CJ Werleman #fundie

CJ Werleman #fundie gspellchecker.com

Like all cults, New Atheists believe that “the best human beings, as defined by them as ‘rational’ and ‘enlightened’ should become powerful enough to dictate to the rest of the planet a new way of being—they not only espouse white supremacy but they also speak in a language that is every bit as crude and racist as fascist, neo-Nazi, movements

45 comments

old comment by Skidie

It`s not "new" atheism, it`s a logical conclusion that since the religious/spiritual worldview is patently false and is actually hurtful to humans we need to eliminate it from the acceptable social stances. Why in the first place would I accept lunatics who already decided to throw their own kind under the bus for some suspect reward from what in all conceivable versions is simply the concept of the biggest tyrant the world ever seen as worthy of constructing our laws and directing my life? For the sake of apeasement, tradition? No, I do want them out of public life, I want them out of schools as teachers and I want them to be powerles to dictate to others or to even be able to publicly spread their brand of hate speech. Here, good enough for you Coward?

old comment by Yossarian Lives

The funniest thing about CJ Werleman is that, despite being a professed atheist, he uses canards akin to the religious right to smear 'new atheism.' In his latest book he has used the tired atheism caused the atrocities in the Soviet Union gambit, only he goes further to say that Dawkins, Harris et al. are looking to emulate the Soviets, and other godless communists, in an attempt to eradicate religion.

He is a hypocrite, plagiarist, and former anti-Muslim bigot, and he uses the latter to tarnish other atheists like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins. This is because when he was a 'new atheist' he held bigoted views, so now he's 'seen the light' he uses it as a stick to beat others with, regardless of the nuance of their stance or actual position. He projects his former personality onto them, either because he's dense over this issue, or because he's a fraud that can capitalise on portraying other atheists as intolerant bigots, whilst misrepresenting their entire argument, all to make a quick buck.

@Hakar:

I suspect it's because he thinks that the majority of 'new atheists' are white, and often criticise Islam, ignoring the complexity of any point made, and ignoring the fact that Islam is not a race, whereby such criticisms of the religion don't apply to one ethnicity, but across the spectrum of Muslims, be they Arab, Indonesian, black, or white. When any non-white atheist criticises him for his views he commonly makes them out as 'Uncle Toms' for agreeing with these evil white men, as if they can't break free from their religion and come to their own opinions without interference from white people. Despite his protestations, I don't think the racial prejudices that he's exhibited in the past have gone.

old comment by Jerry

I'm not a protestant.

And being a protestant got nothing to do with whether one is a Christian. Christians follow the Christian Bible. Satanists (a.k.a. non-Christians) don't. Catholics don't follow the Christian Bible -- they are satanists. Mormons don't follow the Christian Bible -- they are satanists. Episcopalians don't follow the Christian Bible -- they are satanists. Homolutherans of the Missouri Synod don't follow the Bible -- they are satanists. Any church that allows women to speak doesn't follow the Bible -- they are satanists.

I urge you to repent of your filth and lies and believe the Saving words of the Christian Bible.

In the name of the Lord,
Jerry

old comment by Oxymoron's Razor

@Jerry

I would make the argument that roman catholics are just as Christian as you, seeing as how they are one of the oldest and largest denominations of christianity.

I *would* make that argument, but you'll just respond with your usual nonsense that only *your* exact translation of a near 2000 year old book is the right one and not any of the others that came before it, thus somehow "proving" no other christians are actually christians (at least in your own mind).

Perhaps if you were a bit more open-minded and accepting of the other groups that have based their religion around the teachings of the same guy, you wouldn't be quite so frequently mocked and thought of with distain here...

old comment by Anon-e-moose

Neil deGrasse Tyson: the 21st Century Carl Sagan.

Usain Bolt is my hero.

And Malala Yousafzai is the new face of Feminism

Y'know who espoused white supremacy? Hitler. Oh, and not forgetting the fact that...:

image

...he was also a Christian. NEXT!

@Jerry

image

You're either a Proddy or Left-footer. You espouse the KJV. Question: What was the religion of the authoriser of that version of the Bible*, and past monarch of my country, UK, King James I...?!

@Lucilius

And Jerry & Loony4Life need to get their facts straight. At least the latter says she uses the NIV.

At least Loony4Life has an excuse: her mental illness. What's yours, Jer?

I suspect, Lucilius & everyone else on FSTDT, that Jerry, via inconsistencies in his lies, has now doctrinally/argumentally cornered himself. Thus exposed his lies. After all, as Will Smith in "Focus" says:

'That's the thing about lying: it paints you into a corner'

He's no more a Christian than Jonathan Edwards is. And he was one for far longer than [I]you[/I], little boy; don't forget, Jer: 'OS[I]A[/I]S' and all that jazz...!

*- Who was it that originally codified the Bible as you know it today: way before King James I authorised his KJV, Jer...?!

old comment by SpukiKitty

@Jerry
I know you're a troll, but I'll bite, anyway.....

I'm not a protestant.
Not a Catholic & not a Protestant. You're not a Mormon either. I guess you're not a Christian and you worship earthworms. That's nice.

And being a protestant got nothing to do with whether one is a Christian. Christians follow the Christian Bible.
No, duh!

Satanists (a.k.a. non-Christians) don't.
A Satanist is a Satanist. A Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. is not a Satanist.

Catholics don't follow the Christian Bible -- they are satanists.
[IMG]http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f226/SpukiKitty/new-american-bible1_zpstg5ehmpp.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f226/SpukiKitty/48025_IgnatiusCatholicStudyBibleNewTestament_zpsoyindsk0.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f226/SpukiKitty/Haydock_Douay_Rheims_Hardback_zps27nnhsfp.jpg[/IMG]
Bibles everywhere! Same as yours (but with a few extra books).

Mormons don't follow the Christian Bible -- they are satanists.
[IMG]http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f226/SpukiKitty/Bible-and-the-Book-of-Mormon1_zpswcdjar3v.jpg[/IMG]
Wrong again! They just have a second book to supplement it.

Episcopalians don't follow the Christian Bible -- they are satanists.
[IMG]http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f226/SpukiKitty/9780195283303_p0_v1_s260x420_zps80e4gru3.jpg[/IMG]
Oh, look! Another Holy Bible!

Homolutherans of the Missouri Synod don't follow the Bible -- they are satanists.
[IMG]http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f226/SpukiKitty/9780195283303_p0_v1_s260x420_zps80e4gru3.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f226/SpukiKitty/5031805_zpsrkzfowr6.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f226/SpukiKitty/King-James-Bible_zps9ivzt6cs.jpg[/IMG]
Oh, look! More Holy Christian Bibles! Even the good ol' KING JAMES!

Any church that allows women to speak doesn't follow the Bible -- they are satanists
http://godswordtowomen.org/rissjunia.htm
FROM THAT PAGE:
In Romans 16:7, Paul praises a woman named Junia as "outstanding among the apostles." Despite the modern mistranslation of her name as masculine "Junias" or "Junius," no commentator prior to the 13th century questioned that this apostle was a woman.1 For example, John Chrysostom, whose writings often express misogyny, wrote of Romans 16:7, "O how great is the devotion of this woman that she should be counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!"2 This unanimity of testimony over a millennium is particularly striking since it remained during a long period of eroding toleration of women's ministries in the medieval church. The reason for the witness is simple: all the ancient Greek and Latin manuscripts commending the outstanding apostles in Romans 16:7 read either "Junia" or "Julia", both feminine forms.

As for that jazz about women keeping silent, those were either later interpolations or forgeries. Some stuff written by Paul was not really written by him.

[IMG]http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f226/SpukiKitty/Spiritual%20and%20Religious/womanpriest_zps094714ed.png[/IMG]
The early Christians were gender-egalitarian and had female clergy. Women are equal to men. God is also our Mother. Femininity is equal to masculinity. If men and women are made in God's image, then God is androgynous! Deal with it!

old comment by

@1859582:
You're bad at trolling. Multiple posters here denounce the OP as an atheist fundie, and nobody here has ever said anything remotely like what you said. Grow up.

@Jerry: If you're not Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Gnostic, or Eastern Orthodox, but you're Christian, then you belong to a splinter cult like the Branch Davidians. Or you don't know what "Protestant" means.
Also, the OT specifically forbids men from cutting their hair or rounding the corners of their beard.
And if Jews are Satanists (or your redefinition of the term), then Jesus was a Satanist. And all Christians follow a holy book written by and for Satanists.
And what sect did King James belong to, again? (Never mind the KJV being a terrible translation of the original texts, and being easily misunderstood by anyone who doesn't speak Shakespearean English.)

CJ Werleman #fundie gspellchecker.com

45 comments

Confused?