Home » Intelligent Design, Religion » The “Blasphemy Challenge” Makes National TV

The “Blasphemy Challenge” Makes National TV

Click here first, then click on the javascript link:

Click here to view your video, “‘Blasphemy Challenge’”

Check it out.

Gil

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

23 Responses to The “Blasphemy Challenge” Makes National TV

  1. This doesn’t belong in things that make you go “WOW!”, it belongs in things that make you go OW!

  2. Well, I first heard of this on the radio and than was thinking… OH MY!

    I hope that denying the existence of the Holy Spirit doesn’t equal blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (still thinking about that one – am I just being hopeful?), but man, talk about not knowing what you’re doing…

    I’m actually not mad (surprisingly) just incredibly sorry for all those kids.

  3. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, in the context of Mark 3:29, is a very specific act: attributing the works of God through the Holy Spirit to satanic power.

    The scribes, in the previous verses, had identified the work of driving out demons by Jesus and His disciples as being in the power of Satan. This act is specifically labeled by Jesus as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

    I am consistently amazed at efforts like the blasphemy challenge on several levels; particularly that an obviously harmless idea such as Christianity, which might otherwise be dismissed as plain silliness, becomes the target of hatred — and the supposed source of oppression in today’s world.

    From a spiritual point of view, this is hardly irrational, but very definitely nefarious. Fortunately, for those inclined to pray for the lost, we have a host of targets graciously provided by the Blasphemy Challenge.

    Grace and Peace.

    And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. (Romans 8:28 NKJV)

  4. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is apparently equating what one KNOWS is the work of the Holy Spirit with the work of the Devil, because that’s what the scribes and Pharisees had done which prompted Jesus’ comment about the sin which would be unforgiven.

  5. The UK government has decided that church adoption agencies may not discriminate against same-sex couples who want to adopt children. As far as I can see the church agencies won’t have to handle the adoption themselves but they will be obliged to refer the couple on to agencies that will.

    What interests me is this comment.

    “This is the right outcome because it puts the interests of the child first,” the Education Secretary, Alan Johnson, said. “We reject discrimination in all its forms, particularly when that deprives our most vulnerable children of a stable, loving and secure home.”

    So they are asserting that same-sex couples are just as likely as heterosexual couples to be able to provide a “stable, loving and secure home” for “our most vulnerable children” even though the evidence indicates (see here) that that assertion is very far from corresponding to reality.

    That fellow Flemming was asserting that children are better off if they are raised as atheists and are not indoctrinated into Christianity by all those evil, tyrannical parents and Sunday School teachers. Again, that is very far from the case.

    This is just one summary of research showing that “Religion, independent of social class, reduces deviance.” If deviance is reduced then life prospects are correspondingly enhanced.

    The Flemmings of the world are everywhere but they are prejudiced, ignorant, life-destroying fools. I’m really annoyed that they get so much air time where nobody requires them to back up their assertions with good evidence.

  6. What struck me as odd was the first guy in the video who claimed he had “examined” the natural world and concluded there is no God. I’m just wondering which world he examined, because the one I see has plenty of evidence in favor of God. I’m also wondering how much of a role NDE played in his decision. I’m guessing, oh, about 95%.

  7. I seriously think this is a HUGE lawsuit waiting to happen. What happens when one of these kids changes his/her mind and wants to recant adn be a Christian. Whether they can or not biblically is one issue, but the fact that these kids will believe they are going to hell with no hope of recovering – becasue of participating in the challenge – is equal to ruining a childs potential for hope. I think this could easily lead to imprisonment of the makers of the challenge if one child wants to recant but suffers from this directly.

  8. This blog has a lot of funny stuff on this self proclaimed “Rational” response squad:

    http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/

    Check this out:
    http://www.briansapient.com/me.....graham.mp3

  9. amadan

    Intelligent people of all backgrounds look at the same evidence as you and do not interpret it in a pro-theistic light.

    Intelligent people of all backgrounds experience the numinous which can be quite compelling, quite impossible to ignore, and thus resists discounting by rationalization.

  10. 10
    Inquisitive Brain

    I hope Richard Dawkins comes out with more statements in support of the Blasphemy Challenge. That way, we can continue to parade him around as the idiot he is.

  11. amadan

    That is not good ‘evidence for a god’. Agree?

    It’s good evidence for the millions or billions of people who experience it.

    You have no evidence of self-awareness in anyone but yourself except for testimony from others that they too feel self-aware. What’s the difference in kind or quality of evidence between that and the numinous?

  12. Janice said in comment #5:

    “So they are asserting that same-sex couples are just as likely as heterosexual couples to be able to provide a “stable, loving and secure home” for “our most vulnerable children” even though the evidence indicates (see here) that that assertion is very far from corresponding to reality.”

    I don’t think that is what they are asserting. It would seem that the speaker was saying that foster parents are in need and sexual preference alone is not grounds for denying that responsibility to homosexual couples.

    Instead it seems like you are implying that homosexual couples are not capable or at least very seldomly capable of providing a “stable, loving, and secure home.”
    Yet the paper you sourced did not show anything of the sort. It did demonstrate higher incidents of mental problems among the homosexual community then among the heterosexual community. In all the statistics though the prevalence was below fifty percent and matched by a similarly high magnitude in heterosexual individuals.

    It would follow from the arguments of that paper that if 20% of heterosexual men are psychologically ill and 30% of homosexual males are sexually ill then all heterosexual males can be foster parents but no homosexual males may be.

    Now this is obviously silly. Are couples not screened for problems prior to becoming foster parents? Is just anyone with a psychological illness allowed to be a candidate? If similar problems are more prevalent among blacks than whites should black people not be able to be foster parents?

    The main problem I do see with being raised by homosexual parents is social stigma (which according to your paper is a major source of mental problems among the gay population). Unfortunately this is based on society’s intolerance which is based on? based on??? Hmmm I’m not sure what rational argumentation its based on. Bottom line there are plenty of loving homosexual couples and they deserve the ability to raise a child together especially if loving capable parents are in need.

  13. So silly and sad. They mock what they do not understand, yet do not mock another religion whose followers murdered 3000 innocent people in our country.

    So, we have mockers, misleading the lost with misinformation that are cowards too. It is very easy to mock others views in the West where your life is not threatened with a beheading by sword. It appears to me however a problem of insecurity and emotional immaturity. People that are well adjusted in life do not need to mock others in order to feel superior.

    This is nothing unusual, except now they do it on the internet. Marilyn Manson routinely shredded Bibles at his shows as tens of thousands in his audience flashed the so-called “sign o’satan”. These are many of your typical evolutionist who do not understand the first thing about NDE or biology, but buy into it for their uninformed assumptions.

    God loves them all. What is truly inspirational and fascinating is that some will eventually turn to God and repent. And might end up leading thousands to Christ.

    So many like them already have.

  14. “God loves them all.”

    Not so sure about that:

    Psalm 11:5 Yahweh tests the righteous, but He hates the one who is wicked and loves violence.

    Will these people eventually resort to violence?

  15. “If material, reproducible evidence pointed unequivocally to the god of the Bible, do you not think that far more people than you would have seen it? If you alone are in the privileged position of having seen such evidence, please let us in on it!”

    Hi Amadan, there is no reference in my post to the “God of the Bible”? IMO, nature points to a God. I do not see much evidence in nature for a so-called “personal God” – that’s just me. Yes we all interpret facts differently (I’ve actually had many arguments with people who claim evidence interprets itself, but that’s another story), but I didn’t indicate otherwise in my comment. I see clear evidence of design in nature. This doesn’t necessarily point to a God, but it leaves the door open, which is why I suggested (and suspect) NDE played a large role in these people’s decision to do BC. It’s one thing to interpret evidence, it’s quite another thing to attack a particular faith based on that interpretation, when, let’s face it, God is entirely possible. Blasphemy challenge is just a foolish thing to do. Seems much more like hate towards Christianity than an atheistic statement.

    “True Atheists Reject Darwin!”

    Amen. :)

  16. “True Atheists Reject Darwin!”

    God doesn’t believe in atheists. :-)

  17. Amadan wrote:
    “Does it alone move people to gratuitously offensive stunts? I have yet to see “RM+NS RULEZ” spray-painted on a wall!”

    hahaha!!! But seriously, no, I don’t think NDE alone moves people to act like the BC crowd. It’s just a theory. However, without NDE and “evangelicals” like Richard Dawkins pushing it, I doubt there would be such a thing as blasphemy challenge. I think the reasoning of these kids probably goes something like this: “hmm, I don’t see God in the world. I’ve prayed, and He hasn’t answered my prayers. NDE tells us there is no need for God in biology. Therefore God does not exist.” What kills me though is the hatred is almost always directed towards Christianity. It’s almost like they have a personal score to settle with Jesus. Maybe they were raised in Christian homes? We have Islamic extremists flying planes into buildings yet not a peep about Islam from these kids.

  18. “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before [it hated] you.”

  19. God doesn’t believe in atheists.

    Now there’s a thought. An omniscient God would have no faith or belief in anything. It already knows.

  20. Here’s another news story on challenging the blasphemy.

  21. Now there’s a thought. An omniscient God would have no faith or belief in anything.

    If there is a God, maybe “it” isn’t omniscient. Some religions believe that, but who knows.

  22. shaner74,

    Yep, the fist view of the concept of God is provided by one’s human father or parents, and the second is authority in general. A child who is deserted, abused, neglected, hated, or belittled by his or her parents and/or other authority figures no doubt lead to this sort of bitterness and hatred. In other words, when they shake their fist at God, it is really directed toward someone/something else.

    In a study of hard-core atheists one major fact shows up big-time — bad relationships with their human father. Sorry, I do not have a link regarding this, maybe someone can help out.

    So, the take away is — atheism (as opposed to honest skepticism) is a vitriolic and irrational reaction. So much for their rational and brilliant deductions.

  23. If there is a God, maybe “it” isn’t omniscient. Some religions believe that, but who knows.

    God knows, but wouldn’t a God who isn’t omniscient be just a Very Powerful Alien rather than a deity – assuming there’s a difference

Leave a Reply