Google+ Followers

Saturday, 22 June 2013

Bill on "Biblical Truths"

In "Biblical Truths Confirmed", Muehlenberg asserts:
One good way to establish the veracity of Christianity is to simply see how people respond to it.
Um, not really sure how "the way people react" gives any indication to the truth of a proposition. If I were to tell someone that I was my own grandmother and they looked at me like I was crazy, that wouldn't entitle me to conclude that my claim must therefore be true. But Bill's never been one for backing up his assertions for a simple reason: they're not true.

People are usually repulsed by it, and for very good reason: it cuts right across human pride and autonomy.
OK, we can more or less agree here. Christianity is repulsive. It's extremely damaging to dismantle people's self-respect and ability to think for themselves, but for the poison of religion to work, it must do both. Thus, yes, rational people are profoundly repulsed by religionists wanting to force this sort of rubbish upon impressionable children, telling them they are worthless sinners. How fucked up is that?

You see, the Christian gospel is quite plain about the human condition. It tells us that we are all lost sinners who are at enmity with God and under his just wrath. Unless we repent and turn from self and sin, we are headed for a lost eternity.  
So according to Bill, "god" created humans expressly in order to be pissed off with them, and assume they're guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Unless we kiss this tyrant's ass he'll spurn us and torture us after we die for an eternity.

How much clearer can Xtians like Bill be that their religion is nothing to do with morality, love or compassion; and solely to do with the selfish need to make propitiations towards an imaginary monster whose personality is worse than all the human tyrants combined?

Bill, people don't want nothing to do with your religion because they're angry at "god", they want nothing to do with it because it's warped, anti-social, self-evidently not true and an extremely detrimental ideology. No wonder Bill is such an angry man. He models himself on his imaginary friend.


  1. About your descriptors; are you going to create your own controlled vocabulary?

    1. erm.... what? Do feel free to make a point, Ross. Preferably about the issues I raise in my posts.

  2. I'm a librarian. I work with controlled vocabularies. I deal with people like you using sarcasm. Do you have a problem with that?

    1. Perhaps you can give me an example of what your beef is, Ross?

      What do you make of Muehlenberg not posting "ex-gay" stats, and posting assertions that gay=paedophile, as per my most recent two posts?

  3. My beef is with cherry picking from Bill's blog to make him look bad, and on top of that twisting his words. I asked him what he makes of those who attack him by saying that homosexuality equals paedophilia. Bill asks that these people ask them to point out where he has said that all homosexuals are paedophiles. He's never said that. Even so, the data shows that there is an unfortunate high rate of homosexual paedophilia out there. This is documented in his book, which I've read. It wasn't a pleasant read, but I wanted to read it anyway.

    Bill gets a lot of hate mail and death threats, that's all I know. I respect him as a person and a scholar.

  4. Ross, you really need to learn to think for yourself. I saw your comment on Bill's site, asking him:

    "How do you answer your attackers who deliberately twist your words and think that you claim that homosexuality equals paedophilia?"

    In *what way* am I twisting his words, Ross? And just how loaded is it to describe me as an "attacker" simply for pointing out Bill's vicious homophobic agenda? Did you read my article? In what way have I misrepresented Bill's position? Did you read the other comments under the article? Bill is happy for this one to pass:

    D. Singh
    30.6.13 / 10pm

    You state:

    ‘Thankfully most homosexuals are not involved in such activities.’

    I have classified that as a mere bald assertion without any supporting evidence.

    Dee Singh

    What do you think to that, Ross? Why does Bill allow such comments if he's not trying to infer that all gay people should be treated with suspicion for being paedophiles?

    As for your "data", do you mean the rubbish you've read in Bill's book (ah, so *you* were the one who bought a copy)? By homosexual paedophilia you mean paedophiles who are attracted to minors of the same sex. What does this have to do with gay people? The vast majority of paedophilia is men with little girls. By your logic we should treat all straight people as potential paedophiles, yes?

    Have you seen any of Bill's "death threats" or are you just taking his word for it? Plenty of evidence here that he's a liar. You can respect who you like. But anyone who devotes their life to spreading hatred against anyone who doesn't share their beliefs isn't worthy of respect, and is fully deserving of all the flak they attract. Why do you respect Bill?