Forgot your password?

Dear Jesus: Please Save Me from Christians!

By Edited Apr 8, 2016 9 37

The Yea-Sayers

Controversy Where None Is Wanted Or Warranted

You can lead the sheeple to knowledge, but you can’t make ’em think.
- Vic Dillinger, 2012
Everyone knows I shoot from the hip.

This is a review of what I have inadvertently discovered are “controversies” surrounding my work.  In every case, such controversy is not based on reasoned arguments.  Instead, these issues develop from the typical Web reader’s a) lack of comprehension, b) short attention span, c) inability to think critically, and d) not having read the work upon which he or she is all in a knot over.

Mr. & Ms. Oblivious
I’m sure any writer (who does more than grind out articles such as “How to Make a Sammich”™ or “How to Eat a Sangwidge”™) has had some pinhead come along and try to
Book Larnin' iz Bad(109116)
flame his or her piece with such fun-loving comments as “You don’t know what you’re talking about.  God is real, and you’ll burn in Hell”.  [Actually, such a statement would most likely be written by the illiterati as “You dont no what your talking about.  God is real and youll burn in hell.”]  Such a statement is even funnier when it appears as a comment on an article that has absolutely nothing to do with religion, but perhaps included the words “god” and maybe the words “not real” somewhere in the text. 

This goes toward item d) in my introduction.  Commenters often have not read what they are commenting upon.  Or they target a specific idea out-of-context.  I have had many people cite a fact or a key point in a comment that I not only already addressed in the article itself, but their comments are stupefying paraphrases from my own article.  On occasion, I have had to pull a quote from my piece, copy and paste it into a reply, and overstate the obvious: “I already said that!”

Before anyone gets his or her panties in a bunch over something I’ve written he or she had better have read and digested every word.  That person better have also understood what the article’s main topic is as well.  A comment on an article about the fact there is no such thing as ghosts might read (and I’m paraphrasing here), “Sure, there’s ghosts.  Me and my mom saw one just yesterday.  You should talk to Jesus about your lack of belief in ghosts.  Jesus is Lord. You’re going to burn in Hell.  Oh, and how do I make a good sammich?”

Many commenters barely skim the article upon which they vent their puny fart-in-a-hurricane fury.  I can respect anyone who can make a reasoned argument, supported by research from credible sources and observable, recordable, repeatable realities.  I have no tolerance for someone who writes as a comment “This is junk”, then doesn’t have the stones to tell me why the central theme of the piece (not some minor, insignificant detail) is incorrect or misrepresented. 

It has yet to happen.  But I know Mr. & Ms. Oblivious will be out there, lurking, awaiting a chance to pounce: “The way you told me how to make a sammich is wrong, and you’re gonna burn in Hell!”

Sammich & Sangwidge
What amuses me the most about much of the responses I get is the nearly overwhelming “yea-sayer” comments anytime I write about religion.  A “yea-sayer”, by the way, is a gullible person who accepts every piece of dogma he or she ever heard as truth without question.  Thus, an article titled “God Exists” will be filled with comments from yea-sayers all in the affirmative.  An article titled “God Does Not Exist” however, will still rate the same comments about the existence of an all-omnipotent god.  However, the yea-sayers will throw in that the author, of course, will burn in Hell for his or her non-belief.

In the first place, I never write about religion itself.  My writings, when they do touch on religious matters, are focused on some historical figure whose backdrop is within the context of the prevailing religion of the time and place. 

I care nothing for religion.  More people on the face of this planet have been killed in the name of one god or another than all the wars, natural disasters, and pestilence deaths combined. Arguing about which “god” is better is absurd.  It is akin to fighting and killing each other over who has the cooler imaginary friend.  [By the way, I think Melissa Lutz at the age of 5 in The Amityville Horror in 1975 wins that “Best Imaginary Friend” contest.  Her demonic, red-eyed pig-pal, Jodie, was the best fabrication ever, even better than The Exorcist’s Captain Howdy!]

Unfortunately for me, some of history’s most compelling and interesting people lived within a religious context.  Mary (the Magdalene) in the 1st century CE; the Byzantine Empress Theodora (6th century CE); A’isha (7th century); Jeanne d’Arc (15th century); Queen Christina of Sweden (17th century); and Bernadette Soubirous (St. Bernadette, 19th century) all had religion as an influence in their lives (whether positive or negative is irrelevant).  These women fascinate me, and I have made a sincere effort to bring them to life, not just so they can be remembered, but so their accomplishments can be reviewed and appreciated by a new audience. I care nothing for the religion that shaped them (or, as in the case of Jeanne d’Arc, put them to an undeserved and tortuous death).

Jehovah's Waitresses(109539)

Religion is a human construct, and I recognize that fact.  Of all organized religions, I have a special love for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, more familiarly known as Mormons, and I have written about many major events in their history. The human story (from the creation of The Book of Mormon from thin air by 19th century farm boy Joseph Smith) to their travails of persecution and their exodus westward from New York makes for not only enjoyable research and writing, but also makes great reading.  They are my favorite Christian group.

However, as with all things, even a crack-head can find a way to argue with a fact-based story of a historical event.  In a piece that featured the genesis of The Book of Mormon (as a contextual element) a “yea-sayer” of immense pretensions with apparently a lot of time on his or her hands claimed I did not know what I was talking about regarding The Book of Mormon.  This person then went on to “prove” me wrong (at length) by quoting from The Book of Mormon!  The absurdity was not lost on me – it would be as if someone wrote a review of my novel claiming it was not true, and I used quotes from the novel itself to “prove” it was!

Religious and historical backdrops inform much of an article’s slant.  In a recent story about A’isha, a young woman married to the founder of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), I discovered much about the context for Islam I did not know.  Unlike the average Christian, I understand that not only did Muhammad believe there was one god, but that god was al-Lah, and guess what?  He’s the same god as the Judeo-Christian Yahweh! So, what’re we fighting about again?  [I also liked Muhammad as a person based upon objective non-Muslim readings of his liberal beliefs about women and how people should treat each other.  It was only later that the oppression of women was institutionalized, not during his lifetime.  I’d like

Sarah Palin(109109)
to believe if he were alive today, he would be appalled at what he had created, the same as Jesus would be none too pleased.]
I stay away from politics simply because, at heart, I am an anarchist (though I do enjoy the infrastructure an organized government produces, things such as utilities, interstate highways, PBS, etc.).  More importantly, though, I find politics crushingly and excruciatingly boring, and the only time I touch upon it is if it is incidental to an article’s theme.  When I wrote about Monica Lewinsky political elements were mentioned.  When I expressed my undying love for the truly hot Sarah Palin (man, I’d put a hurtin’ on that!) politics were incidental as well.

Politics is not government, so the two should not be confused.  One can have a good government or a bad one.  However, there is no right or wrong in politics – it’s all wrong. [And George W. Bush was an idiot, and the worst president this country ever had (howzat to stir the pot?)]

George W. Bush
Women & the Sacred Feminine
I write about women – a lot.  It is because I love them, not just for the obvious reasons, but as a unit: Woman. The preponderance of my material focuses on women’s issues or interesting or significant women in history.  I find them more compelling than their male contemporaries simply because any woman (such as Marie Curie or Empress Theodora) who can leave a lasting impression on the face of history not only was equal to her male counterparts, but in most cases excelled over them. 

The Sacred Feminine is a meta-category where many of my works reside and overlap.  This is not about “femaleness”, the biology of being a woman, but it is about the feminine energy that complements the masculine that almost all Western society has forgotten or suppressed.  The granddaddy of all mystical poseurs, Aleister Crowley, spent a lifetime investigating and worshipping the Occult concept of the Sacred Feminine, and he was right to

Lilith (detail from 19th century oil painting)
do so.  We could all learn something from understanding the concept.

Embodiments of that forgotten feminine energy abound, waiting to be recovered and re-discovered.  The pre-Exodus god of the enslaved Jews in Egypt, Yahweh, had a wife named Asherah (since written out of the sacred texts).  Adam’s first wife, Lilith (suppressed and excised from the Bible) is another fine example of what our ancestors knew to be true – the feminine energy in the world is a necessity for a healthily balanced life force.  Hence, Mary of Magdala, in my mind, is just as important as Jesus.  Without acceptance of the Sacred Feminine applied to spirituality there is nothing left but grunting, bromantic a-holes hanging around in their tighty-whities, fist-bumping, and engaging in homo-erotic “play” wrestling matches between swigs of beer.

I write about rough-and-tumble women such as Calamity Jane and Lola Montez. I write about pious women whose mysticism

Lola Montez (1851)(109113)
caught the attention of the almighty Catholic Church.  I have written about great women in Islam’s early history. 

I wrote a series that focuses on an icon of pop culture or a female figure in literature or history.  These articles are to be taken for what they truly are – paeans to physically beautiful women or talented women or just plain amusing women

One of these invited the ire of a wanker who just didn’t get it.  This person got all distraught when I referred to the female cast of a spectacularly crappy sitcom disparagingly.  True, I did that.  Also true was that none of those actresses (by any standard) could have been considered more stunning in her physicality than the subject of the article (I’m assuming the whiner thought Kate Smith or Janet Reno or Ernest Borgnine were real lookers, compared to say, Sofia Vergara). The point is that beauty is subjective, perhaps more than any other quality.  I would not, for example, go to someone’s article who found beauty in…ummm…Barbara Bush and lambaste the writer for choosing her as a hottie in a negative comment.  It is useless and petty. 

Negative comments in and of themselves are not the problem.  If the beef is legitimate (and they rarely are) I will listen.  I can be wrong, and I will admit it when I am. It is only when someone either never got it, or lost the focus of what the article was about, that makes me want to punch that commenter in the neck.  Understanding what is written, and the spirit in which it was executed, is essential!

What You Believe Is Not Truth
Truth has some subjective elements.  Believing in the Judeo-Christian god Yahweh does not make that entity real. Believing in ghosts does not make them real.  Believing in Bigfoot does
Pigfoot (Hogsquatch)
not make it real.  Believing in Santa Claus does not make him real. You get the picture.

Facts, unlike “truth”, do not contain subjectivity.  If there was no snow on the ground on January 1, 1976 (when George and Kathy Lutz claimed to have seen cloven hoof prints in the snow around their supposedly possessed Amityville home), then, goddammit, there was no snow on the ground!  That’s a fact, and it is inarguable.  Any arguments against such a statement are picayune and masturbatory.  And yet people will attempt to subvert a fact into something that fits their world views.   The snow on the ground suddenly can be claimed to really have been a drizzle, and the cloven hoof prints were in the mud.  It doesn’t matter – facts are facts.  They are neither created nor destroyed.  They just are.

In the realm of fact-based material I hate articles that begin with “[insert number here] Things You Didn’t Know About [insert topic here]”.  [A better tack might be to call such articles “Little Known Facts About…” or “Interesting Things About…”.] Such a writer doesn’t have a clue what I know or don’t know, and the presumption of my ignorance (as well as the presumed ignorance of others) really grates on me.  That writer is not privy to some special or arcane knowledge that none of us could not know or uncover.  Furthermore, I find that many such articles contain false information or rely upon legend  – when I pointed such a thing out to a writer last year, he or she got his or her panties all in a bunch, and started an unnecessary flame war (which I won, because I let the smaller person have the last word).

I’m very confident in the length, breadth, and depth of the knowledge I possess.  It is truly rare (and laudatory) if someone ever comes up with something of which I am either unaware or have no insight into.  When that does happen, guess what I do?  I say, “Wow, I didn’t know that.  Thanks for the info!”  I don’t comment negatively on their piece and argue about something of which I obviously – through admission – know nothing (like many of my negative commenters)

Regardless, I do not take my work lightly, I do not presume to know what the reader does or doesn’t know, and that is why I will take the time to tangentially inject something that helps in  understanding themes.  [For example, without background about the airline industry’s tolerance of homosexual men as flight attendants, no one would understand AIDS Patient Zero’s (Gaëtan Dugas) desire to become a flight attendant.]  Some people appreciate this effort; just as many probably do not, and will say as much.  Again, the point was lost on such people.

In the search for “truth” I write things that can motivate people (for good or bad) to sign up to the site to send accolades my way or to throw in their worthless, negative opinion.  The negative comment itself doesn’t bother me – it is indeed a small person, though, who tears down without building. I will take any negative comments from writers over any frothings of some dip-wad who does not contribute.  You don’t like my work?  Man up! Write a rebuttal.  [And there is a wonderful writer on this site who took exception to something I’d written a long time ago.  This writer was sufficiently moved to write a well-reasoned and excellent rebuttal.  I even added a back-link to that rebuttal piece in my original article.  That person knows who he or she is and he/she has my undying respect and admiration for that act.]

Controversy? What Controversy?
For something to be controversial there must be grey areas.  Fact-based recountings of historical events are not controversial (“In Fourteen Hundred and Ninety-Two / Columbus
Vic Dillinger, Ready for Action!
sailed the ocean blue…” – there’s no controversy in that rhyme).  For anything to be controversial there must be dissenting opinions.  The abortion issue is a perfect example of a genuinely controversial issue – some call the contraceptive removal of a fetus murder; some see it as a woman’s life choice.

Carefully weighing both sides of an issue or topic and discussing it makes for good debate.  Even though the “warring” parties will perhaps never agree or compromise, new insights can be gained when a dissenter makes a reasoned counter-argument (not just the dippy, “You’re wrong, and you’re going to burn in Hell!”). 

Anyone secure in his or her beliefs does not need to nor should ever feel compelled to defend those beliefs or to create converts.  Controversy does not involve some zealot or racist thumping his sphincter-drum saying I am wrong.  Controversy is not a fundamentalist Bible-slinger wailing how I will burn in Hell because I once wrote (accurately) that Jesus was not truly intended to be the reformer of Judaism.  That role belonged to John the Baptist until his execution; had John lived, Jesus would never have gained ascendance.

And by the way, as an atheist, I can’t believe in Satan or Hell: both concepts are part of the Judeo-Christian dogma that I do not acknowledge.  So, no Hell for me! But, I guess I can brace myself for the certain “controversy” (where it is not warranted) that will follow such a completely logical statement. 


Because it fits my recurring joke, and I think it's awesome!

America by Heart : Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag
Amazon Price: $25.99 $0.98 Buy Now
(price as of Jun 9, 2014)
Crusader Kings II [Download]
Amazon Price: $39.99 Buy Now
(price as of Jun 9, 2014)
The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever
Amazon Price: $18.99 $9.46 Buy Now
(price as of Jun 9, 2014)
Trucker Man
Amazon Price: Buy Now
(price as of Jun 9, 2014)


Aug 12, 2012 6:02pm
I had a BLAST writing this!!
Aug 12, 2012 6:13pm
Very enjoyable and I read every word! I will agree that lots of circular arguments are made i.e. begging the question, in regard to religious matters. Also many world views and beliefs are based on induction and limited knowledge and experience (Bertrand Russell's chicken made that mistake). Another thing that really annoys me also, is that there are many articles (which get to the front page) which are based on error, legend and assumption, or an attempt to talk about something which the writer obviously does not understand; then trying to tie their fallacious reasoning into a moral issue (drives me crazy!)
Aug 12, 2012 6:20pm
It's not just the religious stiuff I get hammered on, though. In a medical article I wrote, some DB got mad because I didn't go to another blog and read what HE'd written about the same subject. I had no rational reason to do so, and his follow-up response was childishly petulant. He created "controversy" where there was none.

I do not expect agreement from the majority. What I do expect, however, is RATIONAL responses to anything I do, not knee-jerk jingoism or reactionary rhetoric.

Thanks for reading.
Aug 12, 2012 6:24pm
Good one! Sometimes, what annoys me more than the comments themselves, is when I get into a never ending argument and I don't just say "I give up" soon enough! It's especially vexing when it happens over email. Btw, just nit-picking here - there's a small typo in "Many commenter 19s barely skim". An errant apostrophy, sir! A thumb.
Aug 12, 2012 6:38pm
I fixed the typo, so thanks. Controversy is about debate, not as you say having to get into a cycle of arguing with an idiot. Good for you for giving it up-- it's a waste of time. Thanks for reading.
Sep 18, 2012 1:24pm
Hi claudlewis,

I remembered a quote from somewhere.
"Never ever argue with an idiot. He lowers you to his level and defeats you by experience".

But, a healthy discussion is always welcomed to improve oneself or our perspectives.

Such commentators you refer to, are annoying at times...
Sep 18, 2012 7:13pm
That was Mark Twain, I believe
Aug 12, 2012 11:51pm
An interesting and amusing read. I'm thinking that, the picture of George Bush would make a fairly effective dart board.
Aug 13, 2012 7:23am
Yeah, I hadda throw that in for laffs. Thanks for reading.
Aug 13, 2012 8:52am
Although our political differences and religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) could not be further apart, I still consider you a friend and respect you as a person. This is a testament to the fact that you've never been anything but friendly, polite, and respectable (seldom the norm).

While facts are facts, it is the interpretation of them which is always debatable (i. e. Clinton's "It depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is ...") A skilled debater such as the late William F. Buckley could run circles around many using "their facts." Folks like Charles Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, or the late Andrew Breitbart have written and debated many an opponent on the facts and come out on top.

Regarding Christianity, C. S. Lewis once said; "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell."

Your article also seems to imply that it's the uneducated who believe in Jesus and thus the premise is that Christianity is a fallacy. However, you can read profound writings in the field of Christian apologetics from some of the most scholarly authors such as R. C. Sproul, C. S. Lewis, Dr. Walter Martin, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Dinesh D'souza, and many more. By the way, there are also a number of "Mr. & Ms. Oblivious" atheists who would write a sentence beginning with the following; "You dont no what your talking about ..."

While I disagree with you, I can still say that you are one heck of a writer! I'm personally looking forward to the day when you come over from the "dark side." ;o)
Aug 13, 2012 12:19pm
You, Introspective, are the exception to Mr. & Ms. Oblivious. I know your beliefs, and the best part is you are always reasoned and rational when dicsusing or disputing anything. You are part of the 20% that have a fully functining brain. It's the 80% who don't get the world around them that tis is directed towrd (plus, I wrote it as an entrant for the "Someone's Gotta Say It" topic this month.

You are never preachy, never reactionary. You have a lot of class as is strongly indicated in this comment of yours. I respect your positions certainly, but the fun part is you don't jam it down anyone's throat!

I think the opening image supports my ocntention about uneducated zealots You, however, I know are neither a zealot nor uneducated, so there!

As always, thanks for reading.
Aug 13, 2012 6:43pm
This comment has been deleted.
Aug 13, 2012 11:29am
Well...welll...well...that's my philosophcal response since anything that makes me ponder gets that early comment which buys me a ton of time to think. But first of all, yes, you are absolutely correct--there turly is no right and wrong to politics--its' all wrong! I see you not only write well but have a greart sardonic humor as well.
As far as your "Chirstianity" views I may well be a bigger critic than you since there are some things in the above that I disagree with. Typically, I relish in your every word but this time you left ample room for dialectic--one thing I will say though--it is a gutsy article and I certainly appreciate that. As for God--No I cannot accept an old, tyrant in the sky eithe rso we are on tract there. (However I do believe in Universal Mind which some also call God)
Well, as I thiik about it, we are pretty much on track in any case so once again a big five stars!
PS--I find it difficult to grasp, however, how a free thinker and anarchist, as you are, can, on the other hand, admire a most intolerant, moralizing and controlled people..
Aug 13, 2012 12:25pm
I really do love Mormons! Not their dogma but them as a group. Everyone I've ever met has been wonderful, non-judgemental (of me, anyway -- I mean I stood in the open auditorium of the Mormom Tabernacle and told a representative there I didn't beleive any of the whooey, and she just smiled prettily and tolerantly). I've met Mormon families who live their faith without casting aspereisons on others. Also, they work hard as their pioneering efforts showed.

Other than them, though, I really like Jews because of their antiquity as a people in the same way that I find ancient China and its people fascinating.

Oh, and your repsonse is the sort of thing I relish on this site whether you agree with me or not. It is rational and sane -- I guess there's still no burning in Hell for me!
Aug 13, 2012 1:41pm
I found this to be a fantastic, thought-provoking article! I've read it through twice, and I can't find anything to be contrary about. I absolutely love the idea that illogical controversy where none exists stems from insecurity in one's beliefs. That makes so much sense to me. People have an emotional knee-jerk reaction to something you've written that doesn't fit into their self-constructed box, so their strong need-to-be-right disease compels them to defend the box rather than examine what's in it. Nice work and thumbs up!
Aug 13, 2012 5:57pm
I'm glad you got the whole thrust of the article. That puts you in the 20% who don't go around wanking on other people's material for no reason except for being petty and self-righteous. Thanks for reading.
Aug 13, 2012 8:24pm
I really enjoyed your article, and appreciate your views.I am interested in all religions, but do not see how anyone can believe one entity, like the Christian God, can send you to heaven or hell, places that I do not believe exist. I do believe in some kind of energy that created the Universe, maybe a Big Bang sort of thing, I have written about it from something I read in The Zohar, and it resonated with me. The Kaballah is very interesting, I began learning more about it while reading the Tarot. Since I like Metaphysical topics, I often get mail from "loving" Christians telling me I am deluded, demonic, and going to hell. Such a charming group. It's so nice to see somebody so appreciative of strong women. My husband adores Eleanor Roosevelt! Hubpages has so much Christian literature on it, they may as well call it "Jesuspages." And I also believe that he did exist, and would be horrified to find out what people did and said to have his message so distorted. Edgar Cayce said that Christ had to live through 30 incarnations until the last one, and was also Adam and Leonardo Da Vinci. I hope he does come back again, that last incarnation didn't work out so well for him. These people who call themselves Christian are usually so self righteous, and I wonder if any of them ever read the whole Bible? I object to content that is scripture after scripture, and is not counted as duplicate content. I can understand using one or two if the writer is going to explain what wonderful insight into life the scripture gave him/her, or if a particular one changed their life in any meaningful way.Otherwise it's all just junk.
Aug 13, 2012 8:31pm
I saw on your home page that one of your pieces was about Gaia, and that is exactly the sort of thing that I think spiritually has been lost with patriarchical religions.

I like your reference to Cayce -- I've got him in a WIP file to unload at a later date. Thanks for reading.
Aug 14, 2012 2:20am
Like Introspective, I admit that our standpoints on life, the universe and the almighty are pretty different.

However I do share your frustration with that certain type of person you've outlined. Christians tend to like to limit God and life to what's written in scripture, but realistically the only thing that's really limited is our own human understanding. Ignorance and arrogance combined is a nasty cocktail.

We're little specks on a ball of mud spinning around a ball of gas in a vast and amazing universe... why do we act like we know it all?
Aug 14, 2012 4:58am
Apparently, zealots know it all as I am continually reminded. I'm quite content to live this life for what it is -- a brief spark that flashes brightly for a moment in a conflagration then burns out, never to rekindle, never with the promise of a "better place". Existence merely ends -- I'm good with that and I am enjoying LIVING with the time allotted. Oh, yeah, and I've had a GREAT time on this mortal coil (thanks to the women I've known).

Thanks for reading.
Aug 16, 2012 4:31am
Hard hitting stuff. Like most of your articles it is a good read. Your views on politics are not far removed from my own but, as I have said before, not all Christians are the same; we aren't all self-righteous fire and brimstone merchants. And as for controversy where none really exists, it is just a sad fact of life that some people can't seem to do without it.
Aug 17, 2012 12:19pm
Thanks for getting that the point of the article WASN 19T about Christianity but instead was about people creating problems of controversy where there should be none at all. Also, thanks for reading.
Aug 19, 2012 4:40am
Who set the kindling underneath you lately? (rhetorical, you already answered in your article!).
I get your points Vic, I think anyhow. I myself appreciate different view points and certainly don't mind people debating under one of my articles, if it be in the correct manner.
There is currently another writing platform that has what seems extreme mods that are anonymous and bigoted, making for a lot of injustice. I for one feel uncomfortable with participating in their forum.
To pick a controversial point in your article, I will bring science and faith( not Religion, I hate Religion) to you. Scientists are starting to realize that we only see a very small spectrum of light, meaning that anything existing in a different spectrum are not seen, hence spirits etc.
No, I won't go and find a discernible source because I cba right now, hehe.
Aug 19, 2012 4:45am
Facebook shared and thumbed up also x
Aug 19, 2012 2:44pm
And thanks for the on-line promo help!-
Aug 19, 2012 2:42pm
This comment has been deleted.
Aug 19, 2012 2:46pm
Sorry, there are no ghosts.

As I pointed out in my piece about 1Cghost hunters 1D anything supernatural by its very definition cannot be perceived or measured by puny humans, no matter how desperately they would like it to be true. I repeated the 1Cwishful thinking 1D perspective about ghosts in my article "Are Ghosts Real?" (The answer then as now is still, "No".) Discussing the fact ghost aerie not real.

As you so accurately and rationally pointed out science assumes and tells us there are things beyond our senses (invisible light, etc.) However, those in this world claiming to have SEEN ghosts 13 since ghosts 1Clive 1D in the netherworlds beyond our ken 13 from the brilliant statement you made means those people are liars, misguided, or deluded.

Since you ARE my favorite Welsh witch, I 19ll say, believe away! And thanks for reading.
Aug 19, 2012 4:09pm
I am unsure on ghosts but I do believe in spirits. I fall under the title of either misguided or deluded in the world of the atheist. My spiritual path goes beyond gods, spirits and nether worlds, it is about developing me as a person at peace with herself. ( Which is one mega journey as I am a major stress head with her feet firmly in the world of today!).

The issue with science and faith is that there are theories in both, yet science does not blink when it proves itself wrong, it merely nods and carries on. It is not there if I can not see it or prove in its existence...........Pluto?

I can rant on and lose my point of debate because of my very nature. I also have no wish in ramming my beliefs down your throat. I hope you will permit me to put this link here to what I think is a well balanced debate in favour of Theism which is provided by science and the law of Thermodynamics.
( I have my own annoyance with the fact that most atheists ask for proof of God's existence as if Yahweh is the only possibility.

Pps, Not all witches are Theists or Polytheists, some are Atheist. Witchcraft is not religious unless it is Wicca, or crafted along side a persons faith in addition to the teachings of witchcraft.
I am glad I am still your favourite witch, you are my favourite atheist, haha.xx
Aug 19, 2012 4:39pm
I got your number, toots. Keep on scrying, babe.
Aug 19, 2012 5:05pm
If you have time for Cayce, make sure you read the stuff he said while his secretary and soul mate, Gladys, took notes on while he was in his trance states. Lately a whole batch of books about Cayce have come out, where other people talk about what he wrote. It's nothing like the real thing.
Aug 19, 2012 8:44pm
I have my preferred sources, and I try to get as close as I can. He'll be awhile in the research and writing.
Oct 16, 2012 5:22am
Most of the adults I knew growing up were gay or transgender, except for my parents. Even though my Christian parents owed them a lot, they still talked bad about them behind their backs regarding their lifestyle. There is no one more unChristian than Christians.
Oct 16, 2012 3:03pm
"Christians" cannot accept the gay or transgender community as part of their world. I know they are filled with hatred for such people. Sorry you had to see the "Christian" ethos at work at such a young age -- Jesus, I'm sure, would have been disappointed. Thanks for reading.
Oct 16, 2012 6:32pm
You're casting a pretty broad net don't you think?
Oct 18, 2012 2:25pm
Nope. Thanks for reading.
Mar 31, 2013 6:27am
You will burn in hell for this article!!! LOL Im just playing. I am a christian, and I had an absolute blast reading this article. I hope I can eventually write its equal
Apr 2, 2013 1:32pm
You are obviously one of the truly good Christians, and there ARE a few of my own acquaintance, who are willing to not ram your beliefs down anyone's throat. Love that you appreciated the "burn in hell" thing. I'll be uploading "Deal 'Em! (A History of Satan's Playthings)" --written in a similar vein -- here in a couple of hours. Thanks for reading and thanks for being closer to what Jesus really was teaching!
Mar 19, 2014 4:28pm
You know, it's not someone's personal beliefs about anything (be it politics or religion) that "get" to me - it's their insistence that I am somehow wrong or lesser (for not agreeing with them). Scientists wildly debate the God issue (Stephen Hawkin vs. Michio Kaku). And politics? Well, I'm Canadian (so I rarely and intentionally avoid the subject). Except, of course, when I can garner a laugh from it (RE: Rob Ford, Toronto's mayor). I enjoy respectful debate - as I often learn a new way of looking at things (a new empathy I wouldn't have otherwise). But, there are some people that are simply "a waste of time" . . energy vampires.

Some people would rather be right than happy.
Mar 19, 2014 4:43pm
That was the whole point--and those people who would "rather be right than happy" are neither. thanks for checking this out (I wrote it after getting hammered by idiots over a year who simply hadn't READ what was presented!)
Add a new comment - No HTML
You must be logged in and verified to post a comment. Please log in or sign up to comment.

Explore InfoBarrel

Auto Business & Money Entertainment Environment Health History Home & Garden InfoBarrel University Lifestyle Sports Technology Travel & Places
© Copyright 2008 - 2016 by Hinzie Media Inc. Terms of Service Privacy Policy XML Sitemap

Follow IB Lifestyle