The manipulation of Christ

| 20/05/2011

Pagans, infidels, and blasphemers are usually (dis)credited for supporting what some consider to be the detrimental, offensive, and at most extreme sacrilegious, doctrine of separation of church and state. In Cayman we point north to the United States as an example of what happens to a nation when “God” is taken out of the decision making systems of a government.

The US is the political version of the cautionary tales of our youth as political leaders will not fail to tell us that such would be our fate should we choose to embrace said concept.

What then is one to make of the believer who supports said doctrine, not because of the assumed “allowances” that it makes for immoral but not illegal actions on the part of politicians, but instead out of a sense of protection, respect and true deference to something that is so personal and sacred as one’s faith?

It has become more commonplace for people in our Islands to refer to our “Christian” nation while pointing out the numerous shortcomings and contradictions which are becoming more blatant as social unrest grows and meaningful strategies to combat this trend are nowhere in sight.

The word“Christian” and references to “Christian principles” are said with utter disdain, as the hypocrisy of the reality of Cayman and this self-imposed sense of grand moral and ethical standing drips from our mouths as it sours our tongues and our hearts in the face of so much lip service and so little Christian-like action.

We are told that our Christian heritage is under attack by these “outside influences” who wish to take Cayman and its people away from its “roots” and “God-fearing” ways.

The truth is that Cayman’s Christian heritage IS under attack and in many ways we have already lost our roots. The uncomfortable second half of that reality is that the culprits are not outsiders but the very people who profess their “godly” ways to any and all who will listen.

The very “Christians” who will choose to evoke Jesus and His teachings by quoting scripture as fuel at political rallies, those who use their faith as justification without reason or thought for decisions and comments made at the Legislative Assembly, and most recently those who will bring their Sunday fervor to the courtroom as a distraction and a LEGAL TACTIC; these are the people making a mockery of their “beloved” faith.

Christianity is the smoke and mirrors to divert attention from the issue at hand. Call on the Lord enough times, sing enough songs, make enough references to the external forces of evil and poof: crisis averted.

There are those within our political leadership who will go as far as talk about their trials and tribulations, their personal persecutions, the victimisation which they have suffered, all the while drawing imagery from the crucifixion of Christ as if there was a parallel between being a politician in Cayman in the 21st century and the Christian Savior who was nailed to a cross.

It begs the question: how are these actions NOT offensive to Christians? If we are to believe that the majority of our people believethe story of Jesus to be the truth, share this faith and its values, how is it that they have not joined forces to decry these truly sacrilegious comparisons?

“Politicians will be politicians, and will use whatever tool they can to gain support, further their cause, and fill their pockets.” That is the argument which we will make in an effort to explain or justify this behaviour, though it is completely contrary to those values which they so vehemently proclaim to hold. In that way, even though we would like to hold ourselves to higher standards, Cayman is like every country in the world.

What then of the lack of acknowledgment, much less response, on the part of our moral leadership on this clear manipulation of Christian doctrine?

One’s inner pagan will guffaw at the question given the churches’ own sordid history with the manipulation of Christian doctrine, but let us put our scepticism aside (how jaded our lot) and acknowledge that there are churches who are undertaking their God given missions. How much more disturbing is the perception that the churches’ silence on this matter has been bought by the patronage, now called “nation building”, of these same individuals?

If the hope was, from the church perspective, that the lack of separation would assist in maintaining the churches’ influence on the government and as such keep our nation from “straying” from the Christian path, then perhaps now they can see just how clearly mistaken they were. In fact, turn on the radio and listen to truly concerned believers talking about the undue influence that politicians have on their places of worship – with some even claiming that certain individuals “own” particular churches.

Christianity in Cayman has been reduced to currency. It opens doors, it assists in making transactions, it gives you facetime with the “right” people, it gives you a job, and it certainly gets you votes.

Like currency, Christianity is recognised to have worth within our community, but whether it is of any actual value to the individual who spews said doctrine in every occasion is questionable at best.

If Christians continue to condone this manipulation of their faith in the most prominent and visible stage (nationally and internationally), then their beliefs will continue to play an unflattering and antiquated leading role in the circus which has become our political arena, and thus will continue to be fair game in the criticisms and observations about the failings of our society. After all, if the believers of a particular faith fail to respect it, why should those outside of it act any differently?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Viewpoint

About the Author ()

Comments (222)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Joe B says:

    Just my opinion and nothing else.  It seems to me that God, the force or whatever it is and there is something has made everything in balance.  Good-bad, light-dark, Gay-straight, and the reason is so that we can have CHOICE.  And we do.  That means every choice is both right and wrong without which we would not have choice.  The problem we have is thinking because a choice is right for us it must be right for everyone else to be the right choice in the first place.  Most people have a hard time accepting that they made the right choice if someone else makes the opposite one.  Hard to understand that what is a right choice for you is the wrong choice for another.  But its true.  Abortion is both so right and so very wrong depending of the person and circumstance as is UDP or PPM,  eating meat or vegetarian and EVERY other thing and its conterpart.  Makeing your own choice is hard but nowhere near as hard as letting someone else make theirs.  True or false.


    Be at peace………..Or not.    Your choice.

  2. Anne T Krist says:

    "Jesus is the only path to salvation".  So that means that everyone born before Jesus is, by implication, now burning eternally in hell.  So who would that include? 

    Adam and Eve, and all their kids, and all their incestuously spawned offspring.

    Noah (kind of a pisser for him after all that ark building and stuff), and all his kids, and all their incestuously spawned offspring.

    Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses Joshua, Samson, Saul, David, Solomon, Daniel, Job…

    Not to mention all the poor children who lived in poverty before Jesus and who died hungry and diseased… now roasting away with Satan…

    Makes sense, right?

    • Anonymous says:


      Do you seriously think that these questions have not been addressed by Christian theologians? Here is a suggestion – go read a book on Christian theology. This is not the place for this. Hint: the answer is not what you think it is.


      • Anne T. Krist says:

        I expect they have been addressed by christian theologians, but not seriously.  

        Why is this not the place for this?  CNS is the closest we have to freedom of expression, and discussions about religion and politics are central to the concept of freedom of expression.  Are you trying to silence debate and suppress differing viewpoints?

        • Anonymous says:

          Obviously not.

          If you don't believe that Christian theologians have addressed the issues seriously in their many tomes on the subject what would make you believe that they are likely to be discussed seriously by ordinary laymen on a CNS blog? Or is that the point – not to get real answers or discuss the issues seriously but to catch out ordinary folk who may not have all the answers – you know, sort of like "Religulous".    

          • Anne T. Krist says:

            That's harsh.  You think regular folk are not smart enough to discuss religion without religious leaders to help them along.  I reject that wholly. 

            People are easily smart enough to make up their own minds, which is often what religions are afraid of.  It reminds me of the old catholics who were of the view that laypeople ought not read the bible, because they wanted to have the power over the people and maintain it through perpetuating ignorance.  Then on with the Protestant reformation, as you recall. 

            Come the revolution friend, you won't keep the people down!!!


            • Anonymous says:

              You are being disingenuous. You have made it clear that you have a low opinion of believers.  

              • Anne T. Krist says:

                Not so at all, and it is unfair for you to say such a thing.

                It's true that I have a relatively low opinion of THE BELIEFS, but not so for the believers; I am simply interested in why the believers hold THE BELIEFS.  I personally thing the believers are being told untruths, and I would want them to analyze the claims themselves to weigh what deserves their support and what does not.  

                In fact I don't have a low opinion of believers at all – I think they are rather important, otherwise why would I be spending my time trying to engage in debate over some rather important stuff?

                • Anonymous says:

                  Because rather like Bill Maher you feel that you are far more intelligent and rational and wish to ridicule them.

                  • Anne T. Krist says:

                    You have an inferiority complex.  I'm just trying to have a discussion.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      There is nothing in my posts to indicate an inferiority complex, but lots in yours to indicate that you have a superiority complex.

                      Back to my original point – if you are genuinely interested in having a real discussion then have it with those best placed to give you informed responses. And please, none of that guff about "the revolution". You and I both know that is mere posturing.  

                    • Anne T. Krist says:

                      Actually the revolution bit was intended as humour.  It's still a free country (ok, ok – B.O.T.), so anyone who wants to not believe just needs to stop.  No revolution needed. 

                      That is, unless we're talking about Mac, who seems to think he is god, and who actually could benefit from a minor revolution.  Treason anyone?  (See – more humour…)

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Aren't you the same character that wrote this?: "…the hubris that makes christians the proper recipient of full-scale ridicule". I would say that you are being disingenuous too.

                    • Anne T. Krist says:

                      I said that in reply to a claim that "God made us perfect …".  I'll ridicule anyone who claims to be perfect.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Anne, I have read enough of your posts to know that you are better informed and more intelligent than that comment suggests. Obviously, Christian theology does not claim that humans in their present condition are perfect. As you know perfectly well according to Christian theology there was a "Fall" of mankind away from original perfection. The post you were responding to quite clearly referenced original perfection. Once again you are being disingenuous.

                      Further, I find it difficult to believe that you are not sufficiently well informed to know that "image of God" does not mean that God has the same physical characteristics that humans have. After all God is spirit and does not have a body. It means that originally there were special qualities in human nature which reflected the moral, spiritual and intellectual nature of God.   

                      The quote demonstrates that your purpose is to ridicule Christians for expressing their beliefs through misrepresentation.

                    • Anne T. Krist says:

                      Your spin, not mine.  I read the "image of god" to be literally just that.  You say "misrepresentation" while I'm just using the normal everyday meaning of the words.  I don't use special interpretations to massage the meaning of the words to fit the case.  If the Bible was written clearly and is the pure word of god, I think I get to use the literal meanings.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      As I have pointed out that is not possible as an interpretation because God is spirit. A literal interpretation of scripture may be warranted if the context does not indicate that it should be interpreted otherwise.  Scripture contains a number of different literary genres some of which are not to be taken literally.  But more to the point, in the Hebrew language "tselem" translated in Gen. 1.26 as "image" is related to the essence or nature, the immaterial part of man. In The Guide for the Perplexed, Rabbi Maimonides, one of the greatest Torah scholars of the medieval period discusses the world tselem in the context of Gen 1:26. He compares the word tselem with toar, the latter used specifically to refer to physical form. That scripture is not interpreted in the way you suggest in either orthodox Christianity or Judaism. Even wikipedia gets this correct.


                      Obviously, there is no spin involved. Similarly, Jesus was the image of the Father.

                      A correct understand of this concept is foundational to the entire revelation of scripture. If you relegate that to a physical resemblance to God you miss the meaning of scripture entirely.  I say misrepresentation because you must be aware that that is not a valid interpretation and it simply represents your attempt to trivialise Christian beliefs, or else I have given your intelligence far too much credit.

      • Pink Parrot says:

        Isn't it a bit self-referential for the logic of this bizarre foundation of a belief system to be reviewed by those who subscribe to that belief system.  It is only once removed from saying the bible is the word of god because the bible says it is.

        • Anonymous says:

          Huh? You seemed to have missed the point. Anne was looking for someone representing the Christian viewpoint with whom to discuss apparent inconsistencies.

          • Pink Parrot says:

            From "her" moniker I doubt I am the one that is missing the point, unless "Anne" is looking for entertainment.

        • Anne T. Krist says:

          Sorry, you did miss the point.

          I don't mind a reply of the views of believers based upon the Bible.  Indeed, that is what I was looking for.  People get to pick what they believe in, and if the Bible is the foundation of their beliefs then that is what I would have them talk about.  It would be unfair of me to presume that a Christian must use my values in determining truth, as I will not use theirs; I'm not going to do that.  I prefer mine, but it would be presumptuous to reject theirs without the exploration of the foundation that I had embarked upon.

          Yes I have found this entertaining, partially because it has constituted a genuine meeting of opposing viewpoints from some very articulate and apparently wise people.  I don't apologise for enjoying this debate, and in fact I am grateful for the opportunity.

          Don't read too much into the moniker.  We all have to have one to avoid getting lost in the sea of "Anonymouses".  Mine's a bit flippant but I would hope that does not detract from the force of the positions I attempted to advance.  Would it help if you knew I was a long-haired truck driver in Cleveland Ohio named Bill? I think the moniker is more interesting than the reality.

          May your beliefs yield good results no matter what they be.

          Over and out.

  3. Mr. Pay Gan Infidelblas-Phemer says:

    "After all, if the believers of a particular faith fail to respect it, why should those outside of it act any differently?"

    Why indeed.  In fact, it probably won't be respected anyway excepting only the results of the good parts of the cult, which is to say the good deeds, as and if they happen.  Otherwise, not likely.

    You point to the US as an example of the failings of separation or church and state, but the issues in the US have roots far beyond the issue of religion.  What about all the other "separated" countries like Canada where it has worked just fine?  There are more successes than there are failures, by far.

    And what about the Edict of Thessalonica, whereby christianity was officially made the state religion of the Roman Empire?  That didn't turn out quite so well, did it?    Poor Romans.

    Besides, who would pick the religion in a pluralistic society like the US?  Presuming it would be christianity, or a particular flavour of christianity much less, is not safe. What about the muslims and hindus, or those of us that proclaim reason and science as our religion? 

    • Anonymous says:

      We better pick one quick before all the Indians and Chinese get here. Then christians will be the small minority.  Thanks Mac.

    • Anonymous says:

      "And what about the Edict of Thessalonica, whereby christianity was officially made the state religion of the Roman Empire?  That didn't turn out quite so well, did it?    Poor Romans".

      It's more like poor Christians. They are constantly scapegoated.   When the fire broke out at Rome in AD 64 that was blamed on the Christians and thereafter they were horribly persecuted.  When the Babarians sacked Rome in AD 410 that was blamed on Christian impiety meaning that Rome had forsaken paganism.    

      Very little evidence points to Christianity as a significant factor in the so-called fall of Rome.

      Even Gibbons (who suggested that Christianity helped weaken the Empire) had to acknowledge the following about the causes of the decline of the Roman Empire:

      "But the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long. The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alike formidable to their sovereign and to the enemy; the vigour of the military government was relaxed and finally dissolved by the partial institutions of Constantine; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of barbarians".



      • Mr. Pay Gan Infidelblas-Phemer says:

        Nice post.

        I wasn't thinking so much that Christianity caused the fall of the Roman Empire as that bringing religion into the mix didn't really help.  Kind of like the USA in my view – broken, yes; broken by the separation of church and state, no.  I doubt that the USA having a state religion would help it that much, but it would probably be divisive and give people something more to fight about.

        • Anonymous says:

          I don't think religion had much to do with it.

          I don't believe in having a state religion either inasmuch as, at least Christianity is concerned, it allows people to adopt a cultural Christianity and feel that they are Christians when they really are not.  

          However, I disagree that the choice of a national religion would be difficult for the U.S. According to one recent poll some 83% of Americans self-identify as Christians while just 4% identify as adherents of all non-Christian religions combined.   


  4. awlymilykins says:

    too many long comments….CNS, please edit. I can't be bothered reading a book here…..

  5. Atheist says:

    How is the rapture working out for y'all?

    I am having a wonderful time worshipping false idols and coveting my neighbor's wife.

  6. Yuleña Cruz-Ebanks García. says:

    Christianity is a religion full of kind people – most people even follow the main ethics behind being a "true" christian too. Which is good. The Bible even says to love everyone, regardless of who and how they are. So why do [some] Christians treat homosexuals condescendingly? I know nothing is perfect, nor is Christianity; only God. But why treat homosexuals in a way that your God would not accept? Can someone explain please? Thank you! 🙂

    • Anonymous says:

      When you say "condescendingly" what are you referring to exactly? Do mean why do they disapprove of a homosexual lifestyle?

    • Anon says:

      'Condescendingly' means to treat with patronizing contempt and is completely the wrong word in this context. 

      In all Christian societies around the world gay people are treated with hatred and violence by some sections of the Christian church.  Gays wouldn't mind so much if Christians were condescending.  It would be preferable to discrimination, imprisonment, torture and execution.

      The origins of the term "faggot" lie in the practices of the Inquisition, when those accused of homosexuality were bound and piled up as fuel at the feet of those being burned for heresy or witchcraft, since homosexuals were not considered worthy of the dignity of being burned standing up.

      Christians!  Don't you just love them?  But as Jesus said, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.”

      And don't tell me that Muslims are worse.  They are but that doesn't excuse what's going on today in Brazil, Uganda and many other African states all of which are officially Christian countries, not to mention the prejudice and discrimination experienced by gays in the UK and the USA.

      How many openly gay people are there in Cayman?  None that I have ever met!

      • Anonymous says:

        There are many openly gay people in Cayman. So far as I am aware they are not subject to imprisonment, torture etc.

        Your post presents a gross mischaracterisation of the way homosexuals are treated by genuine Christians. In today's world a "Christian country" is a misnomer.  

        • Anon says:

          "Openly gay" in Cayman?  Really?  If they are openly gay then please name one.  He or she won't mind if he/she is OPENLY gay.

          Of course gays are not subject to imprisonment or torture IN Cayman as that would be against the law.  But in some "Christian" countries it is a matter of course.

          You write that 'genuine Christians' do not mistreat homosexuals.  It was genuine Christians who burned heretics.  

          Theyare genuine Christian Boy Scout leaders in America who deny membership to gay recruits.  

          They are genuine Christian leaders of many Sub Saharan African countries who have introduced laws against homosexuality.  

          Uganda's anti-gay bill has support from the Anglican church in that country.  I suspect that they would class themselves as 'genuine Christians'.

          Incidently,  please explain why calling a country "Christian" is a misnomer.  Is Iran a Muslim country or is that a misnomer too? 

          • Anonymous says:

            I don't care to name them as I don't think that is appropriate for me to do.

            By genuine Christians I mean those who reflect Christ in their lives. You cannot love your neighbour and burn him at the stake.  

            I agree with the Boy Scouts of America. Practising homosexuality is not compatible with the ethical and moral foundations of the Boy Scouts. In the same way churches should not be compelled to employ homosexual leaders. That is not mistreating homosexuals. The argument would be the same for atheists.

            It is a misnomer because there are no Christian theocratic states. They do no operate on Christian principles. Further, every western European country is in a post-Christian era. However, there are Muslim theocratic states.   

            • Anon says:

              I didn't ask you to name them.  I asked you to name ONE.  You can't because there isn't one and I know that for a fact.  There is not one Caymanian who is openly gay the way that they are in advanced countries.  Here, where society is dominated by hypocritical 19th century 'Christian values', it would be social and career suicide to come out. 

              Another thing – the argument is not the same for atheists because no atheist would ever want a job as a church leader. 

              You are struggling and your homophobia is shining through.

              • Anonymous says:

                You are wrong.

                Liberal morality does not mean that you are "advanced".

                With regards to atheists I was referring to the Boy Scouts of America which you raised.

                I am not "struggling" and I am not homophobic. For your benefit "homophobia" means that you hate or fear homosexuals. I neither hate nor fear them, but I do not approve of homosexual conduct. Crying "homophobia" anytime someone does not share your values dminishes the seriousness of it when does occur and is therefore counterproductive.    

                • Anon says:

                  This will be my last word on this issue.  Respond if you must but as it appears that only you and I are reading this posting now and I shall never return to it, you will be wasting your time.

                  I am not sure what "Liberal morality" is.  If it means what I think you mean by it, then you are completely wrong.  That is exactly the kind of social characteristic that separates civilised and advanced societies from the rest.

                  So you are not homophobic?  Of course you're not.  I'm sure that some of your best friends are gay in exactly the same way that most racists say that they have many close, black friends.

                  You write that, "Practising homosexuality is not compatible with the ethical and moral foundations of the Boy Scouts."  You therefore imply that homosexuals are neither ethical nor moral.  That is an outrageous slur on more than 10% of the world's population and you should be ashamed of yourself.



                  • Anonymous says:

                    I am surprised that you don't understand liberal morality is. Do you perchance understand what "liberal" means, and in particular that it suggests a contrast to conservative? On the other hand, you have provided no basis whatsoever for the bold assertion that "that is exactly the kind of social characteristic that separates civilised and advanced societies from the rest".

                    You still have not offered one shred of evidence in support of your slur of homophobia.  You know only that I disapprove of the practise of homosexuality.

                    I have not implied anything at all. I have stated very plainly that practising homosexuality is not compatible with the ethical and moral foundations of the Boy Scouts. That is simply a fact. Obviously this does not mean that homosexuals do not observe any moral or ethical standards.

                    On other hand much more than 10% of the world's population considers practising homosexuality to be immoral and your attribution of homophobia to anyone who holds to that standard would be an "outrageous slur" on us.

              • Anonymous says:

                There are homosexual couples in Cayman who live together. Would you consider that "openly gay"?

                • Anonymous says:

                  No, apparently they have to be at the head of the gay pride parade singing "It's Raining Men"!. 

            • Pink Parrot says:

              I don't practice homosexuality in Cayman – I can assure you I am exceptionally good at it.

  7. Anonymous says:

    There is no Santa Claus???????  NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

  8. Anonymous says:

    I remember one of the parables that Jesus told when a farmer found that there were tares sown in with the wheat. Wheat is wheat and tares are tares. Wheat will not become a tare and nor will a tare become wheat. This is very profound as is states that God's children are His and remember when he told the religious leaders that they were of their father, the devil.

    As we approach the consumation of time, let's not be surprised that the world hates God's children. Jesus said if they hated me, they'll hate you too. So why are we surprised when we are ridiculed and hated, (especially by religious people and I include atheism in that list as it is just that, another man-made religion)?

    As children of God, let's just get on with the job in hand. We really need to figure out why we are here on this planet and start helping each other as we have been instructed.

    Until you can tell me who you are and why you are here, all you have is an opinion. I know who I am, I know where I came from and with God's help, I know where I am going.

    God speed!

    • A. T. Hist says:

      I don't know why I just read that.  This person probably believes the preacher's verbiage that they parrot, but it did make me throw up a little in the back of my throat.  It really gives metaphysics a bad name.

  9. Just Commentin' says:

    Well said, Ms. Ferreira!

    Too bad a great number of comments here miss the point and instead major on the minors.

    Christianity and the name of Christ are greatly devalued by those who misuse the names. The value of Christianity is further eroded by the multitude of so-called "Christians" who stand quietly by and allow the cloak of Christianity to be debased by pretenders and those who invoke the name of Christ for their own self aggrandisement. Unfortunately, it seems that the vast majority of people in the church fit into one of the former categories: one group blatantly misuses the profession of faith for promotion of their own agenda; the other group stands impotently by and allows Christianity to be debased rather than being pro-active in defending against those who misuse the faith.

    In defending the faith from pretenders – other than paying mere lip service – most Christians certainly do not act as if their faith or the church is of any real value to them. I will wager that mostso called Christians in this country would spend more energy trying to defend and recoup a $10 bill they dropped on a crowded sidewalk than they spend defending their faith against those in the church who devalue and debase Christianity. The Cayman Minister's Association is a particularly high-profile example. They covet being seated in places of honour in political venues and committees, but when was the last time you heard one of them publicly raise voice or finger in rebuke of a political or business leader who is debasing the Christian faith?

    So-called "Christians" who countenance those who debase the faith are no better than the pretenders themselves – and they are just as damaging, if not more so, to the image and power of the church. This lack of fidelity is a significant reason both the Christian faith and Christian churches in this country are held in such low esteem. It is certainly one reason I and a goodly number of people in this country dismiss this country's churches and the vast majority of Christians as mostly irrelevant. (You see, I do not need votes so I can say that.)

    • Anonymous says:

      People do misuse the name of Christ, but as Ms. Ferreria said, Christianty is seen in our community as something with worth.  If your'e a politician and you say your a Christian, you get votes because people think you will be more inclined to honesty and integrity.  The same goes for businessmen.  It makes them look like martyrs when people criticizes them and therefore makes the public more sympathetic to their cause.  The point is just because someone goes to church and claims, uses, (and abuses) the name of Christ does not mean theyr'e a Christian.  Finally I would like to say in answer to what Ms. Ferreria said about Christians not being offended by the actions of people who misuse name of Christ, I am less offended by it than I am saddened by the loss of respect for God and His name in todays society.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Wow, a lot of anti-Christian hatred in these posts. The funny thing is if it were said against almost any other group the same people would be outraged by the intolerance and rank hatred shown. Thankfully that was not the point of Carolina's article.   

    • Anonymous says:

      Hatred is a bit of an exaggeration.  This is more like gentle ridicule.  

      • Anonymous says:

        I didn't exaggerate and there is nothing gentle about the ridicule which is clearly malicious. Obviously it is so ingrained in you that you see it as normal. Let me illustrate by changing "Christian" for "gay":

        If someone said that if someone is introduced as gay "I put one hand on my wallet, the other on my balls, and I back away slowly, in case it's contagious" there would be loud howls of "homophobia", "hate" etc. There would be no talk of "gentle ridicule". 

        In referring to the Rapture if someone said they would be gald if indeed  the Rapture occurred and took all the gay people away and leave the rest of us in peace the reaction would be the same.

        Ironic that on a thread about Christian hypocrisy we see so much hypocrisy and double standards applied by the critics of Christianity.     

        • Anonymous says:

          You forget that Christianity, along with most other major religions, stand in a privileged place in our society.  Your pastors are in league with your politicians, and the society describes itself, generally, as "Christian."  Christianity, being part of the political fabric of the Cayman Islands, is considered sacrosanct and above criticism of any kind.  No one excludes Christians from society; Christians are not (even in the worst of the comments posted here) threatened with violence; the needs and wishes of Christians are placed above the needs and wishes of all others in the society.

          The situation is exactly reversed for gay people.  They do deal with real exclusion, violence, discrimination, hatred, fear, and powerlessness.  Jokes of the kind you quote above are the least of their worries; rather; they deal with very real discrimination every day.  

          The ridicule posted here may very well be in bad taste; they may be politically incorrect and you may be offended by them.  However, they still amount, when compared to the treatment gays receive in this society, to nothing but gentle ridicule.  

          The comments made in relation to the Rapture are another case in point: You don't like to see comments made that offend Christians, but you make no comment about the nature of the Rapture myth itself, which calls for non-believers to have their bodies "cast upon the ground to be shamed."  Ah yes…it's in your Holy Book, which makes it all right…never mind the fact that this represents something much  more offensive and self-righteous than any of the petty jokes made here.

          I may not think some of the jokes here are in the best possible taste, but I disagree that they represent hatred.  Look at past threads on homophobia in Cayman if you wish to see what real hatred looks and sounds like.

          • Anonymous says:

            Again, completely irrelevant to my point. You clearly have a double standard. What qualifies as "hate speech" if it is directed at gays suddenly becomes acceptable if it is directed at Christians.  

            • Anonymous says:

              Obviously, I disagree.  I understand why these jokes may upset you.  I agree that they are in poor taste, and I appreciate that you are unused to your faith being open to criticism or ridicule in this society.  That does not change the fact that your position as a Christian, protected by the culture and the constitution, does not make you vulnerable to such words in the same way a gay person would be.  These comments do not incite violence or truly intimidate you.

              I will agree with you that it is a shame that vulgarity and pettiness have marred Carolina's important viewpoint, but I still find the description "rank hatred" to be an exaggeration.  Disrespect, yes. Hatred, no.

              • Jamba Laya says:

                I was looking for "vulgarity and pettiness" and all I saw was vigorous debate.  Opposing a viewpoint is not disrespectful per se, unless you wish to suppress opposition to the church.  Is that it?

                • Anonymous says:

                  It doesn't speak well of you if you find vulgarity and pettiness normal.

                  • Jamba Laya says:

                    Again, where's the vulgarity and pettiness?  If you find the fact that people hold views that oppose yours to be vulgar and petty, it is indeed you who are in difficulty.  If you seek to silence opposing views by calling them vulgar and petty, you simply show closed-mindedness and fear of having to justify your views.  Are they so weak as all that?

            • Anonymous says:

              And to you, whatwould qualify as hate speech when directed at Christians becomes acceptable if it is directed at non-believers, as it is in your bible.

              • Anonymous says:

                God doesn't hate non-believers. He sent his Son to die for them. "For God so loved THE WORLD that he gave his only beogtten son and whosever believeth in him should not perish but inherit everlasting life" – John 3:16.

                What he hates is sin whether that is by believers or non-believers.  Unfortunately, those who love sin and hate God will perish.

                • The Real Bible says:

                  The bible is obviously completely foreign to you; the "god" it describes does indeed hate non-believers.  Let's start with the first commandment, which says: "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."  So where do we go from there with non-believers?  Well:

                  "If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky… Take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death." – Deut 17:2-7

                  "They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." – 2 Chron 15:12-13

                  "Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases…you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God."  – Deut 13:13-19

                  "If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods …do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him." – Deut 13:7-12

                  "Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him." – Lev 24:16

                  Think of this as a Christian Jihad – you must kill non-believers because god commands you to do so. 

                  Now you were saying something about "God doesn't hate non-believers."  Best go read that book one more time (or more likely the first time).

                • Anonymous says:



                  The Bible exhorts Christians to kill those who are not Christian or Jewish:

                  You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

                  Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

                  Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

                  Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

                  Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

                  Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

                  Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

                  Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

                  Sounds pretty hateful to me.


                • Billy Bob says:

                  So god doesn't hate, but wants his followers to murder followers of other religions.  Killing without feeling or regret – that used to to be called being a psychopath, but now it's called "antisocial personality disorder".  They are described as lacking a sense of guilt or remorse for any harm they may have caused others.  It sounds like that applies to what you are describing.

                • Hill Billy Bob says:

                  Leviticus 26 describes your god’s non-hatred of other religions… talk about opening a can of whoop-ass!!!  Here it is (sorry for the long quote, but it’s a doozy):

                  1 “‘Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God.

                  14 “‘But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, 15 and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant, 16 then I will do this to you: I will bring on you sudden terror, wasting diseases and fever that will destroy your sight and sap your strength. You will plant seed in vain, because your enemies will eat it. 17 I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you.

                  18 “‘If after all this you will not listen to me, I will punish you for your sins seven times over. 19 I will break down your stubborn pride and make the sky above you like iron and the ground beneath you like bronze. 20 Your strength will be spent in vain, because your soil will not yield its crops, nor will the trees of your land yield their fruit.

                  21 “‘If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me, I will multiply your afflictions seven times over, as your sins deserve. 22 I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children, destroy your cattle and make you so few in number that your roads will be deserted.

                  23 “‘If in spite of these things you do not accept my correction but continue to be hostile toward me, 24 I myself will be hostile toward you and will afflict you for your sins seven times over. 25 And I will bring the sword on you to avenge the breaking of the covenant. When you withdraw into your cities, I will send a plague among you, and you will be given into enemy hands. 26 When I cut off your supply of bread, ten women will be able to bake your bread in one oven, and they will dole out the bread by weight. You will eat, but you will not be satisfied.

                  27 “‘If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, 28 then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. 29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters. 30 I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars and pile your dead bodies[b] on the lifeless forms of your idols, and I will abhor you.

                  So it starts with terror and sickness, and ends with forced cannibalism!!!  Yup, that’s a WHOLE lotta love from your god for the non-believers.

                • Anonymous says:

                  "The Bible exhorts Christians to kill those who are not Christian or Jewish".

                  Errr…no it doesn't. All of the quotes so far have been from the Old Testament. Obviously there were no Christians around then and it therefore could not have been addressed to Christians. The heart of the Father is perfectly revealed only in Jesus Christ. Jesus said: "You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? – Matt. 5:40-46.

                  "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful?" Luke 6:27-28.

                  Nowhere are Christians urged to kill or persecute unbelievers.  Instead, we are urged to love them and to present the gospel to them so that might come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

                  • Hill Billy Bob says:

                    Actually no.  Jesus adopted the "old laws" as being good laws:

                    "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.  18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.   19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven…"  Matthew 5:17-19

                    • Anonymous says:

                      The passage doesn't offer the support you think it does. Obviously the Pharisees wanted to kill him for what they believed was breaking the law. It It is quite clear that Jesus's teaching went beyond the Law. For example, an 'eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' is the law, but the principle of forgiveness as an act of grace is contained in the gospel.    

                    • Hill Billy Bob says:


                      So you are saying that in this passage Jesus was just saying to the Pharisees that he supported the old laws to avoid punishment for disregarding the old laws, but in fact he actually was disregarding the old laws because his teachings were contrary to them (i.e. no tooth for a tooth), so in short he was lying to the Pharisees about that. 


                      So eitherJesus was a liar or he was truthful, which options are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive of the possibilities, and if he was truthful he actually did support the old laws (because he told the Pharisees that he did) and so a believer in him should believe in killing non-believers, or he was a liar in which case the whole of his recorded teachings is rather suspect.

                      I look forward to your reply and your next argument please.


                    • Anonymous says:

                      No, you have missed the point completely. Lying does not come into it. As I said in my previous post your quote does not provide the support that you think it does. Jesus came to fulfil and to explain the Law, not to abolish it. Note that he also refers to the "Prophets" and not simply to the Law. He came to fulfil both. As the one perfect man he fulfilled the law, and in doing so inaugurated a new covenant. The Jewish religious leaders were largely caught up in the observance of the letter of the Law without regard to the Spirit of the Law which led to a legalism that missed the whole point. Note that I said that the Pharisees thought that he broke the Law. This was because they did not understand the purpose of the Law. Jesus' teachings always get to the heart of the matter which you will find if you read the rest of the passage (rather than seeking out 'proof texts'):    “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment…You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart".

                      Are you getting the point yet?


                    • Hill Billy Bob says:

                      I got the point just fine, thanks. You are saying that Jesus didn't believe in the old testament either, right?  I mean, who would?

                      I am having difficulty where you talk about, "Jesus came to fulfil and to explain the Law, not to abolish it." Now either the law was good as Jesus found it, or it was bad and needed changing.  I expect that since it called for murder, rape, torture and what not, we can agree that the law of the old testament was repulsive.  So if Jesus came to change the old laws, they were wrong.  

                      I can't agree where you are on about, "The Jewish religious leaders were largely caught up in the observance of the letter of the Law without regard to the Spirit of the Law which led to a legalism that missed the whole point."  The old law is crystal clear about killing non-believers.  There can be no doubt about the meaning of those words: it calls for murder.  Other posts have flogged that to death with quotes of the mayhem called for.  there's nothing about the "spirit" of that law that is anything but murderous, and repulsive.  You can't massage it into something loving – it's just sheer brutality.

                      In the end, I suppose that you and I and Jesus agree that the old testament is wrong and repulsive.   Can we at least agree on that?

                    • Anonymous says:

                      No. You still haven't got it. The writings of the Law are fulfilled by Jesus in at least three ways: (1) by keeping the Law perfectly; (2) by fulfilling the Law's prophetical aspects; (3) by teaching the full meaning of the Law. For example, In Matt 22:37-40 Jesus says: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments".

                      You appear to be referring to the punishments for breaking the moral Law. This issue was raised with Jesus so we have his authority on this issue. In John 8:3-10 the Pharisees wanted to trap Jesus by pointing out that  the Law prescribed the stoning of a woman caught in adultery and asked what he had to say about it. Jesus did not say that the penalty was wrong but highlighted the issue of who was entitled to carry out these punishments: "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", i.e. God alone is entitled to mete out the punishment, and since we are sinful we should exercise mercy. In the same vein he says "Judge not, lest you be judged".  In God's economy sin leads to death as a natural consequence.


                    • Hill Billy Bob says:

                      Jesus does say some nice things, that's agreed.  But I don't think your spin takes hold as you want it to (though I like the effort).  Take the following passage:

                      "Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him." – Lev 24:16

                      Here we have a positive commandment from god to kill a blasphemer.  A positive instruction to kill them.  There's no ambiguity that every member of the assembly is obligated to kill that person (presuming there is at least one blasphemer who exists).  This passage does NOT say that "Everybody in the assembly who is without sin must stone them", it just says "the entire assembly".  It follows that a believer in Jesus who feels sinful must either follow Jesus and not throw a stone, and thereby disregard the direct command of god to proceed with the stoning, or they must disregard Jesus and follow the command of God.

                      You might say that god and Jesus are the same entity.  I would respond them that this entity is self-contradictory and really not very nice for trying to make us kill each other.

                      I also note that Jesus, by saying that the assembly should disregard the direct commandment of god to stone the blasphemer, is undermining the direct commandment of god.  That is, unless you don't believe that the commandment of god to stone the blasphemer applies to the whole assembly as the bible specifically says.  Let's not forget that "The law of the Lord is perfect."  Psalm 19:7.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      It really wasn't an attempt at spin. That is how I approach these matters. The law represents justice but there is still a place for mercy. Jesus did not command them not throw the stones but appealed to their consciences. However, as Christians we are under a new covenant – the covenant of grace. Through the prophet Jeremiah God spoke of this: "'The day will come,' says the Lord, 'when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. . . . But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,' says the Lord. 'I will put my law in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people'" (Jeremiah 31:31, 33). The ethical standards of the new covenant are no less, in fact they go deeper as they get to the heart of the matter.

                      Finally, note that these punishments were to be carried by Israel as a theocratic state. They have no application to the "whole assembly" of Israelis today, and they certainly have no application to Christians.

                  • Anne T. Krist says:

                    Just so I'm clear then, you are denying the truth of the Old Testament then?  That it is the word of god and is perfect? 

                    Please commit to this position expressly, so we all know what you are saying.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      A claim was made that Christians are urged to kill unbelievers. I have clearly disproved that. As I have explained the Christian standard – the new covenant – is set out in the New Testament. It is not that you don't know what I am saying.     

                    • Anne T. Krist says:

                      Please stop ducking the question.  I heard you say that the New Testament does not urge the killing of non-believers, and we'll deal with that in due course, but I need you to confirm that you do not believe in the Old Testament where it clearly does urge the killing of non-believers.  I know you understand this simple question, but I don't know why you are afraid to answer it.  Either you believe in the Old Testament, and thus the killing of non-believers, or you don't.  You appear to not support the killing of non-believers, so it would follow that you don't believe in the Old Testament.  Either this is right or it is not right: which is it please.

                      Please forgive the gender assumption, but its time for you to man up and take a stand already. 

                      After that we'll explore whether christians generally are supposed to not believe in the Old Testament, and discuss why it is glued to the front of most "christian" bibles.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      If you take readings out of the bible at random you can make it say just about anything. The bible is much more complicated than that. I mean you can make the point that the 12 that walked with Jesus day in and day out still did not understand fully who he was and what he trying to accomplish. If the bible was so simple would we have so many different churchs? And here you are saying that the bible supports killing non christians and extreme Muslims believe that they are justified in killing anyone that does not believe fully in their beliefs.


                      This world of religiong and christianity is not so simple.

                    • Anne T. Krist says:

                      More ducking.  All I asked was if you believe in the Old Testament.  The fact that you won't answer that tells me all we need to know.  

                      Notwithstanding, I'll have one last try: what you say about reading parts of the bible at random just shows that you agree that the bible is internally inconsistent.  Again, I was just trying to figure our what parts you will acknowledge is wrong.  Can we at least agree that the parts of the bible that tell you to kill non-believers are wrong and repulsive?  Or do you want to waffle on that as well?

                      And I wasn't talking about muslims, I was talking about you and your beliefs in the bible.  

                      Stop deflecting and deal with the question:  Old Testament, where it tells you to kill non-believers – word of god or wrong and repulsive?  Man up and answer it…

                    • Anne T. Krist says:

                      The silence is very telling…

                    • B L Seebub says:

                      It is there to test us.  Like fossils. 

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Krist it is obvious that the old testament has numerous readings where you can say that God supported killing people. It is also obvious that from the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament that he does not.

                      This makes it seem as if the Old Testament goes completely opposite to the New Testment. Which in turns adds a lot of confusion about God. If he says he does not believe in the Old Testament there are numerous religions who will have a field day and his own church as well. At the same time the Old Testament cannot be left out as this is a "journey" of God with Man. we need to see where we came from.

                      The general idea was that the Old Testament is there to show man that salvation could not be acheived through that kind os sacrfice. The only sacrfice that ccould be paid was the death of Jesus Christ.


                    • Anne T. Krist says:

                      "At the same time the Old Testament cannot be left out as this is a "journey" of God with Man. we need to see where we came from."

                      This is another way of saying that the Old Testament was wrong, but it tries to "explain" that without "saying" that.  How come christians seem to have such difficulty acknowledging that "These old bits of paper said kill them, and these later bits of paper say don't.  I'm going to accept the later ones, so the older ones were wrong."  

                      If it is to avoid the church "having a field day", isn't that the same as saying that the church believes in something that you know is false, but you don't want to call them on it out of fear of an irrational and hostile response?  Why is it that anyone would want to align themselves with an organization that was wrong and hostile to the truth (or at least to simple logic)?

                      You say, "This makes it seem as if the Old Testament goes completely opposite to the New Testament."  Well, that's because it does.  There's not really any confusion on that point.  I'm just exploring why people who seem to acknowledge that the Old Testament is a load of tripe, anonymously on CNS at least, are reluctant to simply say, "Yup, that's just plain wrong."  I understand that the church has historically not reacted well to "truth" that contradicts the Old Testament (Earth at the centre of the universe, 6000 years old and without dinosaurs, etc.), but you'd think that rational people would require their church to accept what is wrong as, well, being wrong.

                      By the way, thank you very much for your well-considered reply.  It was most welcome.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    Um…since when are Mark and Jude not part of the New Testament?

                    • Anonymous says:

                      You've lost me. What have Mark and Jude got to do with it? Did you understand that the issue is whether Christians are urged to kill unbelievers?

                • Just Commentin' says:

                  No! As represented by main-stream Christianity, God does hate non-believers and they are condemned to eternal torture. "Condemned already", as stated in the Bible.

                  He also "loves" them as He came to die for them.

                  If He is God I do not have a problem with Him both "loving" and "hating" at the same time. Even though it might be a scary thought. It is logical for Him to do things we cannot do and that are beyond our logical comprehension as He can do any-thing; He can even love and hate at the same time. If He could not do so then His omnipotence would be in question.

                  I did not say I actually believe this to be true – just that I have no problem with the logic of the proposition based on the Judeo-Christian myth of the character of Jehovah.

                  If you are a Bible-believing Christian, however, you must believe that your God can love and hate at the same time.

                • frank rizzo says:

                  God doesn't hate non-believers, believers do.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    The posts under this topic show that unbelievers hate believers.

                    • Cerridwen says:

                      And historyhas proven that believers hate unbelievers enough to kill them.

                      Yabba Dabba Doo.


                    • Anonymous says:

                      History is replete with examples of martyrs that show that unbelievers hate believers.

                    • Anne T. Krist says:

                      Not so, at least not here.  I enjoy logic and truth and dislike acts tending to impede logic or obscure truth.  I might throw the evil that is contained in the Old Testament in the faces of those claiming superior morality based on the bible, butthat is in pursuit of truth, not anything motivated by hate.  

                      Hate is irrational – see the religious folks for that sort of stuff (see, I did it again).

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Persecution is often done in the name of the pursuit or defence of truth so that is a double edged sword for you.

                      It is wrong for us to hate but hate is not necessarily irrational. There may be good reason to hate. However, Jesus taught us that to hate your brother is to commit murder. Ultimately, it is also self-destructive. Forgiveness is redemptive and liberating not only for the offender but for the offended. Thankfully I don't consider myself "religious folk".   

                    • Anonymous says:

                      When you write to defame, ridicule, bring into contempt and ostracise all believers on the basis of the bad behaviour of some that is an expression of hate. Plain and simple. You can attempt to dress it up as truth seeking and rational thinking but the truth is plain to see.   

                    • Anne T. Krist says:

                      I am trying to get the believers to analyze their beliefs and deal with certain aspects of the Old Testament that are rather brutal.  The passages speak for themselves – I didn't write them.  

                      How is quoting scripture defamation, ridiculing, contemptuous or ostracising? Reading the bible is an "expression of hate"- in what way?  I think you fear what you don't know about your own religion, and that pushes you to attack me.  

                      I've answered you, so you answer me now: do you believe in the parts of the Old Testament where the faithful are commanded to murder and torture non-believers including their women and children, and tearing open their pregnant women?  A book that promotes that is more hateful than anything I've written here.  Again, I didn't write that – it's in the Old Testament.  If that constitutes defamation or hate speech then the authors of the bible are to blame, not me.

                      Your turn.

        • Just Commentin' says:

          Gee…there is so much tripe here I do not where to begin…

          Ok. No "double standard" here, I will go with your analogy: Most gay people I know do not condemn people of other sexual orientations as being satanic. Nor is their express goal to "convert" non gays into the realm of gaydom. Gays do not continually pester people of other sexual orientations to join their ranks.

          Even the more militant gay people simply want equal treatment under the law and freedom to do their thing without oppression. Christians want to legislate morality and sexuality, and they have a pathological need to make everyone to be like them in bed, dull.

          Gays do not want to eliminate folks of other persuasions. Nor do they consider that people of other sexual orientations suffer from a mental disease. Most gays would not point a finger at the average tolerant well-doing Christian and proclaim them to be hell-bound. Nor do gays actively lobby for laws to prevent Christians from "fellowshipping" together or holding hands in church.

          If you asked most gay people if they cared if their child were to date or marry a mildly dogmatic Christian, they would probably be ok with that. Ask most Christians what they would do if their child wanted to date a mildly dogmatic gay and the word "stroke" would probably be part of the very gentlest of the reactions; as for marriage, Christians in this society are so homophobic they enshrined hetero-only marriage in the constitution.

          So which of the groups would you say is the most intolerant of those who do not espouse their lifestyle: gays or christians?  Intolerance breeds intolerance. Case closed.

          • Anonymous says:

            Your post is of course totally irrelevant to my point which it is plain you cannot answer.  

            • Just Commentin' says:

              Ooooo! I like it! Game ON! Make a point and I promise that I will answer it.

              But before I let you off the hook you should at least be capable of explaining why you dismiss my comment and others who oppose your opinions as being "irrelevant". Are they irrelevant to the topic, or to the thread, or do you just dismiss as irrelevant all views that disagree with yours? In that case: Nyaaa, Nyaaa! All of your comments on this topic are ir-rel-e-vant, ir-rel-e-vant, ir-rel-e-vant! ("Are not!" Are too! "Are not!!" Are too! "Whaaaaa…Mommyyyyy! He's being irrelevant again!")

              You see, here is where your "point" hit the "Fail" button: The original comment by whoever suggested that there was no real hate or hate speech expressed on this thread, just "gentle ridicule". You failed to point out any actual instances of clear malice, hatred or hate speech in the thread and you went off on your La-La-Land substitute "gay" for "christian" excursion…yada, yada, yada. Talk about being irrelevant! That is the pot calling the kettle black.

              So please do cite some instances of actual hate speech here or someone might consider your opinion as being…ummm…irrelevant.

          • arf says:

            Thanks for that! 

          • Anonymous says:

            What a ridiculous post.

            "Nor do they consider that people of other sexual orientations suffer from a mental disease. Most gays would not point a finger at the average tolerant well-doing Christian and proclaim them to be hell-bound. Nor do gays actively lobby for laws to prevent Christians from "fellowshipping" together or holding hands in church".

            If by "other sexual orientations" you mean heterosexual orientation this doesn't amount  to any special virtue about gay people only that they are sensible enough to realise that heterosexuality is essential to the survival of the human race, that it is practised by the vast majority of humanity and it would therefore be preposterous to argue that it is a mental disease. But you did use the plural. Do you not consider that those who practise bestiality or necrophilia suffer from some sort of mental defect, or are you totally depraved?

            You are trying to create a false equivalence between the obviously soul destroying, socially harmful, unnatural homosexual lifestyle and a Christian life.  Gays at least recognise that it would be preposterous for gays "to point a finger at the average tolerant well-doing Christian and proclaim them to be hell-bound", which is more that can be said for you. Your arguments are perverse. 


            • Just Commentin' says:

              Ridiculous? Really? Let us look at what is, by any rational standard of truth, ridiculous:

              You latest attempts to refute my comment are based on an apparent assumption that several myth-based concepts are true – those myths being: general christian doctrine – mostly based on a myth; a "soul" – again based on a myth; and the myth-based idea that homosexuality destroys that mythical soul. I am not necessarily condemning the myths in this case, but basing an argument on mysticism is not a very solid foundation. You are sinking deeper into the realm of christian fundamentalism.

              For the most part your allegations and refutations are based on faith in Judeo-Christian mythology.  You would do just as well to base an attempt at logical refutation on the edicts of the Purple People Eater.

              Contrary to your assumption, I am not trying to create an "equivalence" for anything, just assuming the validity of non-heterosexual orientation in the face of your bigotry. – and maybe bring some enlightenment to a Dark Ages mind set. If your assertion that such an equivalence is "false" is based on your myth-based beliefs, you do not have a logical foundation for that argument. Your argument is irrelevant in any case, but I am relatively certain in your spiritual myopia you cannot not see the reasons why.

              While gay is not my orientation I can respect their ways. As long as a gay person does not try to convince me that my proclivity for hetero relationships is wrong I promise to leave them be and not get aggressive in my critique of their approach to life. If a gay person claimed that their way is the best and right and "only" valid sexual orientation, I would give them grief – just as I do to "chruchites" who insist that their spiritual mysticism and their dogmatically prescribed sexuality is the only way to be right with God and that those who disagree with them are perverse. Such people in either group are worthy of vehement disdain, social castigation, and being the butt of lots of knee-slapping jokes.

              My opinion regarding bestiality or necrophilia or a person's desire to swath their genitalia in green cotton candy,  is…uhh… to borrow your favorite word…irrelevant; the point is not relevant to either your argument or mine. Why did you bring it up? Are you running out logical non-myth based rational rebuttals, so you must mount a personal attack?  Seems so. I detect a tad bit of pique in your tone. Not getting angry are we? This is an enjoyable mind-expanding exercise and should be fun. Right? No matter as I have come to expect such an attitude from rabid dogmatists.

              Here's one for you to chew on: A rational compromise relative to the problem of universal adoption of an exclusively homosexual lifestyle leading to the demise of humanity is…bisexuality! If you factor in the evidence that a reduction in human population growth is a good thing – and you have already established that homosexuality is an effective means to control human population – then a case can be made that bisexuality could potentially be the ideal sexual preference as it would tend to curb population growth without leading to the extinction of the species. Heterosexuality (to the exclusion of other sexual orientations) is certainly not essential to the survival of the human race. (But I guess you can probably cite a myth-based reason not to like this idea either, huh?) So what would be your compromise?

              Ooopsie! Am I being irrelevant again? (Wow! I just realised that the problem might be that you are confusing "irrelevant" with "irreverent".)

              It is telling that you used a catchword that has been worn-out by rabid religious fundies in their fits of bigotry against makers of non-hetero whoopie: "unnatural". (As in "unnatural act".) Sounds like something that thenow pleasantly quiet spiritual bigot Jerry Falwell might have said. Tell me, on which myth do you base such an opinion?

              Answer me this: Is bisexuality also "unnatural"? I am all ears to hear your opinion.

              Here is the bottom line: Your arguments are largely based on faith. Faith in ancient mythology. You motive for your comments on this thread seems to be based on faith.

              Your comments cast aspersions at those who do not share your faith. People who try to foist their faith on, and who show intolerance toward, those who do not buy into that faith are one very good reason why christianity is becoming…oh my…here comes that word again…irrelevant. And a reason why you those persons become the butt of harsh critique and jokes. That is the way the world rolls, dude.

              When you first passed out the ball that I ran with – the comparison between fun poked at gays versus christians – you ran toward the path market "Irrelevant". I followed.

              If you are arguing why it is unacceptable for christians to be harshly ridiculed – the gay comparison is an irrelevant argument. But you probably cannot see the reasons why, huh? I did know better but I followed anyway bacause I am used to arguing with irrational people and sometimes it is necessary to march with them as they usually cannot or will not respond to largely rational commentary.

              While you cite the idea that "Gays at least recognise that it would be preposterous for gays "to point a finger at the average tolerant well-doing Christian and proclaim them to be hell-bound"; do you hold it as being equally preposterous for Christians to point a finger at gays and proclaim them to be hell-bound?

              What might be said about gays or christians or believers in the Purple People Eater – or any other group being marginalised or ridiculed at the time – is irrelevant: as a christian, if sharply barbed critique of your views or your faith troubles you, then limit your public vocalisations of your beliefs to the confines of the church building. Going on the offence to defend your faith will win little respect for either you or your faith and usually does much more harm than good to the image of christianity. Christians – whether you like it or not is irrelevant – are held to a differing standard and intolerance will not be tolerated. And that's the way tings bees, Bo Bo.

              • Anonymous says:

                "limit your public vocalisations of your beliefs to the confines of the church building".

                I am fully aware that it is your agenda to intimidate Christians into silence but it won't work. Apparently you believe that everyone else besides Christians are entitled to freedom of speech. You can rant and rave all you like, but we will not go quietly into the night. And you are quite wrong about respect. Compromise of one's values and faith, which you are obviously keen for Christians to do, by no means gains one any respect.

                "do you hold it as being equally preposterous for Christians to point a finger at gays and proclaim them to be hell-bound?".

                There you go again. As I said in my earlier post you trying to create a false equivalence between living a gay lifestyle and living a Christian life. There is no equivalence, and it is preposterous to suggest that there is.  

                Of course it is not preposterous. It is a warning that according to the scriptures those who practise this will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.  


                • Just Commentin' says:

                  Wow! Did you just take my words out of context? Gee, you did!

                  That is not very becoming of such a stalwart purveyor of truth, is it? Now you are practicing deceit. What was that context of the statement you quoted? What was the point?

                  As we both know full well, the point was not to silence you but to suggest that if you get piqued by those who oppose your publicly expressed opinions, perhaps you should refrain from expressing your opinions in a public forum. A contentious spirit is not becoming of a so-called "christian". You missed the point. (But not accidentally I am sure.) Ooo! It looks like you are getting painted into a corner and grabbing at straws, huh?

                  It flies in the face of reason that you claim that I want to silence you. On the contrary, far from wanting to silence you, I have been asking questions but some of the important questions have been met with silence by you.

                  You bristle at a perceived slight to your right to free speech as a "christian". So tell me, should gays be afforded the similar right to freely expound their lifestyle? Simple question. Yes or no? Why or why not?

                  Lest you again try the lame ploy of deflection by rehashing your quite baseless claim that I am trying to create the establishment of a "false equivalence",  this is a question focusing on rights, not a comment on the relative merits of the respective lifestyles.

                  (Is this question going to be met by silence or deflection? It should be interesting to find out.)

                  Apparently your idea of a rational, intelligent Christ-like answer is to spew insults, demean the questions, and then – ironically –  fall back on your interpretation of what characterises good "christian" behaviour. And somehow you miss the irony in this? Others here do not, however.

                  You fail to see that your approach and attitude is a major "compromise" of " the christian" character you so rabidly expound. (Did I just hear someone say "double standard"?)

                  You are gonna win a whole bunch of souls that way. Nice emulation of Jesus there dude! I do not see you earning much respect for your faith that way either. You have again pushed the *FAIL!* button.

                  (As you can perceive, folks, we are close to checkmate here.)

                  • Anonymous says:

                    More ranting and raving. No substance. Nothing to respond to.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      A pretty clear win for Just Commentin’.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Actually he was ranting a bit, and it was becoming tiresome.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      His post does seem to have been written in some frustration, but it includes at least one very simple question, which you have failed to answer.  To those of us reading the exchange, it would appear that you have no reasonable response, and are taking your ball home.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      There are number of 'questions' thatappear in his post. I am not sure which one you mean.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Funny that you feel entitled to write on behalf of "those of us reading this exchange". How would you know the unexpressed opinions of all others reading this exchange, particularly since there are only a couple thumbs up and thumbs down? I rather suspect that you are Just Commentin and wrote both this and the previous post proclaiming his victory. Too funny.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    "A rational compromise relative to the problem of universal adoption of an exclusively homosexual lifestyle leading to the demise of humanity is…bisexuality!"

                    Err…if practising heterosexuality means that you are mentally ill doesn't bisexuality mean that half of you is mentally ill? The only aspect of bisexuality that allows humanity to survive is the heterosexual element. There is nothing rational about the practise of homosexuality.    

        • Anonymous says:

          I agree. The same people saying this is not hatred are the first to accuse others of 'homophobia' (hatred or fear of homosexuals) if they do not agree with their point of view.

      • art art says:

        Time to lighten this up a little….


        A priest, a preacher and a Rabbi walked into their favorite bar, where they would get together two or three times a week for drinks and to talk shop.  On this particular afternoon, someone made the comment that preaching to people isn't really all that hard. A real challenge would be to preach to a bear.  One thing led to another and they decided to do an experiment. They would all go out into the woods, find a bear, preach to it, and attempt to convert it.  Seven days later, they're all together to discuss the experience.

        Father Flannery, who has his arm in a sling, is on crutches, and has various bandages, goes first.  "Well," he says, "I went into the woods to find me a bear. And when I found him I began to read to him from the Catechism. Well, that bear wanted nothing to do with me and began to slap me around. So I quickly grabbed my holy water, sprinkled him and, Holy Mary Mother of God, he became as gentle a lamb. The bishop is coming out next week to give him first communion and confirmation."

        Reverend Billy Bob spoke next. He was in a wheelchair, with an arm and both legs in casts, and an IV drip. In his best fire and brimstone oratory he claimed, " WELL brothers, you KNOW that we don't sprinkle! I went out and I FOUND me a bear. And then I began to read to my bear from God's HOLY WORD! But that bear wanted nothing to do with me. So I took HOLD of him and we began to wrestle. We wrestled down one hill, UP another and DOWN another until we came to a creek. So I quick DUNKED him and BAPTIZED his hairy soul. And just like you said, he became as gentle as a lamb. We spent the rest of the day praising Jesus."

        They both looked down at the rabbi, who was lying in a hospital bed. He was in a body cast and traction with IV's and monitors running in and out of him. He was in bad shape.  The rabbi looks up and says, "Looking back on it, circumcision may not have been the best way to start.

  11. oneoftheherd says:

    Thanks Carolina,  that needed to be said. I have always seen this half separation of Church and State here as a problem. I see pictures of Jesus hanging on the walls in government offices and as well as quotations from holy scriptures. We all seem to accept this but you would hear quite an outcry if the preachers were to preach politics and try to sway voters before elections during their Sunday sermons. People don’t attend church for lessons in civics.  Religion is being used as a tool by government in a shameful one-way manner. There is separation here but only from the Church’s perspective. The reason for separation of Church and State is that State is responsible for your physical welfare while the Church takes care of the spiritual side. No one with a spiritual problem would  think to ask help from government and likewise, we don’t go to our preachers to get roads fixed. Whether or not a politician is a Christian is at the bottom of my list of desirable traits. Honest politicians are not always Christian and Christian politicians are not always honest.  I value honesty, intelligence, wisdom and the ability to admit errors and change course while looking out for the good of the people and future of the Country. Christianity has noting to do with such traits. It is about good upbringing and a strong ethical and moral compass that establishes these traits in our elected members. 

    We can be one nation under God as well as a self proclaimed Christian nation. But in general it would be a good idea to start measuring our elected members by their actions and not their words.



    • Anonymous says:

      It bothers me when people grab hold of this political slogan "separation of church and state" as if it were a universally recognised and applicable doctrine. It isn't. This is an American doctrine which is often taken to mean that the church should have no influence upon public policy.  Nothing in the Westminster Model constitutions require any such separation as should be evident from the fact that in the UK Parliament the House of Lords includes as its members unelected bishops of the Church of England and the HM as the Head of State is also head of the Church of England and "Defender of the Faith".  And please don't go on about constitutional conventions and how some people in the UK want to do away with the House of Lords. The simple, undeniable fact is that non-separation is constitutionally enshrined.

      "We all seem to accept this but you would hear quite an outcry if the preachers were to preach politics and try to sway voters before elections during their Sunday sermons".

      Some do. In fact, parishioners are reprimanded from the pulpit for daring to criticise the govt. and are told their only recourse is to vote at the next election and to have nothing to say until then. I'll leave you to guess why that might be the case.   


      • Poly Ticks says:

        I would say that the separation of church and state is indeed universally recognized by rational people.  

        It's true that no method of politically organizing a state requires separation, but let's face it: the proper function of a government is to govern by making the best possible decisions basedupon the best information available.  Adding inconsistent and often incoherent interpretations of inconsistent and often incoherent sayings attributed to an invisible superman, the existence of which is certainly wholly disproven by now, adds nothing but unnecessary confusion and error into both the information and the decision making process that the governing body is charged to process.

        Sure it's not required, but why add voodoo to political science?  Care to sprinkle chicken entrails in the legislative assembly at the next budget session?  

        Church leaders like to have the church involved in the operation of the state, because it gives them MORE POWER, and that's what political ambition drives people to, and have no doubt that church leaders are after political power.  Have no doubt at all.

        • Anonymous says:

          I understand that your post was intended to be offensive, but instead it is a little silly and reflects a lack of understanding of how different philosophies, values and perspectives shape public policy.  You are so intoxicated with a misguided sense of your own superiority that you cannot see that.

          • Poly Ticks says:

            (a) Perspectives based on invisible sky-faries have no business shaping public policy.  Try reality instead; it's more, well, real.

            (b) The only thing I'm intoxicated by is truth tempered by a healthy scepticism (also known as the scientific method).  I'm hoisting another jug of that now, and I'll drink to your awakening.

            (c) Try addressing to point of the post, and don't try to evade it withbabbling bullxxxx.  It makes you sound like a preacher.

            • Anonymous says:

              Ironically, given that that is why you castigate Christians, you seem to have difficulty distinguishing between what is proven fact and what is your belief. It is simply your belief that there is no God. That is not scientific fact.

              Only 2.3% of the world's population assert that there is no god. Is it reasonable to base our values on what 2.3% of people believe?  

              The fact that your post is abusive suggests you know the weakness of your position. There is nothing about your post that is scientific. You are simply arrogant and abusive.   

              • Sotong says:

                This comment is not very logical.

                I do not think it has been proven by science that Santa Clause does not exist. Nevertheless most people over the age of 8 know that he doesn't exist, and do not require scientific evidence.

                You also suggest that because 97.7% of the population believe in some form of god it must be true. The number of people that believe in something has no bearing on weather it is true or not.

                Hundreds of years ago pretty much everyone believed that the sun orbited around the earth. This did not make it true, it just meant that pretty much everyone was wrong.

                Your religious views are none of my business, but please don't try to support them with erroneous references to science.


                • Anonymous says:

                  LOL. I suggest you stop posting because each one is more illogical than the previous.

                  Obviously there is no comparison with Santa Claus since most people over the age of 8 DO believe that God exists. In the case of Santa the adults a re of course specifically that they themselves play Santa for the entertainment of the kids. But my reference to the % of those believing was not to establish the truth of the matter but, as I clearly said, it is not reasonable to establish our values in accordance with what 2.3% of the population BELIEVES. And to my specifc point YOU are making the unscientific assertion that God does not exist when it is simply an unprovable belief.  Your position is therefore not superior to the religiously minded, you just have a different god. 

                  Anyway this is getting boring. I thought that you would have stunned me with the overwhelming force of your superior intellect. LOL.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    I am not the poster above, but your comments have piqued my curiosity.  Who or what is the god you feel the poster worships?

                  • Sotong says:

                    Firstly I am not Poly Ticks.

                    Secondly I have re-read your post and can see that I misinterpreted it in my first response. Apologies.

                    I also agree that science is not a helpful way in discussing the existence of God. I think I am correct in saying that a central tenetof Christianity is faith – belief without proof.

                    I would make the point that it is not necessary to believe in God to have decent values. 

                    I would also make the point that sometimes it has taken brave individuals in the minority to change the status quo and improve a societies values.


                    • Freud says:

                      Faith is belief without proof?  How about another definition, courtesy of Wikipedia (and its underlying sources)…

                      "A delusion is a belief that is either mistaken or not substantiated that is held with vehemence.  …

                      Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his 1917 book General Psychopathology. These criteria are:

                      -certainty (held with absolute conviction)
                      -incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
                      -impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)…"

                      Sound familiar regarding our sky-fairy-believing friends?

                    • Anonymous says:

                      How deceptive of you to quote from Wikipedia without providing the proper context where that context clearly shows that the quote does not support your case at all.

                      Wikipedia says: "A delusion is a belief that is either mistaken or not substantiated that is held with vehemence. In psychiatry, it is defined to be a belief thatis PATHOLOGICAL (the result of an illness or illness process) and is held despite EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. As a pathology, IT IS DISTINCT FROM A BELIEF BASED on false or incomplete information, DOGMA, stupidity, poor memory, illusion, or other effects of perception.

                      For your benefit, "dogma" is defined as "a religious doctrine or system of doctrines proclaimed by ecclesiastical authority as true".

                      The most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders defines a delusion as:

                      The Wikpedia articles goes on to say that the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders defines a delusion as:

                      "A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is NOT ONE ORDINARILY ACCEPTED BY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PERSON'S CULTURE OR SUBCULTURE".

                      The basic problem with your argument is that 95% of the earth's population belives in the supernatural, but you would have it that we all suffer from mental illness.


                    • Freud says:

                      100% of the population used to think the earth was flat.  Perhaps you are right that they were not nuts, but they sure as hell were wrong. 

                      So I take it that a belief for which you have no evidence, and for which what evidence you do have points the other way, is an acceptable belief to hold provided lots of other people also are mistaken?  If the support group shrinks, how small can it get before the error becomes a delusion?


                    • Anonymous says:

                      No. Read the definition again. You do not have "incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary" so beleiving in the existence of God does not qualify.

                  • A. T. Hist says:

                    "And to my specifc point YOU are making the unscientific assertion that God does not exist when it is simply an unprovable belief.  Your position is therefore not superior to the religiously minded, you just have a different god."

                    You say that there is an invisible elephant in the room, and I say there is not.   The fact that I don't believe in your invisible elephant does not at all mean that as a result I now have an invisible elephant of my own that is also in the room.  Your "argument" simply makes no sense.  Is this where (your) god works in mysterious ways?

                    PS – If I did have an invisible elephant, he'd be able to beat up your invisible elephant for sure!

                  • You are insulting us says:

                    You are insulting people with this smug presumption of high comparative intelligence.  You might well be bored by this, but I have no doubt that you were stunned before your various opponents showed up.  Maybe try sticking to the point under debate and keep the insults to yourself?

                    • Anonymous says:

                      You seem to have posted under the wrong post. Your posts would apply to the many insulting anti-Christian posts where the writers assume high comparative  intelligence. it is that attitude which I was mocking and rightly so.  

              • Poly Ticks says:

                The bible appears to be the authority christians rely on to "prove" their theory of the existence of "their" god (as opposed to any other entity that might fit that general description).  Let's say that the bible makes 2382 claims of fact (I'm, making that number up of course), one of which is that there exists a god and that that god is "their" god.  Then prove through science, archeology, cosmology, etc. that 2381 of those claims of fact are demonstrably just plain wrong.  Flat out proven wrong.  Then there's the 1 remaining claim of fact, for which christians say "Na na na boo boo, you can't prove this one is wrong because there's no physical evidence either way".  And so the christians say they win…

                Sure, there's a lot of christians (but more muslims and other various religious types), and there also used to be a lot of people who thought that the earth was flat, and who thought the earth was at the centre of the universe, and who thought there were dragons at the end of the earth who would try to eat you before you fell off the edge of the earth.  Just because there's a lot of wrong people doesn't make their claims of fact any less wrong. 

                What your statistic could show (if true, which I don't believe) is that people tend to want to believe in a sky fairy, probably because death is hard to deal with and having a loving god (HA) at yoour disposal who will protect you from the reality of that is a nice bit of escapism.  Still, it says something about the believers and not about the belief, which is still wrong.

                I know you want to view me as arrogant and abusive, so I'll accomodate you: you wear funny shoes.

                Have a great day.

                • Anonymous says:

                  This is getting sillier and sillier. The Bible is about revelation of spiritual truths rather than a science textbook. On the other hand, there are many ways in which the bible accounts have been verified by archaeology. According to a 1981 article in U.S. News & World Report "A wave of archaeological discoveries is altering old ideas about the roots of Christianity and Judaism – and affirming that the Bible is more historically accurate than many scholars thought." It is pure fantasy to suggest that virtually every statement of fact in the Bible has been disproven by science, archaeology etc..  

                  Incidentally, I am not sure that is what you intended to say, and not that it is strictly relevant, but there are not more Muslims than Christians but about 1/2 billion less.

                  You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Again, nowhere did I claim that the number of people believing something to be true made it fact. God exists whether you believe it or not. That would not change if the majority of the world became atheists.   

                  • Hogwashing says:

                    U.S. News & World Report being the now out-of-print leader in ratings of colleges and hospitals.  Not exactly a credible source, and I don't think the piece is available anymore for a proper critical review.  But anyway, if you are on about was there a town here or there and did the Romans crucify Christ, sure there is evidence of that.  But not of God.  Nor of miracles.  No water into wine.  No burning bushes and walking on water.  Nope, none of that WHATSOEVER.

                    I'd personally like to hear your views on a 6000 year old earth having dinosaur bones on it from 245 million years ago, and maybe some actual evidence of Noah's flood (and not the Gilgamesh Epic from which the idea was stolen, thanks just the same).  Got any evidence of that?  Inquiring minds want to know.

                    I have to say, delicately I hope, that it is actually you that is getting sillier and sillier.  You appeared first to be saying that there is no proof of god; it is a matter of faith.  Now you are saying that the existence of a god is not determined by the beliefs of believers.  You confirm that this applies both ways – for and against.  The unavoidable logical conclusion from these premises is that the only existence that your god has is as a belief in your brain. 

                    You believe it and you say it is true, but then you say that there is no connection between your belief and the actual truth (which I say is a brave and truthful acknowledgement). Consequentially though, your "truth" is thus not a statement about the external world, as you admit, but just something in your head.  I'm impressed with your honesty about that.  Congratulations.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Nowhere did I state that "there is no connection between (my) belief and the actual truth" but rather the abence of belief does not MAKE something untrue which is true – commonly known as denial. 

                      If you are supposed to be the poster child for the  rationality and superior intellect of atheists then this is hilarious.  At least try to start with basic comprehension skills.  

                      How exactly would archaeology or science be able to establish the reality or unreality of past miracles such as the burning bush?  LOL.

                      Since you find USNews not to be a credible source, how about this article in Time magazine? 



                    • O'Really says:

                      An interesting article, but in truth it contains at least as many instances of archaeology disproving parts of the Bible, or alternatively casting doubt on significant events in the Bible because of the absence of evidence when one might reasonably expect such evidence to exist, as it does proving the historical accuracy of events depicted therein.

                      In any event, even if the vast majority of the Bible's contents could be shown to be historically  accurate, it speaks not at all to the existence of God. As the article states " Few scholars believe that miracles like Moses' burning bush or Jesus' resurrection will ever be proved scientifically; they are, after all, supernatural events." The converse must also surely be true, that establishing the worldly accuracy of events does only that, establish the worldly, not supernatural nature of the Bible.

                      I wonder if you would agree that the presence of belief does not make something true that is untrue?

                      For those who believe, science is unlikely ever to be able to prove otherwise. There does exist the possibility, however, that science will eventually be able to explain everything around us, from, and including, the Big Bang, in such a way as to not require God's existence. This would not prove God did not exist, but it would remove the need for a necessary being.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      I don't necessarily disagree with your post except that I don't think the article establishes that archaeology has definitely disproved parts of the Bible. As the article says "it's a truism in archaeology that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", and there is some divergence of opinion amongst experts.

                      At the top of the thread you will note that the link re proving factual data with the truth of the existence of God was made by my antagonist. I was simply responding to the suggestion that virtually every statement of fact in the Bible has been shown to be false.  

                    • O'Really says:

                      On reflection I think your point about the article not disproving parts of the Bible is valid, in that the sections of the article which touch on this  are in fact referring to claims from scholars purporting to have found evidence in support of the Bible which subsequently turned out to be invalid. A scholarly mistake now would not prevent legitimate evidence from being discovered at a future date.

                      Having said this, the article does also say " Having seen science confirm the Bible in some instances and tear it down in others, most scholars have edged toward a middle-of-the-road position."

                      I'm not sure the article actually supports this contention which is fine, because it will give me something else to research.



                    • The Protagonist says:

                      Antagonist?  That's "protagonist" to you, Jack.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Err… no I'll stick with "antagonist", i.e adversary, rather than "protagonist" –  the principal character in a play, ora a important supporter of a cause.

                    • Hogwashing says:

                      "LOL"?  That's your best argument, emphasized with an insult?  

                      I suppose in the end you are not starting from reason but from unsubstantiated faith, so the fault is mine for trying to have a rational debate with a fundamentally irrational person.  You ignore the arguments and retort with insults and the posing of questions that you don't answer.  Oh well, it was amusing for a brief time.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      i.e. 'I can't make any headway so I am taking up my marbles and going home'.

                      It is quite appropriate for me to point out that much of your response was based upon a confused misunderstanding of my point and therefore has no value. It is particularly appropriate to point this out where you tout your own rationality, as you continue to do. 

                      The illogic of your position about science/archaeology proving/disproving past miracles such as the burning bush is also fair game for me to point out.

                      I have addressed your doubts about the US News article by producing another article from Time magazine along the same lines.

                      I am not sure how you imagine that your 'arguments' were ignored and only responded to with insults. My response demonstrated that there were no rational arguments for me to answer.

                    • Just Commentin' says:

                      Since this thread has taken a side road into christian fundamentalism, I have some questions that are worthy of rational answers:

                      Why do you believe in God?

                      Why do you believe that God reveals Himself in writing exclusively through the "Bible"?

                      Why should anyone believe in God though the avenue of Christianity?

                      How are your arguments here elevating Jesus Christ and promoting a desire in a non-believing reader to become a Christian?

                      Inquiring minds want to know if you can answer these questions and what those answers might be.


                    • Anonymous says:

                      Your previous posts leave me in no doubt that you are not in the slightest genuinely interested in a real conversation about these issues. You are a mocker.  

                    • Anne T. Krist says:

                      He might be a mocker, but come on, you're a christian.  Aren't you supposed to turn the other cheek so that he can mock both sides?

                    • Anonymous says:

                      I'm more concerned that I am wasting my time.

                      I should have known better:

                      "Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
                       whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
                       Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
                       rebuke a wise man and he will love you".

                      – Proverbs 9:7-8.

                    • Anne T. Krist says:

                      Don't you love it how that implies that the wise men are those who agree with the bible, while the anyone who tells the preacher "I reject your foolishness" is both wrong and wicked? 

                      For example, I am reasonaby wise and I firmly believe that the preachers' statements on the "supernatural" are silly.  I neither love nor hate preachers generally – some are good and some are evil, but all are irrational in their claims about supernatural events.  If you try to "correct" me I will oppose you and you will call me wicked, but if I accept your "correction" and thank you (or love you) then you say that I am wise.  How very convenient for you that it works that way.

                      But what about the possibility that I am right and your "correction" is wrong?  You are calling me wicked wrongfully then, so who's really wicked? Not me…

                    • Anonymous says:

                      What you fail to understand is that our faith does not admit of such a possibility. However, as you claim to base your views on pure reason you must admit the possibility that we are right and you are wrong. To say otherwise is dogmatism, no rationalism.

                      We say you are wise if you accept our correction because we know something that you don't.  It's rather like a brash teenager presuming that he knows far more than his parents about everything because he was reared in the information age and they were not.     

                    • Anonymous says:

                      No, you don't know something we don't.  

                      You believe something we don't.  That's all.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      We know whom we have believed and are persuaded that He is able to keep what we have committed to Him until that Day.

                      You only believe that we merely believe.

                    • Anne T. Krist says:

                      I like you, I really do.  Thank you for this discussion (sincerely – I really mean that).  I'm only sorry that the column of words is getting so skinny that we'll be forced to end this chain.

                      I acknowledge that you could be right that there is a god fitting your description, but I would then say that you being right would be a coincidence, as you have no factual basis for your current belief (and a rather unlikely coincidence at that). 

                      I do understand that your faith does not permit questioning the belief or looking for justification.  That's why we can't really have a debate.  I'll accept belief in something if you can offer evidence of it that is not contradicted.  I'll hold an idea as a presumptively-valid working hypothesis if you can offer evidence of it but there is somewhat contradictory evidence, but your evidence is not outweighed (at least until more evidence comes in or I can investigate the conflicting evidence).  You, on the other hand, say that you don't need evidence for your belief.  There's not a lot of commons ground here.

                      I'd be delighted to have evidence of the existence of a god, especially one who loves me and will give me eternal life, but I don't. 

                      Thanks for the chat; it wasa delight.



          • Anonymous says:

            "You are so intoxicated with a misguided sense of your own superiority that you cannot see that."


            Ooooooh, I LOVE when I can use someones own words to show them how that they can be used to describe them….

          • Billy Bob says:

            Where can I git some dat "misguided sense" dat christian dude talkin bout?  I gotta git my stuff at the liquor store still.

          • Thirsty says:

            I'll have a bottle of what he's drinking, because what you're serving up smells like manure.

        • Anonymous says:

          "…an invisible superman, the existence of which is certainly wholly disproven by now".

          If by "invisible superman" you mean God then His existence has by no means been disproven nor is it capable of being disproven. So much for rational thought.  

          • Poly Ticks says:

            Your god is incapable of proof by empirical means, so you claim knowledge of god from the bible.  It follows that your knowledge of this entity consists of the bits and bobs from the bible about it, so we go down the list of things it says that are wrong:

            God created earth in 6 days. Cosmology disagrees.

            God made a flood.  Calculations prove there's not enough water on the planet.  Plus what a wonderful story of the mass murder of animals whose only crime was… well actually they didn't do anything wrong at all now did they?

            Earth 6000 years old and no dinosaurs.  See fossils of aformentioned dinosaurs for conclusive proof that there is no god that created the earth 6000 years ago (this is not to say that there is no god, but this is to say that the god described in the bible doesn't exist).

            God will answer your prayers.  Go pray that god cures every case of cancer on the planet right now, and see how that turns out.

            God is omnipotent and loves everyone without limit, but wants us to kill all the adulterers, homosexuals, blasphemers, etc.  The inconsistency is self-evident and demonstrates a complete failure of the god in the bible to offer functional ethical guidance.  Oh, and it proves that there is no god as described. 

            God loves everyone without limit, and he can do miracles.  So why did he stop with Jesus walking on water?  Seems there are sick and dying children that could use a break.  Nope… nothing happening.  Maybe we should go back to praying?  Oh wait – that doesn't work either.

            I could go on but you get the point (I hope).  Reason provides that if you know god from the bible, but the bible is wrong in many substantive ways such that it is incapable of being relied on, then you don't know god. 

            I'm more than happy to accept the failure of the bible as the best evidence there is on the existence of the god described in the bible -In the absence of and proof supporting the existence of the god described in the bible, that's pretty much the end of your argument.

            Rational thought is so much fun!

            • Anonymous says:

              I should point out that to know God is to have a relationship with Him. It is not merely to read about Him in the Bible. I have had enough supernatural experiences in my life to know that God is real. The spiritual realm is real. God continues to heal the sick. I myself have received His healing quite apart from what any doctors could offer. Prayer does work but it works best in the context of a relationship with God rather than living in rebellion and then calling out in desperation in a time of need. 

              You need an understanding of spiritual matters. Oftentimes, but not always, healing from sickness, particularly terminal illnesses, requires repentance on the part of the individual. There are sins unto death.  We are not God and therefore we cannot always understand his purposes in allowing certain things. His timing is not ours. 

              It is too late for you to tell me that God is not real. I pray that you would get to know Him.     

      • Anonymous says:

        Seperation of church and state (or mosque and state, or temple and state) is obviously the only sane path for any society.

        We tried letting religion and government share power. It gave us human sacrifices, fwitch burnings, the inquisition, and the Dark Ages.

        No thanks.

  12. Real World says:

    Despite their individual beliefs, the Founding Fathers knew the constitution of the American republic should be based on secular and not religious ideology. They understood that when a constitution is legally secular, religion— not one specific religion, but all religions— become free enterprise and are allowed to flourish unbridled.

    Founded in secularism, the United States of America has become one of the most religious countries in the world; while the United Kingdom, with an established church headed by a constitutional monarch, is arguably now among the least religiose.

    It is not only our political leaders that "manipulate" the name of Jesus Christ to win influence (or votes) in the political arena, it is also the powerful religious lobbies, who claim the supernatural authority to speak for Jesus Christ on political matters.  [I'm sure I wasn't the only person in Cayman concerned about the number of representatives from the larger Christian groups chosen by the PPM to be a part of the constitutional discussions with the United Kingdom].

    In 1981, United States Senator, presidential candidate, and hero of American Conservatism, Barry Goldwater said about religious lobbies:

    “There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this Supreme Being. But like any weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with loss of money, or votes, or both. . . I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism [1].”

    Whether Thomas Jefferson and his associates were theists, deists, agnostics, or atheists is open to debate, but one thing is clear: despite their personal religious beliefs, when it came to preparing the Constitution of the United States of America— as a conglomerate— they were passionate secularists who believed that the religious opinions of a President were entirely his own business. They understood that only a secular constitution would allow individuals and organized religious groups to worship (or not) according to the dictates of their own consciences.

    All sentient beings in Cayman should appreciate that only a Constitution based on sound moral SECULAR principals will maintain a tradition of religious freedom for all.

    Question: Is Cayman's constitution based on Christian ideology, or is it primarily secular?



    1. Congressional Record, 16 September. 1981

    • Anonymous says:

      I am afraid your post is self-contradictory. It commences with the observation: "Founded in secularism, the United States of America has become one of the most religious countries in the world; while the United Kingdom, with an established church headed by a constitutional monarch, is arguably now among the least religiose (sic)", but conclude that "all sentient beings in Cayman should appreciate that only a Constitution based on sound moral SECULAR principals will maintain a tradition of religious freedom for all.". It seems to me that you have disproved your own point that only a secular Constutition will maintain secularity and exclude religious principles from influence.


      • Just Commentin' says:

        I tink you missed de point:

        You paraphrased the point as being: "… that only a secular Constitution will maintain secularity and exclude religious principles from influence".

        The point the comment made is this:"They (the framers of the U.S. Constitution) understood that only a secular constitution would allow individuals and organized religious groups to worship (or not) according to the dictates of their own conscience".  The comment focuses on constitutionally enshrined freedom of religion, not the influence of religion over state: "They (the Founding Fathers of America) understood that when a constitution is…secular…all religions…are allowed to flourish…" In other words, all religions may flourish under a secular constitution which as one of its moral foundations enshrines freedom of religion. It is a broad claim, but he did not contradict his moot in his argument.

  13. Len Layman says:


    All I can say is, "Amen".

    Well written. Well thought out.  And very true.

    Beware of the people who have to profess their virtue.  If a person is truly virtuous it will be abundantly clear to all who deal with them.  They will not have to shout it from the hill top, or the media.

  14. T.E. says:

    I have had complicated sexual experiences before, but this is the worse Rapture climax I've had in my life!!!  You have thought at least a tremor or fireworks display, but nooooooo…. apparently, McKeeva is still here, Alden is still here, Ezzard is still here, and for God sake, my wife and children are still here!!! 

    I am not in Hawaii on a yacht with seven virgins!!!  I am very very very very upset, still broke, don't want to pay my bills, and don't want to see my god-forsaken boss, smiling in my face on a Monday!!!  

    Please…. are there any words of consolation???! :o( 

  15. nauticalone says:

    Thanks Carolina, for once again asking the questions that many want to sugar coat or otherwise bury/cover-up.

    Where is the outcry (for the numerous injustices and incompetencies….or worse) by the many, otherwise very vocal, christians in Cayman?

    Today it seems that we have allowed politicians to manipulate us with 'their christianity' for theirown personal gain and to excuse their improper behavior and their incompetencies.

    It seems to me that anyone truly trying to be a 'good christian/human-being' would respect and advocate for transparency and accountability for ALL (including for self) rather than the current situation where ethical behaviour and the law is only for some.

    And such attitudes strike of pompous self-centerdness….at the very least! And will only serve to the detriment of us all.


  16. noname says:

    Why do so many people view Christianity as this great source of all morality? It would be difficult to invent a more immoral belief system.

    Think about the core claims of Christianity: Everyone is born bad (sinful). Everyone deserves eternal torture in hell but thanks to a barbaric human sacrifice some (very few) can elude this punishment. Thinking and doubt are discouraged while faith (believing without reason) is demanded. And, finally, a destructive, violent and cruel end of the world in which most people die horribly is cheered by Christians as a good thing. Jesus is loving and caring but he's "the only way to heaven", so if you don't worship him it's off to the lake of fire with you.

    Poor little Anne Frank. She's been roasting for 65 years now and she's still got an eternity to go.


    • Anonymous says:

      I don't think many people view christianity as "the" source of all morality. I think it is only christians that view it as such.  That is precisely why the message of this letter is so important- here are a group of people who have, for centuries, proclaimed some monopoly over morals and values. They perceive themselves as such and in varying degrees make such declarations, yet their actions are completely contrary to beliefs which they proclaim to be the only ones to have or have access to.  It's time to point out the glaring inconsistency.

    • Anonymous says:

      Because it offers the highest ethical system: Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Do not render evil for evil. Forgive those who sin against you. Love your neighbour as you love yourself. Love yourenemies. In Christ there is neither race nor gender.

      That everyone is born sinful is a self-evident truth. Christianity offers hope and way out.

      • Hill Billy Bob says:

        So what was that little bit about the INQUISITION?  All that torture and killing was a demonstration of the christian version of "the highest ethical system"?  Let's stop and actually think about all of that while reading a description of the process:

        “Millions of innocent people were tortured and murdered during the inquisition. The inquisitors followed procedures set forth by the Dominican monks of Pope Innocent  III.

        At first the poor accused were told to confess. They were then stripped naked, shaved, pricked with needles for insensitive spots and then examined for marks of the devil.  Before the torture started, the victim was told what was about to happen and in many cases this forced the accused to commit to whatever the inquisitors wanted.

        It was noted that a person who refused to talk even under torture was being aided by the devil. While the poor victim was being tortured a clerk recorded what was said. In many cases the clerk recorded things that were not even said.  Each subsequent round of torture was much worse than the one before. The torturer was paid out of seized funds belonging to the victim. If the victim had no money then the relatives were made to pay.

        While the poor victims screamed with pain the childish tortureres carried on like sadistic maniacs. They sprayed there instruments with so called holy water, wore amulets, herbs and crossed themselves. The exact method of torture varied from place to place.

        The rack was well used in France during the inquisition. 

        Some victims were horsewhipped.

        A sharp iron fork was used to mangle breasts.

        Red hot pincers were used to tear off flesh.

        Red hot irons were inserted up vaginas and rectums.

        A device named the turcas was used to tear out fingernails.  After the nails were ripped out needles were shoved into the quicks. 

        Boots called bootikens were used to lacerate flesh and crush bone.

        Thumbscrews were used to crush the fingers and toes.

        Acid was poured on victims and hands were immersed into pots of boiling oil and water. 

        Eyes were gouged out by irons.

        Alcohol was poured on the head of the poor victim and set alight.

        Water was poured down the victims throat with a knotted cloth. The cloth was then jerked out tearing up the victims bowels. 

        There was no limit to the types and cruelty of the tortures. The inquisition meant anything was allowed. The inquisitors were sadistic and mentally disturbed.  Even after the poor victims confessed to things they neverdid more torture was to follow. On the way to the stake or gallows victims were flogged, burned, branded and had their hands and tongues hacked off.  By the 17th century as the Catholic Church began to lose power the inquisition began to collapse.  Millions had died as a result of the inquisition, including men, women, children and babies.”   Source:


        • Anonymous says:

          Clearly, they were not following the ethical requirements of Christianity. In no way can any of that be justified.   

  17. Felix Manzanares says:

    Carolina I read your article and I want to say first of all thanks for writing it. As a Christian myself it must be said that most of the people who give reason for people who do not share our believes a reason to mock what we believe is ourselves.  I do believe that we have the greatest news, and hope to offer mankind but at times we advertise our savior wrong and are not showing people who He really is by the lives welive, we need to be better ambassadors.

    In Cayman we get Christianity confuse at times and what it actually means to be one.  And yes it can be viewed as currency, for some folks but that does not mean that there are not others who are genuine about their faith and live a life that is not self pleasing but a life of service to God and our community.  Those who utilize Christianity as currency, for their own social and political purposes will be judged by the very words….that they use.  It is also sad at times that though the Church and Christian leaders do have influence over the affairs of this nation, when something is occuring in our nation that is un ethical, wrong…injustice occurs we are at times silent because of some "political partnership".  However this should not be , as Christians our service/dedication….is not to Political Parties, or Political Leaders but to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  If having the right style/preference of government…was the answer to the worlds problems then God would have sent a political leader into the world but instead He sent His Son as a Savior.  Jesus main focus was not to over throw the Roman Empire but to show His people what God was trully like, in attempt to win some. 

    My Hope is that those who utilize the name of Jesus and cling to it will truly live up to it. Because in Cayman we need to realize its not what you say that counts but its what you do. You can say and state how much of a woman of God, or man of God you are but know that your actions/your life speaks louder than words. God bless, Keep praying for our nation, my fellow brothers and sisters who reside here and call this place home.

    CNS: Felix, I'm guessing this is your real name, so can you register using the log in box on the lhs column or the link below the comment box if you're not commenting anonymously.

    • Anonymous says:

      I admire you Pastor Felix, but you missed the point. Please re-read Carolina's viewpoint.


  18. Anonymous says:


    After reading this and some of the comments it seems as if some people missed the most important part of this VP.

    The author was not making a comment on whether religion or christianity was right or wrong. The reference to the “sordid history” of the church itself speaks volumes as this is not meant to skirt any issue.  The mission here was different: she was writing to christians themselves.

    For the last two years the entire population of Cayman- Caymanians and expats, christians, jews, muslims and atheists, black, white, tall, short, fat, and skinny- has had their intelligence insulted and patience tried.  Still, this has not been offensive enough to get voting public to cry out ENOUGH! in a unified manner against the culprits and the systems that make this possible.

    Here Ms. Ferriera is trying to point out something that, based on how highly "esteemed" society claims it to be, should be insulting enough to kick start some form of reaction: the mockery of Christianity by those “christians” in power.

    The question she asks should be a wake up call to all professed christians who say they care so much about their faith: how is this visible misuse of their faith not offensive??

    The question between the lines is: how have you allowed this to go on for so long?

    I don’t claim to know what the author’s personal beliefs are, but what I do know of her- liberal, educated, outspoken, who spends her days teaching young people about sex (all of it, not just abstinence), sexuality, equality and human rights- I would imagine that she is quite often viewed as a persona non gratta, or even a heathen, in the eyes of the conservatives of the church and government.

    The fact that an outsider has written such a letter says two things: 1- the credibility of christians and the church in cayman, if there’s any left, hangs on a string, and 2- the church, like the elected officials, have lost their ‘untouchable’ status- not only by the “anonymous” masses, but by courageous people who will sign their name next to their statement.


  19. Anonymous says:

    Isn’t ‘GOOGLE’ our new ‘GOD’?

    • B L Seebub says:

      At least Google exists which gives in one big advantage over God.

      • Google Me says:

        … and if you're looking for something meaningful, like where to buy new hubcaps, Google will show you the truth a lot sooner than praying ever could.

        • Anonymous says:

          Wow, the pinnacle of meaning in your life is the purchase of hubcaps! LOL. What a shallow existence. It's all about immediate gratification for some insignificant material item. A sad commentary on the state of world. Sad for you that you were not embarrassed to post it.

          • Anonymous says:

            I’d rather have hubcaps than a fake invisible sky fairy, yes indeed. I’d pray for you, but talking to yourself is a sign of delusional thinking so I ought not.

          • Google Me says:

            Hubcaps are not the pinnacle, but they are more important than bullsxxt false metaphysics. 

            I  also know full well that my existence, grounded in reality and not mired in BS, is much more enriching than any could be going through life laboring under a misapprehension as to the nature of reality.   There's no way that I would be embarrassed to acknowledge my commitment to reality (but I will do so anonymously so that you don't burn me at the stake).

          • Just Commentin' says:

            The comment was no more trivial than those nauseating bumper stickers that say "God is my Pilot". 

            To them I say, "Yeah buddy, take your hand off the wheel and see where you end up!"

            I believe in God too but I would be embarassed to put one of those stickers on my vehicle.

            Anyway…gee.. youare taking things kinda literally there, dude. I think the comment was trying to make a point about tangible, immediate and meaningful results regardless of the desired outcome.

  20. Yo Mama says:

    God knows the futrue so he knew that his creations would turn out flawed and sinful but he made us anyway. Then he had to impregnate hisown mother so that he could be born on Earth in order to be tortured and killed as a human sacrifce so that we could be forgiven for being the flawed beings he made us to be.

    After he died went up to heaven to be with himself.

    Today, 2,000 years later, the majority of the people on Earth are still unconvinced that this story is true and are therefore destined for hell according to the Bible.

    Yeah, uh, makes perfect sense. Where do I sign up?


    • Anonymous says:

      Err. Nope. Try again. God made us perfect with free will to choose good or evil. He even gave us instructions about what was good and what was evil and warned of the consequences of choosing the latter.

      It's a bit like a father, Jim, wanting his teenage son, Rob, to exercise some responsibility giving him the keys to car giving the freedom to drive all over town but just not down one particular street, and tells him he will get hauled out of his car by the thugs and beaten within an inch of his life if he does. One day one slick dude, Tony, hails Rob while he is driving in town jumps in the car and tells him that Nogo Street is where all the action is at – PARTEE!. When Rob hesitates remembering what he had been told by his father Jim, Tony tells him "hey, trust me, your dad just doesn't want you to have any fun. I'll bet when he was your age he drove down Nogo Street". Rob is now convinced that his dad has been holding out on him and goes to Nogo Street. Sure enough his father's words come true. The car his stolen and Rob is very badly beaten and left for dead. In fact he will die unless he receives some emergency treatment. His father sees Rob has not returned and realises that he has done exactly what he told him not to do. He sents the elder brother to Nogo Street equipped to administer the life saving treatment. This is where you come in. You are Rob. Rob blames his father and says this shows he shouldn't have been born, that it is all his dad's fault for giving the keys to car, and that he doesn't want any of that treatment that he's got but he will hold Jim responsible for what has happened to him.

      BTW you haven't quite got the Trinity doctrine sorted out. God didn't impregnate "his own mother".   

      • Anonymous says:

        It seems to me that you have missed one of the main points of Genesis.  In your story, Nogo Street represents danger (thugs) and illicit excitement (partee!).  In Genesis, the apple represents neither of these — it represents knowledge.  Adam and Eve are punished not for depravity, but for simple curiosity.  Their crime is a desire to know the truth about the world around them — that, and disobedience.  Throughout Genesis, and through the rest of the bible, unthinking obedience is valued above any higher moral purpose.  Lot is praised for offering up his daughters for rape; Abraham for his willingness to commit child sacrifice.  I am gobsmacked every time I read it.  The primary lesson I can see here is that God wants from us both willful ignorance and obedience even when the command requires depravity.  Your story is not at all comparable.

        • Anonymous says:

          Nope. It was not just knowledge. It was knowledge of good AND EVIL. The point was that tasting of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge gave evil access into man's life. We don't know exactly what the 'fruit' was, but we do know that it was very enticing, and described in sensually appealing terms hence the appropriateness of my analogy. By yielding to Satan rather than obeying God man made Satan his ruler. God's instruction was for man's good, but you are still going with 'God was holding out on him, after all what is wrong with some knowledge', i.e. Satan's version.

          Lot was a flawed character. He is not presented in the Bible as an example for us to follow. God's messengers prevented him from going through with offering up his daughters. He is not praised for it. He is instead a picture of the backslidden believer who chooses to live right on the edge of depravity for financial gain and he winds up in deep trouble as a result and needs rescuing not once, but twice.

          Faith is valued very highly by God. Without it it is impossible to please him. The important point in the story of Abraham and Isaac is that Abraham trusted God completely and God would never have allowed him to harm his son.

          Part of the key is to actually study the Bible and discern (with the help of the Holy Spirit) what it is really saying to us from it and not to debunk it or look for proof texts for a particular point of view.  In particular it is unwise to seize on any behaviour of any bible character and say that because it is in the Bible it means God approved of it. All of these characters (with the exception of Jesus Christ) sinned and they are presented warts and all which I think shows they are authentic.  

          • Anonymous says:

            Thanks for your response.  I found it very interesting — it is nice to get a chance to discover how other people think about these things.  Still, I don't feel that yours is a definitive interpretation.  I think it may be fair to say that you, also, are reading the text to "look for proof" of what you already believe.  I guess we are all prone to doing the same things.

            Several biblical scholars have interpreted this tree as being "the tree of all knowledge", and, if you will allow me to change your emphasis a little, it is known widely as the tree of "GOOD and evil", which introduces a binary opposite similar to manyothers found in Genesis — light/dark, male/female, abundance/famine…etc.  Thus its authors imply the whole sweeping mess of human existence on earth, not simply evil as your analogy above suggests.

            As far as the character of Lot goes, he is certainly represented in the bible as a "worthy" man and a man morally positioned above others; he is described by Peter as "just" and "righteous" and it is made clear that he is "delivered" from Sodom as the result of his higher moral standing.  As a woman, you'll have to forgive me if I find a man who would willingly surrender his daughters to gang rape to be less than just.  This is a bit more than a "wart", in my humble opinion.

            In the case of Abraham, I agree. The point *is* that Abraham trusted God, and, in some interpretations at least, was willing without question to murder his own child.  Of course, there are many other interpretations and arguments as to what Abraham understood and why he followed this command, but you can read about those yourself on Wikipedia or in any good volume of biblical scholarship.  Again, I find Abraham's behaviour (and God's, to be frank) to represent more than a "wart" in terms of ethics.

            My point is that yours is only one interpretation — even amongst Christians.  Mine is another.  Since there is no good way, after all the editing and translations of the bible over the centuries, to know fully what its authors intended.  Whatever they intended, however, the story of Genesis is much more complicated than your analogy claims, with much further reaching (and not always palatable) implications as a moral and ethical guide.  

            • Anonymous says:

              Sorry — scratch the "since" in the penultimate sentence.  Failure to proofread.

            • Anonymous says:

              We disagree, of course. Lot was only righteous by comparison to those around him in Sodom. It does not mean that all of his actions or motives were righteous. In a moment of terror in his mind he was choosing the lesser of two evils -the rape of his daughters versus the rape of his male guests. The story in Genesis 18 and 19 shows that he was delivered on account of Abraham's intercession.

              As regards Abraham, clearly we have completely different perspectives.    

              • Anonymous says:

                The lesser of two evils? interesting. Please explain.

                • Anonymous says:

                  It is a common expression. It means he considered both courses evil but one more evil than the other.   

            • Anonymous says:

              "Since there is no good way, after all the editing and translations of the bible over the centuries, to know fully what its authors intended".

              That is clear exaggeration. Scholarship suggests that the Bible has been exceptionally well preserved over millennia. For example prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 the earliest extant Hebrew manuscript of the OT was the Codex Cairo (AD 895), yet the Dead Scrolls which date between the 3rd and 1st century BC are word for word identical in more than 95% of the text with the Codex Cairo. The differences consisted mostly in obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling and did not substantially affect the meaning of the text. Considering the number of transcriptions the scriptures would have undergone over the course of over 1000 years that is almost miraculous. Their transmission is vastly superior to any other document of antiquity.  

              The multiple translations and improvements in scholarship have actually increased our understanding of the Bible significantly.

      • Anne T. Krist says:

        "God made us perfect…"

        That's the hubris that makes christians the proper recipient of full-scale ridicule.  You think that there is a god that made you perfect, and in "his" own image.  News flash: if there were a god that was in our image, it would be one sorry excuse for a god.  I mean, just look at us!

        Truth is that we are a simple biological infestation on an insignificant planet in a boring solar system in the corner of one of 500 billion much more interesting galaxies, and not that different from the other biological infestations on this rock.  Problem is that we've evolved (as have some of our co-infestors) to the point of having some self-awareness (consciousness), and now we think we're something special.  We're not. 

        And if there were a god it would be completely disinterested in us, which is wholly consistent with the crap that goes on in human existence.

        You are right – nobody named god impregnated his own mother, because there is no such entity.

        • Anonymous says:

          "News flash: if there were a god that was in our image, it would be one sorry excuse for a god.  I mean, just look at us!"

          Hey, speak for yourself!


          • Anne T. Krist says:

            Actually I was….

            Have you seen the crap we do to each other?  We are a particularly nasty infestation on this little planet.

  21. Whodatis says:

    (Excellent post.)

    "Jesus Christ" would have absolutely NOTHING to do with what is taking place in this country today.

    Bottom line.

    I despise, condemn and scoff at every single two-faced and maggot-like individual that insists on referring to said entitiy to gain an advantage within the political / power playing field.

    Disgusting and shameless scum is the entire lot of them!

    However, until the electorate wakes up and realizes how they are being manipulated nothing will change.


  22. Vikki D. says:

    You`ve got it !! This is correct every bit of it.

    Thank you.

    • Anonymous says:

      Jesus does not live in these islands anymore… he did live here but seven years later Immigration had him rolled over.

      • Anonymous says:

        As long as there are believers who live in these Islands then Jesus lives here. You seem to suggest that the only true believers were expats who got rolled over.

        • Ummm.... says:

          I expect you are responding to a joke… maybe?  A little humour?  A dig at Cayman immigration policies? A political statement delivered in the medium of humour?  Maybe?

          I doubt the original poster was making any comment about who the believers are as between the expats and the Islanders.

  23. Anonymous says:

    The whole God/Allah/Jehovah blah blah/religion thing is all a stupid fairy tale and one that has brought countless acts of misery in the world as the adherents of these different versions of the fairy tale act like barbarians and try to impose their nonsensical beliefs on others.

  24. Anonymous says:

    The indentured slavery law in Cayman that passes for an immigration law allows Caymanian employers to shamelessly abuse 3rd world people.

    A Christian culture? What hypocrisy!

  25. Rorschach says:


  26. Sympathetic watcher says:

    Being religious and being a christian are two different things. The christian person struggles to be faithful and yet sometimes in their struggle they falter and lose faith. The religious person goes to services and does their daily task as if they are perfect. Sadly that is where we see most hypocracy. It is difficult to be a christian, but no one should judge a person who is trying their best to live a life pleasing to god.  

  27. Anonymous says:


    Christians are preparing for the Judgement Day – See this web address on CNN – all the news sites are talking about it –


    21st MAY 2011 is the last Day before the RAPTURE!!!


    • Anonymous says:

      Good…I can't wait til all you "believers" disappear tomorrow and let the rest of us get on with it.

    • Anonymous says:

      I am prepared for His return whether that is tomorrow. BTW Christians generally are not saying that, one radio talk show host for a Christian program is saying that. The Bible says no that no one knows the day or the hour.  So if you wake up tomorrow and we are all still here it makes no difference to the Christian faith.  

    • fred says:

      So that means no work on Monday?  :o)

    • anonymousss says:

      Do you own a car, computer, and tv set? 

      If so, please contact me at 91667534 

  28. arf says:

    I dare you:

    Who's manipulating who?

  29. Anonymous says:

    'cayman christianity'…the ultimate oxymoron

  30. Anonymous says:

    Well said Carolina.

    Sadly, too many people that claim to be a Christian have no idea what that really means…especially in Cayman where we have "cultural Christianity" (the idea that simply going to church and believing in God makes you a Christian).

    Jesus said in John 13:35 that "by this everyone will know you are my disciples, if you love one another."  Anyone claiming to be a follower of Christ should regularly do a self-checkup and ask "Is this how people know me? As someone who loves others?".  Imagine a Cayman where everyone loves their neighbor more than themselves….then we could truly say Cayman is a "Christian nation".

  31. Anonymous says:

    In my experience Christians are the most hypocritical bunch of people I have ever encountered all over the world, but it surely is worse in Cayman! Maybe it is because it is such a small community, who knows.

     I don't care if you are a "real" Christian or not as I should be able to see by your way of living, how you treat others, your moral standards and ethical values whether you are a Christian or not. You shouldn't need to tell me!

    Only Christians lead into a conversations with, "well you know I am a Christian", bla, bla. I have never experienced this with any of my Hindu, Jewish, Muslem, Buddhist friends. It's like they want to ensure at the onset of the conversation that being Christian makes them superior or something. So annoying!

    • Anonymous says:

      Ms Carolina Ferreira is correct!  For myself, I don't care what religion you prefer.  I don't even care if are a non-believer.  It isn't any of my business what you believe in, but keep it out of politics!  I believe some countries have a "separation of church and state" included in their constitution, and that's the way it should be.  Politiciansare supposed to run the country to make it greater…. and better for its citizens, no matter what beliefs they might have.  It's obvious our Cayman leaders try to influence voters in every way they can, for the purpose of staying in office and getting fatter.

    • Anonymous says:

      Any time somebody comes up to me with this"I am a Christian" introduction, I am immediately on my guard.

      • not a christian says:

        I'm with you.  I put one hand on my wallet, the other on my balls, and I back away slowly, in case it's contagious.

  32. Anonymous says:

    I love this woman…