Let's be careful not to excite more killings!!! This is the kind of stuff that people watch and then go kill someone. Can pro-lifers really work at being prolife? I was apalled at the end of Molotov's video - "finding common ground is murder"? Obama is working to reduce abortions. Sure we would like that reduction to go to 0, but if you are truly "pro-life" support him in reducing abortions. If this is just a political game, then don't support reducing abortions - keep shouting and being negative. Over the past 30 years what president ended up having the greatest reduction of abortions - Bill Clinton. Look up the stats. Don't play games. Let's work to reduce abortions!!!

Anonymous
It isn't about being pro-life for these right wingers. It's about a male dominated religion keeping power out of the hands of women. These people have personal problems with intimacy and the opposite sex and find sex icky, if you will. They can't understand why people would even want to have sex outside of marriage and some of them cannot understand why people have sex at all. And these same people who are against a woman's right to choose are against contraception, sex education and anything else that might reduce unwanted pregnancies. So you're right in assume it's all about politics and ideology and not about protecting the unborn.

I am in complete agreement that Obama says one thing and clearly does another. He says he wants to reduce the number of abortions but is, in fact, going to increase them worldwide with our tax dollars. I think the real question here is, do the ends justify the means? We are talking about situational ethics. I completely understand Molotov's perspective and defend his right to say it! However, if we are using the Bible as our guide, we have to do the right thing even when others are not. If we could have had Roe v. Wade overturned and criminalize abortion, then I would have supported arresting, convicting and sentencing Tiller to death. Turning a corner, what about torture? If we apply the Bible as our standard can we justify it? Again, do the ends justify the means?

Abortions were happening at the same rate before Roe V Wade as after. The only thing making abortion legal did was make them safer, not more prevalent. Making abortion illegal would not stop one abortion. It would only make them more dangerous. Domestic terrorists like Molotov are the people who belong in Gitmo. Molotov would murder doctors who perform abortions if he thought he could get away with it. Lock him up now before he does something Christian like murder an innocent person.

The right response is prayer.

Unfortunately someone chose to do EXACTLY what Tiller was doing.

Murder is murder, whether its performed by an abortionist, or someone stating that they are doing it in the name of Christ.

The correct way for any Christian to respond to abortion is legally. Don't like the way that the government is handling it? Vote em out.

Remember, abortion is just sin. And those folks ARE the mission field.

Steve,
Evolutionist? That word the way you use it describes 7 billion people. No one doubts the validity of evolutionary theory except Bible believers. No Protestant denomination accepted the findings of Galileo (that the earth is round and moves) until 1835. Steve Noble tell us all what scriptural evidence there is that the earth moves.

>Are you really using the defense that since so many people believe it, that it must be true?
Boris says: No that’s a standard Christian defense and you know it too. Scientific theories prove themselves to be “true” by being useful. Evolutionary theory has been responsible for all kinds of medical advances, better foods and better poisons to protect crops from insects and a lot of other scientific advances that have made our lives healthier, safer and most importantly much longer.

>You continue to hold the beliefs of your experts and witnesses who have an anti-Christian view as scientific fact while rejecting the experts that happen to be Christians as being non-scientific or misled.
Boris says: Contrasting that the detractors of this theory, the creation “scientists” and the Intelligent Design magic promoters haven’t produced anything that could advance science, haven’t produced anything but literature riddled with pseudo-scientific mumbo jargon meant to confuse a scientifically ignorant public and they can’t even tell us how their dogma could lead to future investigation.

"You talk about the "fact" of evolution.. where are the missing links in the fossil record?"
Boris says: There are missing links in the fossil record because not all animals fossilize. Or didn’t you know that? We know carrier pigeons exist because we see them and have written records and pictures of them. But should they ever become extinct that’s all we’ll ever have because like most species carrier pigeons don’t fossilize. Open a grave that’s a few hundred years old. You’ll find dust. Fossilization only takes place under certain rare conditions. As far as transitional fossils these do exist and in great numbers. There are lists of them on the Internet.

"We don't condemn anyone -- you are condemning yourself by rejecting Jesus as the Son of God and the only way to salvation."
Boris says: So you and a lot of other PEOPLE say. But I say there was, is no Jesus to reject. No such person ever existed.

To HATE the SIN, but love the man ..
Sometimes I think christian forget ,they were onces LOST to!!!!

Atheist motto: To HATE the CHRISTIANITY, but love the Christian.

People who do not like him are missing his point and Steve's. There are issues that do not have the big gray areas that our culture would have us assume. Abortion s one of them. THe simple fact is this: The evil of Tiller FAR outweighs the derangement of his killer. The scale of justice illustration was brilliant in the video. And Bozo Boris whoactually believes that Jesus never lived... He has lost all credibility. NO inteligent person believes that Jesus did not live. There is as much or more evidence for the facts of His life than anyone who ever lived before 1000 AD.

At the heart of the Christian religion lies a disturbing hostility towards humanity's essential physicality. Though less stridently proclaimed today than in earlier eras, the circumspection, disdain and outright condemnation of human sexuality in the dogmas of the church has given rise, for two millennia, not only to the most monumental hypocrisy but to all manner of sexual-emotional disorders. In simple terms, sex was, and remains, a distraction, rival, and enemy of organized religion – and in private moments, an indulgence and reward of its high priests.
Repressed sexuality, on the other hand, can be channeled into a fierce piety and kill-joy religiosity, its uncompromising ardor harnessed for the purposes of the Church. But "inner conflict" is a predictable consequence, as is an obsessive preoccupation with other people's sexual predilections. The faith-based moralizer rages over private pleasures, such as homosexuality and the "sanctity of human life" – whilst condoning without embarrassment the slaughter of distant peoples who do not happen to share their own peculiar interpretation of the divine.
Christianity's anti-sexual, puritanical doctrines have inflicted untold damage on the mental, emotional and physical lives of countless millions of people. Through the course of centuries this malevolent faith has left a trail of emotionally and mentally disturbed people, people who have punished themselves and caused distress to others, in a life filled with guilt, shame and denial.
Self-hatred leading to suicide, frigid marriages leading to violence, years of loneliness, anger and regret, are some of the milder consequences of the psychosis. Misogyny, pedophilia, homophobia, rage against abortion, opposition to birth control, obsession with virgin purity, obstruction of stem cell research, morbid self-denial, flagellation, censorship of literature and art, intolerance of alternative lifestyles – Christianity's legacy runs as a foul stain across the human landscape.

Anonymous where and what exactly is this evidence that Jesus actually existed. You've made a claim that I say you cannot back up. Let's see what you call evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. Outside of the Bible which no intelligent person has EVER believed, you've got nothing. Prove me wrong.

Here’s what people who know Molotov Mitchell are saying:

Hey Richard... Jason "Molotov" Mitchell probably inherited his dominionist streak from his dad, Wayne Mitchell, who pastors the Every Nation Church in Boston. That church is a former Maranatha Campus Ministries church with close ties to another former Maranatha/now Every Nation Church and pastor, Ron Lewis and Kings Park International Church. I'm fairly sure that Wayne Mitchell's connection with what is now Every Nation also goes back to its previous incarnation as Maranatha.

Jason and Illuminati Films came up on my radar a couple years ago when Ron Lewis posted a link to it from his website. I would post a link but my antivirus flags it as containing a trojan horse, but Google "Ron Lewis" and "Illuminati Films" and you'll see that Illuminati's videos are still posted on the Ron Lewis Ministries website. At that time, Jason wasn't known as "Molotov" so I didn't realize it was the same guy until the end of your article. Anyway, he's second gen Maranatha, which might explain where his worldview really came from. Not the Bible (or at least how most people would interpret it) and not straight edge punk.

by ulyankee on Sat May 09, 2009 at 07:18:39 PM EST

NO inteligent person believes that Jesus did not live.

There is no quicker way to silence a Christian and put them well on their way to a very painful de-conversion and rejection of their faith then to ask them to provide evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. When they go looking for this supposed evidence and find out what Christian apologists hawk as evidence for Jesus they become deeply disturbed. It is quite obvious that these second century mentions of the existence of Christians with no direct references to Jesus Christ are NOT evidence for anything except the fact that Jesus Christ never existed.

Boris,

Your angry tirades have so many misrepresentations that I honestly find myself wondering if you believe half of what you type. You misrepresent what the Bible teaches, misrepresent Christians who happen to believe what the Bible teaches, and then blame Christianity for the fact that people feel guilty when they do things outside of God's plan.

The Bible talks about what happens when people persist in seeking their own pleasure outside of God's plan in Romans 1:21-22

21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools

You keep claiming that Christians are fools ('no intelligent person...'), and yet failing to honor God is what truly makes one a fool. Persisting in pursuing the flesh while ignoring God leads to a debased mind, as it says in Romans 1:28

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

Just like pain is a signal we are being harmed physically, guilt is a signal we are harming our spirit. You can try and blame Christians for causing the guilt, but we are only guilty of believing what the Bible says is true. It is your own conscience which convicts you of the wrong because that is how God designed you.

Blaming Christians for pointing to the problem is sort of like blaming the rooster for the sun coming up. The rooster didn't cause it – he just told you what was happening!

Long after atheist philosophers have abandoned an argument due to its obvious weaknesses, the arguments still exist in pop culture because people continue to propagate them. Demanding that Christians 'prove' that Jesus existed is a variation of the argument that 'Absence of evidence is evidence of absence'. Even atheist philosophers acknowledge this is only true if (a) the thing would be expected to leave more evidence of its existence, and (b) we have thoroughly surveyed the field where the evidence should be found and have not found evidence. Neither condition is met.

Of course, you immediately dismiss the Bible and the beginning of the church and ask for what other evidence we have the Jesus existed. I ask you this -- what evidence do you have that he did not? Further claiming that your line of arguments sends Christians scurrying for cover and questioning their faith is amusing.

You can believe in yourself and in those who you claim to be experts. I choose to believe in Jesus Christ who said in John 18:37b "For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world — to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice."

So no matter how many angry tirades you make or how many angry charges you lay at the feet of Christianity, either you can believe Jesus or believe a lie.

Name one atheist argument that has ever been refuted by any Bible believers. Don't ignore this challenge. Then once again I will ask you to provide extra-biblical evidence that Jesus Christ or any of his disciples actually existed. Stop ignoring this challenge too. Your arguments are just full of logical fallacies like appeals to authority, ad hoc reasoning and a few others. Let's see some hard evidence instead of all your empty nonsense about what Tales of the Supernatural Testaments 1 & 2 says.

Boris,

I have laid out a great deal of evidence for the existence of Christ outside of the Bible in other posts on this blog. Other than saying you don't believe any of it, what evidence do you have that Jesus did not other than a couple of speculative theories or overly simplistic analogies (e.g. drawing a circle around a group of arrows)?

You implicitly argue that an atheistic worldview should be assumed and try to put the burden of proof on the Christian. You then take a position that is extreme for most atheists and argue that Jesus didn't even exist. I'm still waiting for you to admit that your worldview requires as much faith as a Christian worldview. I'm also waiting for you to explain why you spend so much time berating Christians on this site and others. Are you trying to convince us or yourself?

And please point to any logical fallacies that you argue I made. I have no interest in making (or listening to) arguments that are illogical.

Doug,
Saying you’ve laid out evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ proves nothing. Post your best four “evidences” right here and now and I will demolish them. Don’t back off this challenge Doug. You’ve avoided responding to many points and questions now because it’s obvious you have no answers for atheists. The atheistic worldview should be assumed unless something about the existence of God can be proved. Unbelief is the natural position to take on anything until something has been proved.

Nothing has been or can be proved about God and you KNOW it. My worldview doesn’t take faith. Unlike you, I don’t have any beliefs that I’m unwilling to challenge or change. The reason I spend time challenging Christians is because I want impartial observers and people on the fence about religion to see just how perverted and insane Christian superstitions really are. When they read your lame arguments this will be apparent to them. The most obvious logical fallacy you make is called “Shifting the burden of proof.” The person making the outrageous positive claim has the burden of proof, not the person who denies the claim. Any first year philosophy student or logician would have a field day pointing out the logical fallacies in all your arguments and wish the fallacies their professors gave them were as easy to detect.

Moral Argument for the existence of God
Premise 1: All men are conscious of a moral law
Premise 2: A moral law implies a moral law giver
Conclusion: There must be a supreme moral law giver

A bird may snatch a fish from another bird, but it does not steal. Forcible copulation happens among animals but it is not called rape. Why? Because animals are not moral agents. If you steal something from your neighbor, you feel guilt and other men rightly recognize you as having done wrong. Without a supreme moral law giver, you have no basis for judging what is right or wrong. You cannot say Hitler's actions were worse (or better) than Mother Teresa's, because by doing so you immediately invoke a moral standard upon which to judge both of them. If man is just an animal, then you explain the behavior by social pressure, but how do you explain the inherent guilt felt when you do wrong?

Design argument for the existence of God.
Premise 1: All design implies a designer
Premise 2: There is great design in the universe
Conclusion: There is a great designer

Darwin said the sight of a peacock feather drove him mad because it implied design. Atheists scientists have been forced to invent hypothesis such as planet seeding by aliens to explain life because the processes within a cell or so complex that they could not be explained by evolution. They have irreducible complexity -- take away one part and the cell ceases to function. In Darwin's time, he felt comfortable formulating a theory based on a cell because he had no idea what a complex machine it actually was. In light of modern science, atheists have had a much harder time selling the notion of evolution. It has become more of a philosophical fight than a scientific one. They can't explain why the design is there, they just assume that enough time somehow explains away the fact that irreducible complexity exists.

There are many more arguments that can be made for the existence of God. The existence of a non-material, timeless, powerful, moral creator makes things like raising people from the dead highly plausible since God was in fact the author of life. Modern science has served to strengthen my belief in God, not to cast doubts on it.

I'm sure you will disagree, so I ask you for your evidence that contradicts the arguments. I would be happy to point you to reputable scientific sources which support my positions, so before you spout that all my points have already been refuted, I ask you for evidence -- not for wild unfounded theories, not for name-calling tirades and mockery, not for analogies that explain your position but say nothing about the validity of that position, not for the use of big words like non-sequitur and claims that my arguments can be easily be refuted (without actually refuting them), not for claims of victory without providing so much as a line of rational thought or evidence to support your claims -- but simply evidence.

I've answered your challenge, and I will now wait for what you have to say.

Let's examine Boris' worldview. One simple way to break down a world view is to look at four pieces. (1)Origin: Where did it all come from? (2) Meaning: Why am I here? (3) Morality: What defines good or evil? (4) Destiny: Where am I going?

Boris says: Let me just point out that Bible believers like Doug have been waging a war on philosophy, scientific and social progress ever since the Bible was forged and then voted on by men. No Protestant denomination accepted that the earth was round until 1835. Historical fact. Why? Because the Bible says in both testaments that the earth is flat and never moves. When have scientists ever had to revise one of their theories in the face of claims from Bible believers? It’s always the Bible believers that must retreat and try to revise what the Bible actually says.

According to Boris, and many atheistic philosophers, the world was created by nothing from nothing for nothing. That means with respect to Origin -- it just happened by chance.

Boris says: Of course the theist must first distort his opponent’s position so he can attack a straw man since he has no arguments against their true position. It is the theist who claims the universe came from nothing. Science says the mass-energy that comprises the universe always existed.

With respect to Meaning -- there is none (Life is an empty bubble on the sea of nothingness" according to Sartre).

Boris says: The fact that life is inherently meaningless frightens unthinking people like Doug. But intelligent people realize this gives them the freedom to give their own lives whatever meaning and purpose they choose. Doug’s life is hopeless and meaningless if there isn’t a better one to come. And there isn’t. Where is the empirical evidence for an afterlife, heaven or hell? Poof, there isn’t any and we all know this.

With respect to Morality -- you have no basis for determining good and evil (who are you to tell Hitler he was wrong and you are right? or a cannibalistic culture for that matter).

Boris says: So how does Doug decide what is right and wrong? While he may look at the Bible or God, how he interprets what he reads or believes must depend on ideals that he has already developed from some other source. How does Doug know that God is good or the Bible promotes good morals?

With respect to Destiny -- ashes to ashes, dust to dust. So, summed up honestly, we are here by chance, live meaningless lives, and then we die. With that world view, I would be trying to gratify every sensual desire I had as well and be angry with anyone who suggested I should not. But does that world view even make sense?

Boris says: That’s why no one is trying to convert you to atheism. You just keep on believing whatever it takes to keep the rest of us safe from your anger and potential to do violence. Can you explain why I am not trying to gratify every sensual desire, why I’m not angry and frustrated the way you would be if you thought there was no God? I mean after you get your foot out of your mouth.