respect, who might have a different point of view. Who is being "marginalized, hated, or mistrusted?" Finally, by posting the original post, who is doing the inflicting?

Moi

‎1. This IS the basis of thoughtful conversation; however, these comments are very much an attempt to end that conversation. "You shouldn't challenge religion because it makes people uncomfortable" is not a valid argument. I refuse - and I cannot make this any more clear how MUCH I refuse - to be cowed into silence by the fact that some people will NOT consider what facts exist.

2. People MUST understand what they're actually doing, when what they do and what they think they believe informs so much of life and culture.

3. It is only provocation because people are so very, very unwilling to consider that their beliefs may not be grounded where they think they are. "I didn't know that," MUST also apply to people's belief systems. (I will add in here again that nobody is forcing anyone to read my Facebook posts. Provocation requires a different setting).

4. If your doctor came to you with all sorts of witch-doctory, which he/she believed in, was bonded to, which had been passed down in their family, and, yes, which they had the right to believe, and wanted to doctor you based on those beliefs, would you say "I must respect those beliefs?" I think not.

Beliefs are NOT protected from questioning or revision or termination when those beliefs are shown to be false. Otherwise, we'd still be sacrificing children to appease other gods. (This link is to an article that appeared today, widely in international news. The act is abhorrent, so all you Christians remember, before you start casting aspersions on these people, that child sacrifice is part of your tradition).

Religion and religious beliefs are NOT - and in no way deserve to be - protected from questioning. That people become so angered and uncomfortable and accusing when those beliefs are put to questioning indicates a certain fragility of those beliefs....

5. Are you saying that my posting interesting information on MY feed - which one can subscribe to or not - is 'inflicting?' Are you suggesting I censor myself so as not to offend those who have every right to read or not when absolutely no offence is intended? Are you seriously suggesting that in the area of beliefs; that I never post anything that might challenge?

I will tell you quite categorically, that will NOT happen. Facebook - and my blog - are both opt-in and no, I'm not putting any disclaimer on either of them.

The FACT is this particular holiday IS a remake of SEVERAL earlier, pagan festivals. The FACT is that early christians reviled this holiday nearly across the board and there are still many fundamentalist christians who do not celebrate this holiday at all for these reasons and who think it an abomination that any christian does celebrate it.

The FACT is this holiday was not celebrated at all prior to 1850 and not established as a holiday until 1870 - and that shortly after that, people who sell stuff realised an opportunity to sell more.

The fact is, IF the main character existed, he absolutely was NOT born on December 24th or 25 and the fact is that several other 'gods' were alleged to have been born on the same date by the same method, so there should be some scepticism about the entire story.

If these realities are offensive to some, then I suggest those some should take a long hard look at WHY. It is not intelligent to cover one's eyes and ears and holler "DON'T SAY THAT! DON'T SAY THAT."

I am always confused and often shocked by how vehemently people will defend things which they also refuse to understand.

Religion and beliefs of ANY kind are not sacred ground, not in general and not on my page. If it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, perhaps it should be reconsidered. That applies to every other aspect of life and it does, despite the suggestion here that it shouldn't, apply to religions as well.

Whether I challenge beliefs and traditions, and whether I respect those beliefs and traditions has absolutely nothing to do with my respect for PEOPLE.

I respect my friends very much and my respect for them is in no way tied to their beliefs or their faiths - or lack of. (To be clear here, my respect for my friends in no way necessitates a respect for what they believe. Bullshit is bullshit regardless of how lovely is the person spouting it).

That respect does not necessitate my censoring myself - and those who respect me shouldn't ask that of me and I don't ask it of them.

Commenter:

It's my failure. I just can't make the argument so that you get my point. I don't want to stifle your free speech; I just want you to be considerate of those to whom you speak about very personal things. I have always admired your intelligence. I believe the Taoists, however, when they suggest that intelligence, unlike wisdom, is temporary and fleeting. Wisdom, on the other hand, has endurance and resonance, but can only be achieved when intelligence is combined with empathy.

Moi:

The important thing here is this: I am not addressing anyone or speaking 'about' or 'to' anyone. I am commenting on, or posting information. Unless I post information directly to someone or on their wall, the information I put on my feed is GENERAL and not directed to ANYONE in particular.

I would not walk into anyone's church and start pointing out the fallacies of their faith. On MY Facebook feed, anyone who reads my posts is coming into MY 'church'...

I also want to point out that I refuse to use the term "You" in any other capacity than the general; otherwise, it comes to personalising a general commentary.

I understand that people have PERSONAL religions or beliefs but that reality does not preclude the other reality: that I have a right to comment, that those beliefs are just that - beliefs - and that people have a responsibility to know what they're talking about if they're going to get all up in arms when they read general information of the "Hey, did you know?" variety.

And I totally agree with the idea of wisdom vs intelligence. Which is why I understand the difference in respecting my friends for WHO they are, REGARDLESS of WHAT they believe.

Like I said, I adore my friends and my acquaintances because of WHO they are, how they live, how they treat their families and friends etc; and I am very interested in what they believe.

I am usually pretty confident that my friends and acquaintances are wise and intelligent enough to make the distinction between the who and the what. I also know that my friends and acquaintances - and most people for that matter - are good people regardless of religion/beliefs.

What I will never understand is the very common reaction to new information, where it pertains to religion and beliefs, of "how dare you," and "you have no right," and "you must be angry" or "you must have had some trauma caused to you," rather than, "I didn't know that."

I think those reactions come very much from the person not making necessary separation between who they are and what they believe - they take it as if information is about THEM when it is absolutely not. I would say, however, such reactions might reasonably be considered indications of such a person's insecurity about their beliefs.

This is why the question, "If all religions and their characters are myth, are you still the good and moral person you are now?" must necessarily be answered "yes."

That "yes" is why I am astounded by such angry reactions to information.

The fact remains that religions - all of them - are based very much in myth and also very much in the writings of tribes from 2000 years ago and, in the case of christmas, VERY much manipulated by certain forces that have obvious presence.

One cannot stridently demand that 'christ be put back in christmas,' when that is a very modern concept in the first place. A simple reading and comparison of the first four gospels will very quickly reveal how much of the modern christmas 'tradition' is a recent structure.

I should make it absolutely clear here that I have no dislike or opposition to the holiday. There are all sorts of social, psychological and physical reasons for a celebration in the dead of winter. However, I detest the commercialism and the coercive parts of the 'christmas' celebration - the expectation that one has lights on the house and a tree in the window and that one wears red and green and buys gifts for strangers and spends way, way too much money and is perpetually happy. I'm not a sheep...

It bothers me not at all that others choose that route but it is fraudulent to demand others recognise one's tradition when one doesn't understand the tradition and its roots oneself....

It does, however, piss me off to no end when people make judgements on my character and intelligence - and when they suggest I am unwise - because I have done (nearly six years') research into what I grew up believing, my own religion and my cultural heritage, and what my family has believed for TEN GENERATIONS, and post information on my own public feed.

And it bothers and astounds me that people are, in 2012, so inflexible and unwilling to understand the foundations of their traditions and resort to covering their eyes and ears and stomping their feet rather than taking the intelligent step to "I didn't know that."

Mary's boychild: The biological impossibility of the virgin birth

Recently, at work of all weird places, two colleagues tried to convince me there was positive proof that christ was a real person.

One of my colleagues said there is actual documentation - something like a birth record - of christ's birth. I searched Google for any mention of such a document or anything that could be considered such an important document and came up dry. I can safely say the allegation of a birth-certificate is false or the catholic church would be crowing like a million turkeys... ok, yeah, they already do that.  (Seems Obama is in good company in the missing birth certificate department, at least was for a while....).

The other colleague said proof for christ was a group of ossuaires - boxes containing bones, none DNA tested, one, and none possibly producing the slightest possibility of DNA linking to 'Mary' for whom there is utterly no evidence of existence. Click here for the link I gave him. It refers to an article that my colleague says is less "factural" than National Enquirer. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_36.htm

In the second case, my ernest but uninformed colleague is certain the ossuaries are the real McCoy and suggested I watch a documentary on them. The fundamental flaw in his argument that the bones contained are those of christ and his brother (otherwise known as Joshua and James - yes folks, JOSHUA, not Jesus, Yeshua being a Hebrew name NOT translating to Jesus) is the absolute lack of evidence such persons existed in ANY form.

I have watched the film and I have read a bunch of stuff on the making of it and the people in it and behind it. The Simcha character - the guy who supposedly discovered the ossuaries - has been widely shown to be bent to fraudulent representations in his subject matter.  There is no evidence to support the veracity of the claims those ossuaries contain anything other than regular old bones or that they date from ages ago. Carbon dating shows those boxes to be relatively young - i.e. 150 years according to some reports and 50 - 60 according to others.

More importantly, there is no reliable evidence to support the existence of the person in question, let alone his deity, although there is quite a bit - reams, in fact - that points to christianity's key character being just that: a character based on many that have gone before. If the person did not exist, then all questions related to those ossuaries are moot. The entirety of the christian religion relies on the existence of this 'person,' which is why every effort is made to support the myth. Without it, all is - and should be -lost. Click here for an article on the supposed discovery of the "holy foreskin." I know. Gross.

From a biological point of view, there is no way a virgin can conceive; once the deed is done, she's no longer a virgin, so that doesn't count (the bible says she was untouched, so I suppose one could argue artificial insemination but that's a stretch), or could be pregnant by virtue of a spirit; that idea is massively implausible.

In nature, there are organisms that reproduce asexually. In cases where females produce without benefit of males, the offspring are ALWAYS female.... This biological reality means that if he existed, christ was indeed human, created in the usual way by two human parents.

The idea of spirit impregnation is ridiculous, but would mean the resulting child would HAVE to be female, given a spirit cannot be understood to have a genetic structure. If it had, it would necessarily be human and not spirit and we're back to two human parents.

Mary, being female, could have only contributed an X chromosome to the equation. A male offspring would therefore be impossible, if one is willing to give any credence to the idea of a spirit. 

This biological reality means there is no possible way the bones in those ossuaries are anything other than human. For the record there is no biblical or extra-biblical explanation for who 'Mary" is or where she came from. The only small nod to her otherwise is when she disappears into thin air, conveniently, at the point in the story where she has outlived her usefulness.... For the record, the virgin birth story appears in only two of the four gospels and even in those, it is not consistent.

The four gospels were written many years after their key characters would have died, so none of the writers were eyewitnesses. Matthew was written more than 60 years later and the other three many years later than that.

Otherwise, the virgin birth myth is present in many, many mythologies, all pre-dating christianity, "many" meaning more than 25... But, as with Harry Potter, the presence of a book does not mean the story contained within is real in any sense.

Apart from the obvious impossibility of a spirit/human offspring, there is no credible evidence at all that the christ of the bible did exist, even if he were human. There were approximately 38 historians writing - prolifically - at the time; none of them mentioned this person. The only extra-biblical mention of a person with the title 'christ' (because that is a title, not a name) was by Josephus, who most scholars believe was a fraud and who did not live in the area purported to be the home turf of christ, so cannot be considered an eyewitness. Josephus's comments at the time run to "I hear there's this guy." That is hearsay related by someone who heard it from someone....

I appreciate people have faith but with faith comes a profound responsibility to understand what one has faith in. Believers should be driven to comprehend - they should be desperate for and focused on comprehension. They should know what their 'holy' books say - in detail. And they must understand how much of their books are scavenged from other, earlier mythologies.

They must NOT in any case rely on "proofs" that are anything but proof and are manufactured or manipulated. Believers should be brutally offended by the offerings of fraudsters who prey upon their beliefs - beliefs that are so strong believers will accept ANYTHING that looks to support their myth.

This is true in all religions. Muslims still believe their prophet was right in saying the world is a flat disk that is circled by the sun, despite the undeniable proof the earth is round and orbits the much larger (read; greater gravitational pull) sun. Belief in a flat earth is, however, no less ridiculous than belief in a talking snake, man-regurgitating fish, or flying horses.

In my case, coming from 10 generations of believers - ministers in every one of those generations and five in this one alone, and from a highly, culturally religious family - the NEED to comprehend lead me to research which lead me to atheism because biblical things do not and cannot stand to scrutiny.

I cannot have faith in a 'god' that waited until humans had been on the planet some 100,000 years before revealing itself, nor can I ignore excellent science that proves the earth is much older than 6000 years;  I cannot have faith in a 'god' that constantly destroys what it creates; I cannot have faith in a 'god' that orders the death by murder of (if the bible is to be understood) more than 2.5 million people; or who orders parents to kill their own children or the children of others; or causes bears to rip  children apart because they laugh at a man's baldness; or makes a law that a woman who is raped must marry her rapist; or decrees we must keep slaves and tells us how to treat them and to what point we can beat them; or who finds people's car keys, assists football teams to win games, but ignores the millions starving. The bible is immensely historically inaccurate and most of the great stories are, again on scrutiny, highly implausible.

There is a GREAT freedom in not living one's life in fear of a wrathful and vengeful 'god,' in terror for one's afterlife, and in knowing that humans are intrinsically and necessarily moral and need not cower before an angry, jealous, narcissistic 'god' who cannot ever be appeased by the beings it is reported to love and from whom it must have constant adulation but who, despite all that supplication, it constantly threatens with eternal near-death.

The tartan of a life

This post is a Christmas card for my aunt and uncle in that beautiful, warm, green place by the water.

You cannot know how much I love you and how important you are to me and mine.

Everything that is good is grounded in you, that place, the now, and the forever-will-be-part of the very chequered tartan that is my colourful life.

Boys are often dumb...

I am endlessly curious about and fascinated by what seems to be a generalised belief held by many men that the type of car they drive, the name given to the work they do, the fabric their clothing is made from or the leather used to make their shoes (Snake? Really? They don't see the irony?) conspire to enhance their general attractiveness and the size of their physical attributes.

Boys, this is not true. Yeah, that's a cool car (your music sucks and is way too loud) but it doesn't make a man of you; yeah, your big, fancy title is interesting but you're probably being paid WAY too much for the actual amount of work you do and in today's times, post Lehman Bros et al, that title and your what's written on your pay stub are suspect; your suit is great but the likelihood you picked it yourself - pretty slim... and those shoes mate? C'mon. As for the physical attributes, let's just say, it's not the gun, it's the gunner....

Here's a tip, boys: real girls - and boys - like the colour of your character and the depth of your ethics; when all the accoutrements are stripped away, without excellent character and ethics, what is there?

Either....

I'm really smart and people agree with me

Or, they think I'm idiotic and my stuff's not worth commenting on....

Either way, I would love some comments, dear readers.

Debates with believers part a million....

This is yet another repost of an exchange that occurred on a social network. Before I get into this thread, I'd like to note again how readily believers read general comments, take them personally and wade into an argument. Anything that is italicised and bold has been added by me in this post to clarify my thoughts on the exchange.

I'd also suggest readers of this post (and other similar post that appear here also) note who is using the word "YOU" in their comments - and how and when they're using it, and who is using the word "I" - and also how - when commenting or replying.

The use or not of "You" is significant. I have bolded the occurrences of "you" in this thread (some may have been missed, however).

Also, although I have inserted the Latin term 'sic' behind spelling errors in the early part of this thread, I eventually gave up....

Finally, if you're reading this and it feels a bit like déja vu, you're right: I posted the early part of this conversation last week. This week, however, a bunch of other people decided to gang up on me.

As always, I invite your comments but PLEASE READ the entire post first, yeah?

  

Progressive Christianity: the definitive oxymoron.

This was my general, not-directed-to-anyone-in-particular comment.... This is the conversation that followed.

JP: Depending...

WriterWriter: I'm not sure how 'progressive' relates to '2000 year-old tribal writings'....

BW: here's my take on religion in general.....
If you believe.....then you can't persecute those who don't .....
If you don't believe....then you can't persecute those who do....
(Just to note, the person who made this TRUE comment resorts to some persecution and threats later in this conversation.*)

WriterWriter: True.
However, asking questions is not persecution.
Asking for substantiation is not persecution.
Pointing out fallacies, inconsistencies, falsehoods is not persecution.

Those are the rights of rational, thinking people in a democracy.

In THIS democracy, freedom OF and freedom FROM religion are protected by our constitution and Bill of Rights but neither of those protect any religion or any subscriber to religion (of any type) from being questioned.

JP: It can be when the tone is mocking. (I'm not sure what 'it' refers to here or when the 'tone' is mocking).  Its (sic) not a question when you are "pointing out realities" (actually, I said fallacies, falsehoods and inconsistencies).

For some people, this (I'm not sure what 'this' refers to here) is a part of their reality, and whether you believe their view of reality to be true or not, that (not sure what 'that' refers to either... )needs to be honored (sic) (WHY??).

Its (sic) not a question when you consider those who think rationally different from those who don't (no, the writer is correct; it is not a question to think those who think rationally are different from those who don't). 

There are lots of religious people who think rationally (Ok, I'll concede this point except they don't on the points of religion, which is not rational in any way and doesn't pretend to be rational: hence, faith). 

It's not a question when the "question" makes others feel small.

(Ah, yeah, it is. Their feeling small has no bearing on whether a question is a question).

 

Perhaps those within religion have made you (why did this suddenly become about me?) feel small and insignificant and that's why you attack* (question?) it with such vigor (sic). There is a difference between an opinion and a question. I respect yours (my question or my opinion?), as a rational, thinking human being (I don't know if the writer means they are or I am the rational being). 

I hope the same courtesy can be given to me. (When did this suddenly become about this commenter? My initial four-word post is entirely general).

WriterWriter: How did this become about anyone in particular???

Why is it people always try to find reasons (i.e. I've been made to feel small) for atheism? Why should there be any reason beyond there's NO evidence for any god: not the god of the christians and jews and not that of the muslims - no more evidence than there is for ANY of the 5000 or so gods that have passed through human history.

Here's a question: If you had been born in the Middle East to parents who follow Islam, would you still be a christian? (This question was never answered)

I will say I disagree intensely with the idea that religion 'needs to be honoured.' Why?

Being affiliated with a religion - ANY religion - does not make a person good or nice or honest or ethical; nor do such affiliations insure morality. So honour then based on what?

Tell me why I "need to honour" beliefs that are based on no evidence. Why should such beliefs benefit from any more honour than a belief in Thor or Krishna or pink unicorns?

... please give me any example of when I have attacked.

Also please tell me why questioning with vigour constitutes attack. (not answered)

WriterWriter: I wish I could take bets on how much - if any - of this excellent article will be read by certain participants here but there you go...

And before anyone slams me for being aggressive or mean or too frank whatever term, I didn't write this...

Progressive Religious Believers' Big Hypocrisy: Cherry-Picking the Parts of Religion they Like and Don't

If you're just going to use your own conscience and your own mind to decide what's right or wrong, true or false -- why do you need God?

JP: I didn't "slam" you for being too aggressive* (Um, yeah, ya did, by alleging I attack). I don't think you're mean or being to (sic) frank (We'll keep this comment in mind too, for later...). I'll read your article, if thats (sic) who you mean by "certain people".

WriterWriter: Lots of people are following this thread. Lots won't read that.... Like I said, don't take the general personally.

WriterWriter:  Just to quote you, " Perhaps those within religion have made you feel small and insignificant and that's why you attack* (question?) it with such vigor (sic)."... You suggested I attack... attacks are, by definition, aggressive.

What I will say to all the religious readers of this thread is this: my comments here provide you every opportunity to provide evidence, proof, backup, substantiation, etc. and provide you a wide-open opportunity to convert someone.

What I often - and I mean 99.9% of the time - get in response to my questions or suggestions is defensiveness, not reply. (for evidence of this, keep reading...)

I have asked SEVERAL people (two pastors) to define the 'beliefs' I have and have had NO answer - although they have both responded with insults (about my character and intelligence, much preceded by 'you are,' or 'you should' type comments) (Twitter).

I have asked for substantiation of the main players in the stories and have again had insinuations and outright insults but no answers.

I have asked simple questions like the one I posted today about Noah (where did he get polar bears and south-pole penguins, etc) and another about how 'god' managed to create light three days before the light source, but have been told (and YES I WILL pull the direct quote) that I am intellectually bereft and incapable of comprehending the bible.

I have provided endless links to excellent writers and research sources, videos, refutations, encyclopaedic references and have had back only biblical references to support biblical references: the concept of circular reasoning seems to escape.

Finally, I have had any number of insinuations about my mental health in the sense that I must be mentally damaged to be doubting something for which there is absolutely no evidence.

But not one has taken the much-proffered opportunity to convert an educated person who comes from generations - TEN - of staunchly christian family that has at least one pastor in each of those 10 generations (five in this one). (They have, however falsely accused me of saying they're stupid because I have read more than they have....)

If I were on the other side of this fence, I'd say that someone like me was a hell of a catch and I'd make every effort to research my sources, know what I was talking about, answer questions, read the heck out of every possible resource, back up my answers and be real in order to hook such a fish.

NOTE:

(I have emphasised certain words in the next comments to highlight the use of charged words. I just thought it was an interesting contrast to my having tried to keep my comments as neutral as possible, considering the subject matter)

GP: RESPECT !!!........a very SIMPLE concept......but not... seemingly for you!!!! (aaaannnddd cue the attacks).....RESPECT my son for his belief system......RESPECT me....for mine!!......I don't give a rat's ass for what YOU believe (So, I have to respect this person's belief system but they don't give a rat's for mine. OK.... )......it is YOUR belief system!!.....I listen to to (sic) what you believe......I don't question it (maybe you should?).....it is YOURS......your verbal retaliations (VERBAL? Maybe they're using reader.... Retaliations? WHERE?) come across as a personal attack.....no one is really caring to debate you.....most of us don't have the time or energy too (sic).....not that you would listen anyway's (sic)!!......you just delete friend's (sic)......or block comment's (sic)!.......because they anger you!.......and....just for the record......you have raised your children in YOUR belief system........so how are you different than ANY of ???......

(For the record, I have not raised my children in any belief system: they are and have always been free to consider all or none). 

GP: ‎~R~E~S~P~E~C~T........  Thank you BW....you nailed it! (relates to the third comment in this thread)

DN: I truly get a kick out of people who can open there (sic) mouths and spew their thoughts while while (sic) anyone who tries is so wrong (except I am STILL waiting for any of these people to comment on the SUBJECT rather than attacking me). Respect oh there's that word again. Respect. I guess that word only works for certain individuals. So unbelievable. i personally don't care to read someones link (translation: I don't care to educate myself....).

maybe these links are spewing propaganda for atheists (so, let me get this right; this writer won't read any links I post because they don't want to read anything that might be "atheist propaganda,' whatever that is...?). 

Oh yeah right i'm probalby not educated enough to understand. Im sure i will hear about it. My thoughts and beliefs are totally wrong (OK, if you say so.... ).

BW: I'd just like to know why it is you demand justification for someone elses beliefs? You seem to crusade against religion with radical passion, and respond with someone elses diatribes about their own personal convenient choosings and how that just makes a mockery of the whole belief system......You enjoy fitness activities and photography, and no one slams those activities or crusasades against them or blogs about the lack of proof that fitness activities are indeed healthy...no one on here challenges anything that you enjoy, believe, or take comfort in. And yes, the beauty of the web is that it is indeed an open forum, ...but using it to take a stab at the beliefs of a life long friend and her family , for all the world to see, shows a complete lack of respect. Ask yourself if the challenges are worth the cost of a life long friend?
(Ok. I must note here that I did not and did not intend to single out anyone. My comments were - and are, as much as possible - GENERAL. This commenter is suggesting - via veiled threat on someone else's behalf - that I should shut up or lose a friend)

WriterWriter: Nope. I did NOT attack, pinpoint, or disrespect JP with my initial post. It is GENERAL and not about anyone specifically.

Secondly, I note - as always - that the participants in these threads rarely, if ever, reply to specific questions and resort VERY quickly to attacking my character. (See? No names and no identifying information)

But this idea of respect is really interesting: I will say quite categorically that those of us who err on the side of evidence, proof, verification and reality are on the short end of the respect stick.

It isn't a question of not respecting the PERSON. Not at all: it is, however, a question of retaining respect at the same time as having the RIGHT (and responsibility) to ask questions about things that don't make sense, aren't true or don't add up.

I have always and will always have respect for people's beliefs - and for this country's constitution that protects the right to believe - and the right to FREE of belief.

HOWEVER, those who claim a belief in something are substantially responsible for providing some reliable evidence and support for those beliefs. What almost always happens is when those beliefs are put to the test, rather than a rational discussion ensuing, the above types of comments occur.

Reacting angrily and throwing insults at a writer who says something one does not agree with or know about is NOT a discussion: it is tantamount to a temper tantrum and has no relationship to discussion.

DN, PLEASE tell me - and QUOTE me - where I have "spewed propaganda for atheists," and what exactly that might be.

GP; Please, please, please tell me what it is I believe given that the definition of atheism is an ABSENCE of belief. Secondly, please tell me where I said anything disrespectful to or about J; and finally, SOMEONE please explain how a general comment became about anyone in particular!

BW, I am not 'demanding' justification: however, I am educated, as I grew up in a church environment and come from a very large family of religious people - and ten generations of the same.

Yes, now that I have stepped back and have spent more than five years reading everything I can get my hands on and researching what I grew up believing, I am asking people to substantiate what they say they believe (in this conversation because they jumped in to the conversation. I don't walk up to strangers and start in on them...although, sometimes I'd really like to.).

Re your comparison of real things - tangible things like running and photography - to things for which there is no evidence, proof or substantiation for 'real' it's a stretch.... (I have evidence for my photographs and for my running - or lack thereof at the moment, given my waistline; Believers have no evidence whatsoever for the claims they make)

I am SHOCKED by how angry those same people become when they encounter information that is at odds with what they say they believe. I am also shocked to comprehend how unwilling people are to read anything that challenges their paradigm.... wait. Actually, no, I'm not surprised by that at all: the only way to be sure of one's beliefs is to never put them to any significant test... but I digress...

To the original post: My comment, that progressive christianity is an oxymoron is NOT directed at anyone in particular ... (redacted); however ... chose to make it about ... and others here have gone there too.

Secondly, this is MY ... feed. I am comfortable speaking as I do and have no embarrassment about the opinions I hold or the research I've done or the things I post. If others are offended, they have several choices:
Self-censorship;
Research - and post countering opinions (but please understand that I may also continue to post other also-countering opinions and information;
Remove the 'friend' connection.

However, under no circumstances will I be cowed into censoring myself because others don't agree with me. Just because people don't agree does NOT mean that I am wrong or disrespectful. It means that I respect people enough to engage them in a very complex subject because I believe them intelligent enough to engage.

Finally, to the point of respecting religion in general: WHY. Why should any philosophy deserve any respect simply for existing? Why should one religion deserve more respect than any other - and more than no beliefs - when thousands of religions - and gods - have preceded it and when there is no more proof or substantiation for it than any other in existence now or in the past?

Why should the North-American version of religion deserve any more respect or be accorded any more 'truth' than religions elsewhere?

Have your beliefs but don't be surprised, and don't resort to insults and insinuations, when people who choose to really consider what 'belief' and 'faith' mean ask pointed questions.

And DON'T take the general personally: it indicates a certain insecurity.

As always, I hope you will, even in the smallest way, take advantage of the links I post here:
Greta Christina is one of my favourite writers: here is some of her work, particularly on the subject of believers debating atheists

.. and on the dangers of 'progressive' christianity':

Some readers may not like this stuff - but not liking it only means they don't like it, not that it's wrong;

Stuff that challenges one's paradigm will do one of two things: it will allow them - or force them - to go find material that supports their beliefs and paradigm or it will bust them out of their beliefs and paradigm. THIS applies to me too, which is why I read EVERYTHING for or against my subject matter.

GP:Wowzer's.....you just don't get it...on any level....

DN: Oh julie you crack me up. Your rants are hilarious

BW:You're strong in your convictions....we get that.....but so are GP and JP, and all who believe....
(Fine. My issue is that you hold these convictions you refuse to challenge AND you get all angry when anyone else challenges them.)

Your posts and questions indicate to me that you're looking for proof and answers (Congratulations, Sherlock....)

 but challenging people on a public forum isnt the way to go about it. (Women should shut up and not speak in public? Don't ask questions in public so we believers won't have to be shamed in public?)

Perhaps you should investigate a term at a bible college where you are encouraged find your own answers.
(Ahahaha... I can't imagine how a bible college would even consider letting me in or what they'd do with all my questions, but reading everything I can and asking questions of believers is exactly how one goes about finding their own answers... or do you mean finding the answers YOU want me to find?)

While you may view your posts/comments as matter for debate, they are delivered in such a manner that they are viewed as an attack....
(This is exhausting. "... viewed as" does not equal "are.") 

you're making these people defend and justify what they believe in and you simply DON'T have that right.
(Ah, yes, I sure do. I every right to question the extraordinary claims of 'believers.' its one thing to enter in to a fact based debate (Religion is not fact)...but the truth of the matter is that what you have here is a debate based on beliefs where there can be no victor....your beliefs/views and opinions cannot trump anyone elses just because you want them to (Ok, that's just dumb: these people all jumped into what was NEVER supposed to be a debate and then tearing me down because they chose to engage???)

Quotes from various blogs are also someone elses opinion that you seem to think back up your opinion....(Ok. I don't know if this person finished school but I'm pretty sure they went at least to grade nine or 10 - where they would have had to go to the library, read other people's writing and use it to support the points of their own essays.)

If you can believe said blogs without challenge (When did I say I 'believe' blogs without challenge?), why can't the faithful believers of the world believe in their convictions with the same courtesy?? (They can. They just can't be pissed off if I ask them a question and they can't answer it). you've made your point....your (sic) a non believer......no one bothers you about it (EXCUSE ME??? No one bothers me about it??? NO ONE has put a LOT of time into writing the above comments.... )......so let it go.......unchallenged as it is.... 

So, GP if I understand correctly, as long as I don't say anything - no matter how general - that you disagree with, all's well; but the second I make a general comment you don't like, or ask a question that I'd like an answer to it's a personal attack?

Are you also suggesting I have no right to question religion on my own Facebook page?

Are you suggesting that I censor myself because my opinions and the links to other opinions I post offend some people? Would you apply that same expectation to yourself?

DN, I'm glad you find this amusing. I also find it quite amusing that a completely general comment was taken personally to the point that four commenters came out swinging....

I'm not sure how my four-word general observation, or my comments in response to others here constitutes a rant or why the very pointed and very personal comments do not....

If anyone who has commented here would like to ante up and QUOTE me when I have personally attacked any specific person here, please do. Just be mindful that I will do the same.

One must be judicious in their use of the word "YOU" in exchanges such as these....

Anyway, this exchange continues, even as I write this blog. The players are either cornering themselves or exiting the conversation because what else can they do besides end up looking stupid.... E.G.:

BW: I have no interest in proving, or disproving any of it....it just doesn't matter to me one way or another....

I think it's weird to weigh in on something you not only don't know anything about, but when you actually don't want to know..... Adding this comment on 19-01-15, because I'm re-reading my blog and came across this last comment. This guy, despite my being VERY clear I DO know quite a bit about my subject matter, and HAVE expressed a very keen interesting reading the commenters' responses to any of my questions, suggests I don't know anything and don't want to know. It's like he - none of them - read anything I wrote. Also, the person who made this last comment is now an effective atheist and, is no longer very close to the two people he was defending. 

This is for all those sweet religious people who say I attack them...

Every time I say anything or ask any question pertaining to religion, a legion of the faithful tell me I'm a horrible person, that I don't respect them and that I have, essentially, no right to speak or to ask those questions or to hold them accountable for the myth they foist upon people - other people who can't or won't speak up or who are too lazy or terrified or brainwashed to do ANY research into what they think they believe.

NO, I do NOT respect that attitude and NO, I do NOT 'need' to honour someone just because that person chooses to believe in myth.

Until you, Mr. and Mrs. Religious-of-any-type can give me some EVIDENCE that your god - one of more than 5000 in human history - is the IT guy, then you can screw off with your admonishments in my direction.