8. That Jew Died for You


Take a moment to watch the video below by Jaclyn Glenn.  (She doesn’t omit anything important from the original.)  I’ll wait.



Seriously, watch the video so that what you’re about to read makes sense.

Finished?  Good!

For starters, I am less disgusted with how she attempts to slander Christianity (extremely ineptly) and more disgusted with how poor her logic is in the attempt.  For a self-professed “logical” person (she even wears snazzy LOGIC tees for gosh sake’s) to use so many poor comparisons, poor logical connections between points of information, and just downright false information is astounding to me.  She should be ashamed of herself and strive to live up to her calling to be “logical” more faithfully next time around.

Now, for starters, it seems to me that her opening the video using the term “Christian propaganda” is just a ploy to indicate her disagreement with the message in the video.  I wonder if I would be similarly permitted to call her channel “atheist propaganda” because I disagree with the things that she says?  She simply tosses in the word “propaganda” (something with a blatantly negative connotation) and lets that word’s ugly subtext do her arguing for her, but this is disingenuous, and she knows it.

She should actually address the video instead of leading off her own video response by poisoning the entire discussion with a nasty (and in this case, untrue) word like “propaganda” when it so obviously doesn’t apply.

But on to her discussion.  She begins with this nonsense:

“I’m not saying that even if the Jesus character were real that He would have deserved a crucifixion, but what He did was an uprising against the government; anyone would have been killed for that!  It had nothing [she’s quite emphatic here] to do with who He was or who His followers thought He was.”

She then goes on to say:

“Oh, and not to mention that Holocaust victims are actually real people and so are Holocaust survivors’ descendants.”

Seems pretty real to me.  How about for you guys?

It seems to me that she is making the ludicrous assertion that Jesus is somehow less real than Holocaust victims.  Sorry to disappoint you, Jaclyn, but no one sane actually believes that Jesus never existed.  It is a widely accepted fact that the man was a historical figure who actually did roam the land of Galilee 2,000 years ago, and only the most foolish of lunatics believe otherwise.  In fact, Bart Ehrman, a former Fundamentalist Christian turned agnostic, wrote a book detailing how Jesus (a man) “became” God, but actually demonstrates that the man himself existed in order to build his case.

And yes, His execution totally did have something to do with who He claimed to be, who He was, and who His followers thought that He was.  The Sanhedrin (the council of Jewish leaders) had Him brought in at night to question Him, and when asked if He was the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One [God], Jesus replied “I AM.”  For this crime of blasphemy, the Jewish leaders had Him brought before Pilate to be killed.


Jaclyn’s main argument is that anyone would have been sentenced to death for causing unrest in the Empire, and she is probably right.  But here’s the problem with her “logic”: while it is most definitely true that Jesus was the source of much unrest in the land at this time, the primary reason that He was sent to Pilate to be crucified was because of who He claimed to be.  The unrest was a natural outgrowth of that assertion by Jesus and belief by His followers.  This is what caused the unrest, but that unrest would never have happened if He had not claimed to be the Son of God.  So, actually, His crucifixion did in fact have just about everything to do with who He claimed to be, who He was, and who His followers thought that He was.  Nice try Jaclyn; close, but no cigar.

Yet another gem from the powerful mind of Ms. Glenn:

“And just because His followers thought that He was saving them from sin, it doesn’t mean that He actually [again, super emphatic for whatever reason] saved them from anything.  A belief doesn’t make something a reality.”

And yet she does exactly this when she talks about Hitler later on in her video!  Hitler believed that he was acting in accord with Almighty God in exterminating the Jews, and he believed that this was in accord with Christian teaching and tradition, but the fact of the matter is that it was not—far from it, in fact.  She is right: belief in something does not necessarily equate to that something’s truth. She, however, ignores this obvious fact (one that she had just stated) and essentially makes this nonsensical assertion: when Jesus’ followers “believed” that He saved them from sin, they are crazy and worthy to be maligned and ridiculed as such, but when Hitler “believes” just as intensely that he is acting in a Christian way in starting WWII and the Holocaust, well, shit, he must be doing just that!  She contradicts herself big time here.

She then goes on a whole spiel about the death and Resurrection of Jesus (as if she actually knows a thing about Christianity other than what the Amazing Atheist’s Douchebag Bible has told her).  She says:

“Jesus—God Incarnate—knew what was going to happen.  He knew that He was going to *“die”* and then rise from the dead again three days later.  So… I’m sorry: He didn’t actually die; that’s not really that big of a sacrifice, knowing that you’re just gonna be in a coma for a few days and then wake up.  It’s not really the same thing as being dead.”

Well, you’re right on the first bit: congrats.  Jesus was, and is, fully God and fully man.  And yes, He did have divine foreknowledge concerning His eventual death and Resurrection.  How you start there and then jump to the next bit of your argument really is baffling to me, however.

So the fact that the Son of God, the Word, God Incarnate, “knew” that He would suffer, die, and rise again three days later somehow diminishes both 1.  His sufferings and 2.  His death?  I’m not buying it.

As for point number one: just because He knew that He would suffer and die, but then later rise, in no way diminishes the terrible pain and anguish that He underwent.  Remember: this is God we are talking about.  He had no need to come down and suffer and die for us: He is perfectly sufficient without us.  But the fact that He did so while we were set against God in our sins—enemies of God—is a testament to the true love and commitment that Jesus had for us.

"And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."
In addition, it seems that knowing in advance the agony and pain that awaited Him would be all the more reason to flee such a dismal future, right?  Doesn’t the fact that He persevered in the face of torture make His act even more praiseworthy than if He didn’t have foreknowledge of what was awaiting Him?

Jesus, just casually moving freely toward impending death.  But no biggie, right?

Finally, it seems that Jaclyn is forgetting the very important detail that Jesus was, and is, fully God and fully man. What man relishes the thought of his future prosecution, persecution, and eventual execution? None. What man wants to die a gruesome death? None. As a man, He feared death and pain just like any other man, yet He persevered. She is unfair in her criticism of the sufferings Jesus would have to undergo with attempted appeals to His foreknowledge (which in no way diminishes the act itself, and in fact, probably increases the laudability of it), and with her disregard of Jesus’ true humanity.


As for point two: I am honestly shocked that she could even say that He did not actually die!  So because He rose three days later, He was never actually dead before that...?  From what was He rising?  A nap?  He was dead, Jaclyn!  The Romans made sure that everyone they were charged to execute actually died; they were known for their record-keeping, organization, and dedication to seeing a job through.  People put on crosses always died, Jaclyn. The Roman soldiers would never have let live a man that the leaders of the Jews wanted dead so badly.  This is just plain silliness.


She also makes the claim that she does not want to get into an “elementary school level debate” about whether or not Hitler was an atheist or a Christian because she “gets annoyed” when people say that she “has so much in common with Hitler” when they find out that she’s a vegetarian because “apparently Hitler was also a vegetarian.”

It is funny how she absolves herself from any association with Hitler with both of them being vegetarians—“there is no possible way that this links me and Hitler together in any way” she thinks to herself—yet she will go on to slander an entire group of believing Christians for the actions of a single madman just because they allegedly share the same belief.  I smell hypocrisy: anyone else?

Having authentic black and white pictures of WWII scenes (especially with Hitler and the pope) while she voices-over does not give her “point” any more credibility, and I really do wonder why she thinks that it does any such thing.  Hitler’s being “baptized a Roman Catholic, being an altar boy, wanting to become a priest, attending Catholic monastery school, and later expressing his ‘Christian support’ to the German citizenry and soldiers” all have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Hitler was actually a Christian.

Just like Jaclyn used to be Catholic and did all the things little Catholic kids do does not mean that she is today a Catholic, right?  In fact, I know that she would vehemently resent that label.  So why ignore this same reasoning with Hitler?  What’s the matter? Don’t wanna claim him as your fellow atheist?  Because that is what he was, Jaclyn: he rejected Christian teaching wholeheartedly.  It was just an effective way to galvanize power and support for himself in the early years of Naziism.


Notice when he did these things: was it in the early years or later years of his rise and rule?  He obviously needed to employ Christianity as he tried to gain power because he knew that people would gravitate toward it, since it was familiar.  After he had consolidated all the power of the State and had literally become the State, the teachings were never thereafter heeded in any serious manner but were kept in place as a mere convenience and prop for use by the Nazis.


Finally, she brings up Mein Kampf, Hitler’s autobiographical manifesto.  (I was wondering how long it would take her to do that.)  Here are the two quotes she utilizes: “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” and “We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity.  Our movement is Christian.”

This just goes back to my previous point about belief and the truth of a belief.  This was also Jaclyn’s point: “A belief doesn’t make something a reality.”  So Hitler believes that by exterminating Jews he is doing God’s will and that his Nazi movement is Christian… so what?  Who cares?  Does this mean that he is in fact doing God’s will and that the movement is in fact Christian?  Crazy people believe a lot of crazy things; do we regard every utterance by a sadistic madman as Truth Itself?  No, but apparently we’re willing to make an exception for Hitler because, well, because everyone hates Christianity, right?



I mean, who wouldn't believe everything this guy said, huh?
She closes with this utterly scathing remark: “How dare you use the death of millions of people to propagate your beliefs, especially whenever those beliefs—Christianity—is what played a major role in this happening to the Jewish people to begin with.  How dare you!”

I think that I have shown that this is not what happened in the video at all.  But I do have a counter remark: How dare you, Jaclyn Glenn, use a video that is attempting to evangelize as a prop to spread your hate, pettiness, and illogic.  You make this a habit: picking on people (and doing it poorly) in order to spread your vicious brand of atheism.  It’s time someone called you out on it.  This is the first time that I’ve been in a position to do so; otherwise, it would have come from me sooner.

Let me know what you guys think in the Comments section!  Was I off-base?  Is Jaclyn actually right, or am I?

61 comments:

  1. She's right. You're wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think she was totally correct in her analysis :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your whole article is based around the fact that Jesus was a real guy who was the son of God - which is fine I suppose but it doesn't do much when trying to argue against an atheist since an atheist or Jew or a Muslim for that matter - doesn't believe that Jesus was the son of God or necessarily even existed.

    No historical evidence has been found that conclusively proves that Jesus ever existed but the holocaust is a fact. Comparing a possibly fictional character to a factual event is offensive.

    Original Comment deleted as I found some typos

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree she's right your wrong

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lots of bad logic in this article.... You keep using your religion and the Bible as though they are evidence of something. That's circular reasoning. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible is true. Therefore all your arguments referring to the Bible are worthless, since the Bible is filled with inaccuracies.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry to say, but I had to stop reading right after your first use of the word "logic".
    Someone who believes in biblical stories talking about logic is just like a born blind person talking about the beauty of a painting.
    But at least the blind person is talking about something real.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Please, quit playing the shifting of burden of proof game. If Jesus historical facts exist please provide solid evidence other than an outdated holy book or a strong desire to want to believe he existed. She's also correct in stating that knowing you're going to die and be resurrected is in no way a sacrifice. If I knew that, for an absolute, indisputable fact that I was going to just come back after death then anything I do that caused my temporary was diminished in significance because of the "fact". Also, crying out "My God, why hath thou forsaken me?" doesn't sound like an "immortal" being knowing he was going to die. It's the psychological characteristics of a flesh and blood human that was merely following his own opinion blindly, with zero proof of validity, realizing how incorrect he was on his final breath.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm not saying Jesus never existed but I do not have any evidence to support these "miracles" that have been attributed to him, therefore I don't believe he was the son of god. Until you provide evidence demonstrating that he was the son of god (first you have to demonstrate god exists) and that he could perform miracles, nobody should believe it. I certainly don't. By the way, you can't use a holy book to demonstrate truth. Anyone could have written the bible. We cannot rely on the accuracy of the bible, as it we written by men. So please give us a better source.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Make more noise. Scream. Rant. Post like the wind. Post in every forum you can think of and anywhere you can imagine. You Deion are wrong. Volume does not equal correctness.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Boring and inconsistent analysis. Find some other thing to do at which you are better. This is not your thing. Really. She is right.

    ReplyDelete
  12. As A Person Of Jewish Faith, I Say Jaclyn Is Correct.I

    ReplyDelete
  13. lol this is a joke right?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "It seems to me that she is making the ludicrous assertion that Jesus is somehow less real than Holocaust victims"
    I have more written fact that Thor excited then you for Jesus. The truth is that she shouldn't debate you even through text, cause she is dealing with fact, and you are dealing with fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  15. As A Person With A Brain, Jaclyn Is Correct.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You complain about Jaclyn's use of the word "Logic" but then insist that Jesus's existence is a fact. That's called a "Logic Fail."

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm sorry. I understand you want Jesus to be what the bibel describes him to be. She is right, Jesus turned against the goverment and was therefore killed. As so may before, and after him. Probably as in all historical goverments and probably all current goverments as well.

    I did not have the strength or energy to read the complete article of nonsense. Sorry for that. I hope I'm not offending you but you are not right.

    The logical argument of using the bible to prove the bible is a circular argument. You can only use that argument to an already beleiving crowd, since it is a false argument.

    Regarding propaganda:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

    If I claimed the "My little ponny" were real, you would call my a lunatic. It goes without saying that fairytales are not real. If I spent 2000 years and millions of people to form this rediculos ideas, it is suddenly facts.

    Because of faith!

    And...

    Faith can be defined as beliefs without proof.

    Jaclyn is not telling you how it all works. She is pointing out some of the flaws in your faith.

    I am telling you this with love in my heart, not hate.

    If there is a god who will greet us after this, I know he will love me more than you ;) I'm not killing people over what priests claim to know of him, that human kind has know for ages is incorrect. I'm beeing good without someone telling how to be good. Learning from my misstakes, getting better every day.

    Best regards
    Your friendly neibourhood atheist

    ReplyDelete
  18. Eerie InhabitantMay 5, 2014 at 4:30 PM

    Your arguments are logical, but only if by "logic" you mean "circular logic". Superman is real because I have a book that shows he is real.

    Please consider revising the "Things he is not good at" in your About Author section.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Having paintings of bible scenes doesn't make it real. We have video of the concentration camps - one myth the other history. Bart Ehrman didn't say Jesus literally became God in fact the opposite. You are misquoting as usual. He said the idea people had of him developed from a person believed to be a prophet into a deity, came long after his death, just like a lot of stories become exaggerated. Santa Claus was based on some characters who probably existed - doesn't mean Santa lives. Paul made him out to be a deity but did not talk about him as an earthly man. Mark, Matthew and Luke he was a man, a prophet. Then John (all made up authors) who wrote about 90 years AD wrote a different story and made him out to be God.
    'Romans kept good records' - well how come they had no records of someone who you say claimed to be God, nothing written about him in the first century by Romans or anyone else outside the gospels - isn't that strange for the 'son of man'? You're wrong about the crucifiction (deliberate) - the whole idea is a slow painful death. According to the gospel (which give different accounts) he 'died' a few hours after being a cross - btw according to the Acts he was hanged on a tree. This was not as big a punishment as others who had to suffer for days. And if you believe he was god, then he didn't suffer human death as he 'rose' in 2 days (not 3). What did he die for - he died as a sacrifice to himself to atone for original sin by Adam and Eve (who never existed), something as God, knew would happen. - no logic.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Historical European Christianity is responsible for centuries of violent anti-semitism, the end result of which was the genocide of Jews under the Nazi regime. To then portray Jesus as the victim of the Nazis is grotesque. Yet it is in keeping the Christianity's modus operandi. Since before Constantine the christians have been portraying themselves as the long-suffering victims of worldly oppression, despite being the dominant force in western culture for 1700 years. So the christians who have been offended by Jaclyn's video are simply carrying on that "proud tradition"! ND

    ReplyDelete
  21. I hate to agree with her but i do... sorry she's right. Using any horrible event to propagate anything at all is not right. It should be left as is

    ReplyDelete
  22. i agree with all the other people that agree with Jaclyn. her arguments are sound and your arguments assume Jesus and/or god are real.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ha, Deion. I don't think I read a single response in support of your dumb ass. People using "Logic" and disagreeing with your poor attempt to justify your silly beliefs. Here's where I knew you weren't going to beat Jaclyn:
    "Now, for starters, it seems to me that her opening the video using the term “Christian propaganda” is just a ploy to indicate her disagreement with the message in the video."
    No, dumbass, it's calling the video what it is. Is it propaganda? Let's see:
    Propaganda is information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda;
    Yup, sounds like she just used logic to label something as what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  24. She's right, you're wrong. Her point about Jesus having actually done something that ended with his crucifixion is only to compare it to the fact that Holocaust victims had done nothing at all to deserve torture and death. And another thing, let's pretend for a moment that there is a god and heaven. As humans, we can never know what lies after death. So if god made himself mortal and was tortured and killed, he would have known exactly where he was going when he died. Big deal. What sort of stupid sacrifice is that?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Your lack of logic and reasoning skills is painful to read. Which would explain your belief is fairy tales such as an invisible sky daddy.

    ReplyDelete
  26. If you cannot see how DEEPLY offensive this is to those who were subjected to such a horrible event, then there is something wrong with you.

    This isn't about faith, this is about (what should be) basic human decency.

    ReplyDelete
  27. A 5 year old could have made a better case for believing in Santa.
    Give it up pal. You are not only embarrassing yourself, you are embarrassing the sacred name of Lady Jeebius of the infernal Wilful Ignorance. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Religious people can't help it: they're so indoctrinated by their far-fetched fairy tales they simply can't grasp science, reason and logic. My head is really hurting after reading this because I'm totally baffled by the amount of circular "logic", bad arguments and flat-out ridiculous comparisons that are being made here. If you want to believe in an invisible sky daddy (okay, I admit the poster above me inspired me to say this, haha), fine by me, just do NOT try to convince other people that there's some kind of credibility to the beliefs since they are not more than fairy tales. The fact that you're too ignorant and stupid to grasp science doesn't mean science isn't true, it just means you're ignorant and stupid and unable to grasp more than the illusionary boundaries of your own pathetically little dream world that you created for yourself, with no facts to back up your beliefs. Because remember THIS: wanting something to be true does not make it true.

    ReplyDelete
  29. We can hardly pin down the existence of someone several hundred years ago, let alone several thousand years ago The best we can say is that he MAY have existed.
    It's true that belief does not equal truth, except when the topic is religion, which is SOLELY ABOUT BELIEF and your belief is everything in that case. Therefore, as he believed he was Christian, he WAS Christian.

    Or to put it another way, you believe in Christ right? Well in that case you can't possibly be Christian!

    ReplyDelete
  30. You lost me at "It is a widely accepted fact that the man was a historical figure who actually did roam the land of Galilee 2,000 years ago, and only the most foolish of lunatics believe otherwise."

    It is not a widely accepted fact, if it was, then how can you explain the growing number of athiest or non-theistic christians (mutually exclusive)? To claim that "only the most foolish of lunatics believe otherwise." essentially insults a significant portion of the academic world. You know, like science, but I imagine you're too small minded for that as well. The Jesus character that you believe in (according to the work of fiction he is in) doesn't go around trashing other people's beliefs, nor does he force his own onto others. You might consider that sentiment.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I think you're misquoting Jaclyn when you capitalize "He" and "His" ;)

    ReplyDelete
  32. Yes, there is anecdotal evidence Jesus lived. There is no evidence he was born of a virgin mother, was the Son of God, performed miracles or was resurrected. That's just mythology. Granted, it's a gripping story, but so is The Iliad, Macbeth and Star Wars.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Sounds to me like she made some very valid points, and she kept her focus on why the video was so offensive. you're wrong my friend, and yes i know you'll probably think im biased because im an atheist but honestly, i find more faults in your logic than hers, and two write about it here would take an eternity so im just gonna flat out say it. Your points are either not accurate, false, or illogical.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I just love this paragraph/arguement: "Hitler’s being “baptized a Roman Catholic, being an altar boy, wanting to become a priest, attending Catholic monastery school, and later expressing his ‘Christian support’ to the German citizenry and soldiers” all have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Hitler was actually a Christian."

    He wasn't a REAL christian!! He did everything required to become a christian. He had the official church rites performed that showed him to be a christian. He called himself a christian. The church called him a christian. The church never ex-communicated him (still haven't)....they ony ex-communicated one Nazi, and that was for marryng a protestant. But you now say he wasn't a REAL christian. When was it that he suddenly became a non-christian? 'Cause I'm sure he didn't deny the existence of the holy spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I don't find her logic to be weak as you claim, but weaker as it you may find, still proves the facts. That's the irony..

    ReplyDelete
  36. Oh, and one other thing you fail to fathom... 'premise'. When debating grownups on matters philosophical, you need to at least have an aligning premise. For a couple of thousand years, philosophers and religious folk alike could not agree on a premise... do we exist or is existence an illusion? Are we in the image of God? Is God an image of us? Are we just matter in the same way as a tree is matter? When we die, do we exist? Did we ever? Blah blah blah... then, along came a great bloke called Descartes who famously said, "I think therefore I am." The reason that quote is so famous is because it settled the premise of philosophical debate. We exist in the way we presume to exist, as conscious and sentient humans with free will. From that premise, serious debate begins. Where you fail is that your premise is "God exists therefore I think therefore I am." Before you shout your supernatural beliefs as facts, you must first prove God exists before we can take you seriously. Your premise is weak, unprovable and implausible, and because it relies on a leap of faith at the start, everything you say from then on about Jesus is redundant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I love you, Perseus. Very succinctly put. Thank you.

      Delete
  37. I am ashamed that I have to call you part of our society. Your claims lack any decency. By the way, I am German and I feel as much ashamed by you as I feel by this part of my nation's history.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Quite seriously, you have to be one of the most ignorant humans on the planet. In this video it is so obvious that you have no regard for the truth. And in saying that I am strangely embarrassed for you, here it is the 21st century and you actually feel the need to make up lies to support your delusion.

    You sir have been caught doing this over and over, some of that got you banned from YouTube. I would have thought you would have learned your lesson but then it became far too obvious that you actually feel better being ignorant to the truth and reality because you some how have come to realize that you get off by believing in a god that will discipline you, give you love ,and promise to watch you even after you die for eternity (kind of perverted if you ask me).

    And whats worse is that all of your beliefs are based on a book written a couple thousand years ago by a bunch of early iron age goat herders. A book that was handed down in the oral tradition for many generations before humans developed writing. Even in modern times oral story tellers number in population, while in Morocco in 2011, these story tellers would hold very captive audiences in town squares. Then after being put down in a very archaic written language it was translated many times from that archaic language. In fact translated so many times incorrectly that the science of linguistics is still making discoveries and corrections.

    Your belief system has become corrupt because of your delusion in religion, with that apparently along with your ability to tell the truth, I pity and feel sorry for you!

    ReplyDelete
  39. I hope you continue to bash atheists. It shows you lack of truly understanding Jaclyn and what she was trying to demonstrate. You use ad hominem attacks against her. You miss her entire point. Take the blinders off your eyes brother. But please continue to make these great comments.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I read your first two paragraphs and I just couldn't continue. Your writing is so bad. You should also check a dictionary for the meaning of the word propaganda (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda). I watched her video and it sounded pretty reasonable. She might have a couple of things that sound a bit vague, but your first two paragraphs have 100 more problems than her entire video.

    ReplyDelete
  41. You say that Hitler used Christianity as camouflage for an atheistic movement to erradicate the Jews. Now, I ask you, what reason would an Atheist have to erradicate Jews? Correct: None. You could say he might have done so because a majority of them were richer than the average German, but that is a materialistic reason. Of course, people of faith always try to postulate that Atheism and Materialism are one and the same, but they're not.

    Now, what reason could a Christian person have to erradicate Jews. Well, I don't know... maybe the same reason Europe has been antisemitic for centuries... maybe the same reason the church taught that the Jews were the people who killed God (Jesus)? Nah man, that's too far out.

    ReplyDelete
  42. OK let me get this straight. You say.

    "As for point two: I am honestly shocked that she could even say that He did not actually die! So because He rose three days later, He was never actually dead before that...? From what was He rising? A nap? He was dead, Jaclyn! The Romans made sure that everyone they were charged to execute actually died; they were known for their record-keeping, organization, and dedication to seeing a job through. People put on crosses always died, Jaclyn. The Roman soldiers would never have let live a man that the leaders of the Jews wanted dead so badly. This is just plain silliness."

    If the Romans were known for their record-keeping? Would you please show does "records"? Because THAT WOULD BE ACTUAL PROOF AND NOT THE BS THAT THE BIBLE IS. And please the next time you "try" (and I say try because you did't succeed) to make a logical argument make some research so you don't end up with your foot on your mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I doubt Jesus ever lived. If he did live then, it wouldn't change anything. Evidence Jesus lived is still not evidence that god exists. There has never been any evidence for the existence of a god.

    ReplyDelete
  44. You say Jaclyn Glenn contradicts herself when she says "A belief doesn’t make something a reality." and then goes on to assert that Hitler believed himself to be a christian acting out god's will. This is not a contradiction. Jaclyn is an atheist so her view is god does not exist. She no more believes Hitler was acting in god's name than you do even though he believed he was.

    There is however a problem with your assertion that just because Hitler believed himself to be a christian doesn't mean to say he was. The definition of a christian is someone who is a believer in christianity. Hitler was a believer in christianity therefore Hitler was a christian. The fact you don't believe Hitler acted like a christian or had the same christian beliefs you do does not mean he did not believe in christianity and therefore was a christian. We know Hitler believed himself to be a christian from a variety of evidence, not least his own book Mein Kampf. The fact people believe in christianity does not make christianity true though.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Your belief that the following is true is misguided.

    "...Because that is what he was, Jaclyn: he rejected Christian teaching wholeheartedly. It was just an effective way to galvanize power and support for himself in the early years of Naziism..."

    There is zero reliable evidence that this is true, it is just christian wishful thinking.

    The only evidence of any anti-christian sentiment comes from Bormann's edited version of Hitler's Table-Talks. Bormann was on his own crusade against organised religion (but not religion), especially the Catholic church, and is said to have edited the transcripts of Hitler's Table-Talks. Even in the edited transcripts there are anti-atheist comments made by Hitler specifically.

    "We don't want to educate anyone in atheism." Table-Talk [p. 6]

    and

    "An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal)..." Table-Talk [p. 59]

    We also have evidence that Hitler remained a member of the church until the day he died from Helmreich, Ernst Christian, "The German Churches Under Hitler," Wayne State University Press, 1979 p.220 and Speer, Albert, "Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs by Albert Speer," Galahad Books, 1970 p.95-96.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I love your self description about the complexity of your sentences. just letting you know using big words and complicated sentence structure, does not a valid point make. you come off as stupid, not smart. the way you fix this is by making your content revolve around actual facts. just sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Where is your fxxking God during the Holocaust? Or is this actually part of his divine plan?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe the film That Jew died for You suggests that god, in the form of Jesus, was in the camps with the Jews suffering with them, in spirit at least. I guess that's meant to make it all okay. Seems a bit crass to me but then I am not a Jew.

      Delete
  48. Jesus never claimed to b the son of god, his followers did. He never said he was the messiah, his followers did. When Pilate accused him of claiming to be king of the Jews, Jesus told him claimed no such thing.

    If you're going to use this right at the beginning of your argument, you really should get the facts straight.

    Of course, it's not my place to correct fairy tales so you can go on believing whatever you want. Personally I prefer Little Red Riding Hood.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Just to add a little something here. The oldest bible ever discovered clearly states that Jesus was not crucified or executed in any way in fact. Therefore he did not die for your sins. He did, well, nothing apart from floating into heaven when times got really tough. That seems to me to be the actions of a coward and not a saviour.
    The only reason I bring this up is because i think if you accept the word of your own holy book, your theology is wrong. And it strikes me that that would be easier for you to grasp that the finer points of logical analysis which you do seem to ignore in favour of constructing elaborate logical fallacies.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Jesus had a rough weekend for your sins...

    ReplyDelete
  51. Dear Deion,

    You are very brave to subject yourself to such persecution. While your case makes sense to me, I personally avoid criticizing atheists for their beliefs because I was an atheist myself for 30 years. I barely begun my conversion. I am a poor representative of a good Christian and would deserve people's accusations of being an hypocrite.

    Again, your point-by-point refutation makes sense to me. At the same time, the sword of your logic reminds me of the sword that St. Peter wanted to draw in order to defend Christ. His advice to Peter at that moment should serve us as well whenever we are tempted to engage in apologetics. We should always be ready to defend our faith, but we ought to imitate Christ and defend it with love: "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

    Holiness is the best form of evangelization. Like I said elsewhere, it is more important that I convert myself daily than to change the mind of others.

    One day, I will be ready to die for my faith -- not just physically, but mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. One day, I will be ready to die for my faith. But not yet.

    God bless you, Deion. May the Holy Spirit continue to guide you, may you continue to use His seven Gifts received at Baptism to build up our brethren, including our separated ones.

    KfG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you are compelled to believe in superstitious nonsense based on blind faith then you were not an atheist for 30 years. An atheist is not someone who simply doesn't believe based on haven't looked at the evidence (or just never thought about it). An atheist is someone who has critically examined the claims of the bible, miracles, and the probability of god existing vs. what we actually see in nature. An atheist is an intellectually honest position held by people who can maintain their position without making appeals to faith. If appeals to faith are included in your worldview then you never were an atheist.

      Delete
  52. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  53. As the privileged person with access to an education that you are, please do not take for granted the tools to research. The world 'out here' is a complex one and the human race is at a 'crux' (pun intended), as we struggle with issues that threaten our very existence. Realizing that it is up to us to deal with those issues instead of waiting for a deity to solve our problems is our next step. We recognize your best intentions, but there is no time to lose!

    ReplyDelete
  54. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MYyc-PtH4

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEQKBPejp-8

    Enough Said

    ReplyDelete
  55. Posting as anonymous while name calling does not make a good case for atheism. This rebuttal to athiest propaganda is well written and logically laid out. Whatever your faith may be, denying Jesus actually existed is ignorant. Did Alexander The Great exist? There is more historical evidence of Jesus than Alexander.
    If for some reason the opposition on this thread needs me to have "street cred" I am a dissendent of Jews. My family came to the U.S. In the 1800's and my grandfather served as an officer in the army during the European campaign. Hitler fancied himself a god. He wrote his own version of the bible and replaced crusifixes with Nazi symbols.
    Do yourselves a favor and research a subject before you decide to put your two cents in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Might want to heed some of your own advice there, pal. Your statement about Jesus being more historically evident than Alexander the Great is completely inaccurate. You accept it to be true because you have faith in a holy book. You, personally, may find the layout of the article "logical" but there is no logic and no proper reasoning behind the actual thoughts put into the article.

      Delete
  56. you are full of bs enough said

    ReplyDelete