Atheists Furious At Yet Another Exclusion

Protests are popping up across the United States this weekend by atheists who are furious that they were not invited to speak at the National Day of Prayer.

David Silverman, “Once again atheists are being treated like we're second class citizens.”

Returning from a book signing tour for her tome “Casual Sex Without the Slightest Bit of Guilt,” Greta Xtina, seeing misogyny at work in the atheist exclusion opined, “Being a Keynote Speaker at a World Day of Prayer breakfast would have shown the nation that we atheists deserve to be recognized and deferred to where ever we go. The only thing stopping this from happening are hetero white male fundamentalist evangelical Christians who are clearly misogynist homophobics.”

In an interview from his home and speaking under condition of anonymity, Al Stephanelli promised, “We atheists are going to attack any and every Cheerleader who dares to pray in any school in this nation. And we're going to attack them every day for the next 365 days until by this time next year Christian leaders will just naturally beg atheists to address World Day of Prayer meetings.” Al's wife was heard clapping in the kitchen. 

Mind Bending Ignorance

“Most Christians are really atheists who feel trapped in their family’s religion,”

David Silverman

When you read that, does your jaw drop just a little? As you lean a little bit towards the computer screen does your brow furrow and your mind go, “What? Most Christians are atheists?” 

And this meretricious observation comes via Times Square, from a Bright who is  American atheist's Leader - representing 5% of the population. What kind of logic must less able atheist thinkers possess? 

I have no doubt that there are many, many people who are “trapped” for whatever reason in the beliefs of their parents; children of religious parents and children of atheist parents. But to label someone a Christian because h/her parents went to Church or because the parents were genuine followers of Jesus? Seriously?

As the line goes, “God does not have grandchildren.”

Silverman's line of thinking does explain one thing. It explains how atheists can say, “I used to be a Christian.”

By being a Christian, what people like Silverman mean is:

. I prayed – therefore I was a Christian.

. I got baptised – therefore I was a Christian.

. I read the Bible – therefore I was a Christian.

. I sang in the choir – therefore I was a Christian.

. I took the Sacraments – therefore I was a Christian.

. I was a Pastor / Priest – therefore I was a Christian.

. I taught Sunday School – therefore I was a Christian.

. I tried to be a good person – therefore I was a Christian

. I went to Church with my parents – therefore I was a Christian.

. I had a belief in Christian beliefs therefore I must have been a Christian.

The problem is, Jesus said that none of these things are deciding factors as to who is and who is not a follower or disciple of His, i.e. a Christian. While a follower of Jesus will do these things, doing these things do not a Christian make.

In reality, a Christian is someone who “has an intimate, healed and forgiven relationship with Jesus.

In reality we can have all of the rules and none of Jesus.

Therefore we have on the one hand people like John Loftus and Bart Erhman, who emanate, from a Spiritual perspective, a perfidious stench. It allows them to say with a straight face, “I was a Christian right up until I wasn't.” While on the other hand we have people like David Silverman, and Greta Christina who, if they realised the extent of the ignorance they spew regarding what it means to be a Christian they would hide their heads in shame.

. Being a Christian to these people has nothing to do with relationship and everything to do with behaviours.

. Being a Christian to these people has nothing to do with submission to one's Creator and everything to do with working and striving and following rules.

That's why Jesus warned, “Many will come to Me on the day of Judgement and say, “Jesus you are my Lord, and the proof is in all the things that I've done in Your name,” but I will say to them, “Get away from Me. I never knew you.””

Silverman is hell bent on attacking Christianity but he doesn't have a clue what or who defines a Christian. He and those like Him say that Christianity (the teachings of Jesus) is dangerous but He couldn't tell you one teaching of Jesus that is dangerous.

As I've said many times, “For me, to deny the existence of Jesus the Messiah would be like denying the existence of my wife or children. It can't be done.”

According to Jesus, a Christian is someone who knows Jesus and knows Him as Messiah. A follower of Jesus knows the reality of His existence to the point of acting upon what Jesus Christ taught about Himself, about life, death, sin, forgiveness and the resurrection (His and ours). 

This type of "doing" has nothing to do with guilt or shame or duty and everything to do with gratefulness and love.

Jesus taught that a follower of His is a person who is so certain in the reality of a living Christ that s/he depends upon Jesus alone for salvation. He taught that a disciple of His is someone who depends upon what Jesus calls His Word (The Bible), and upon His Spirit for guidance and strength in daily living.

Like Dawkins and ALL the other leaders in the atheist movement, while garrulous and stentorian to the extreme, they speak of things they know nothing about. 

Merry Christmas
God Bless
Happy Holy Days

Greta Christina & the 1st Church of Atheism

It brings a tear to the eye to listen to leading Preachers in Atheism imploring their flock to greater heights in moral living. 

Do good. 

Be good. 

For the sake of Atheism show the world what being an atheist can do for your character.

How disheartening it must be to run away from organized religion because it tells you how to live, only to smack headlong into organized Atheism and find it telling you how to live.

Ah, me, could life be any sweeter?


You see, if people are already good, and atheists are infamous for telling us that they don't need God because they are good, then you shouldn't t need to encourage those kinds of people to BE good. One should be able to assume that they're already doing good things. Reality proves otherwise but . . . still.


We Christians, on the other hand come to Jesus  because He's allowed us to recognize that we ARE NOT good. It makes perfect sense for our leaders to encourage us toward better behaviour because in reality, we're immoral to the core. But atheists? 


If you need material for a comedy series, take a peek at atheism. There's enough there for a life-time.

When speaking of “ought” and “should” and “objective morality,” atheists are using language borrowed from a world-view to which they are in direct opposition. On atheism, moral values simply cannot be applied to feelings, motives, thoughts and behaviours. Ideas of moral responsibility, regret, praise or blame, are anathema to a deterministic, natural universe. Of course, like the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic, atheists claim that we invent the laws of morality rather than discover them.

Understandably, and I do understand, atheists would love for moral freedom of choice, and objective morality itself to not exist. Many a famous atheist has announced that his love of, and acceptance of atheism rests firmly on his desire to not be beholding to any restrictions on his lusts and desires. “Let's just do it like they do it on the Animal Channel.”

Atheist Technicalities

We're now into "morals on the go" where atheists must ask, "But how about this situation? Is this ok to do?"

Hugo is no different.

First of all the term "atheists" (which you say is a gross generalisation) is directly from Greta's blog. She includes all atheists in her guilt free fornication.

God says that for the protection of marriage, of the children and of society in general, sex is to be reserved for marriage and marriage is to be till "death do us part." While non-Christians can technically go do as they please, "morally correct sexual contact" for Christians or non Christiains takes place within the context of marriage. Of course the "acts" need to be consensual and not demeaning to either partner even within marriage but all things being equal, God created us profoundly sexual beings and He meant for us to enjoy it within those guidelines.

Those who rebel against their Creator also rebel against His guidelines and so we have what we have.
Divorce by the millions.
Abortions by the tens of millions.
Children abanondoned by one or both parents.
People using each other as sexual objects and the emotional fallout that comes from that.

Atheist / pagan utopia.

Who could ask for more?

Sexting Is Cool?

A friend told me today about some politician in the States, married for less than a year who was caught sexting with several women, none of whom were his wife.

That’s not the worst part.

The sad thing, the tragic thing is that, as my friend told me, most of the people interviewed on our local news channel said that in their minds, sexting by a married person or with a married person is not adultery. A few of the women who spoke with the roving reporter said that sexting was in fact best when done with someone who is married. “It adds to the excitement.” I doubt if one of the women was atheist Greta Christina but I'd be surprised if she didn't agree. Guilt free adultery is highly prized by atheists. At least that what they brag about in their surveys.

To those who say the Bible is out of date, I say, it is becoming more and more relevant by the hour. The worship of sex puts Temple Prostitutes well within our reach. Our empty souls have placed sex at such a demand that we can’t even avoid a plague of STD’s. We’d rather kill tens of millions while waiting for a miracle pill than risk appearing uncool by suggesting that perhaps casual sex is not such a good thing. Society is moving inexorably back into ancient times, not just by the increasing brutality inflicted upon humans by humans, but especially as it pertains to the increasingly low view held of women. There are more women sold into sexual slavery today than at any other time in history. And modern women seem more than willing to play that role, somehow seeing their sexualised selves as progressive.

Of course sexting is adultery! You are giving to another person what rightfully and exclusively belongs to your spouse, i.e. your emotions, your soul, your love. Every moment a person spends lusting after another person is a moment that is stolen from your partner.

Why would you want to become involved with a man or women who is so self-absorbed, so self-obsessed, so selfish, self-centred and cruel that s/he would do that to h/her spouse? That’s what you call exciting? To spend time with a moral invalid?

What does that say about you and your emotional and relational stability?

Any emotionally, spiritually and relationally healthy individual would respond to your sexting offer by saying, "Why would I want to be with someone who is so self-absorbed, so self-obsessed, so selfish, self-centred and cruel that s/he would do that to my spouse?"

Unless you have the most pathetic of marriages (open) where you are both so self-absorbed that you stand no chance of being faithful to each other, sharing your body, mind and soul with another, even as a fantasy (which is really just electronic foreplay) is the very definition of cheating.

And for those who say it isn’t cheating, let them find out that their partner is doing it with someone else and then ask them the same question.

I think sexting is pathetic - it's just another example of two human beings using each other for selfish means. This is not something we need in a world where the overall level of love diminishes exponentially by the day.