Oscar-Lite On Bill-asphemy: Predictable Christian Compromisers

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

I expect godless people to behave in a reprehensible manner. And true to form a legion of atheists unleashed a tirade of hate mail in an effort to intimidate me because of last week’s column. Laughably they all insisted— while calling me every derogatory name possible — that they are the defenders of free speech. Their insatiable lust to slander and spread slurs prove only one point: They are children of the Devil who also slanders the people of God. For example, here is how one of Satan’s minion responded to my video:

Stick it up your a&# & pull the trigger. Your children will be recruited as we sodom*#@ the brains of your relatives. Your god is a rapist and mass murderer. Sit on that you prick. In fact, I can’t wait to f*#% your wife & sons. — rpauds@yahoo.com

But then Jesus said, “blessed are you when they persecute you and say all manner of evil against your for my name’s sake.” (Matt 5:10)

What is an entirely different matter, however, is the way so-called “Christians” responded, and it is to these people I write.

First, I did not condone or advocate for the physical torture of Bill-asphemous Maher. The headline was a question, not an assertion nor an affirmation of the penal sanctions for blasphemy.

Second, the purpose of my piece was to expose the mealy-mouthed and utterly incomprehensible passivity of evangelicals in North America who don’t get upset when God is mocked in public. And boy how you proved me right!

Well, actually you proved me wrong — kind of. You proved that you actually can get worked up but over the wrong things and with the wrong person. Here was what I wrote:

I realize that many evangelicals will vilify me for publicly denouncing a guy like Maher. They’ll accuse me of haughtiness, arrogance, having an “unloving spirit.”  But I’m none of these things, which brings me to the crucial issue: there was a time when Christians would have unanimously condemn Maher. There was a time when a generation of believers actually believed in defending the honour of God.

I clearly hit the bull’s eye. Instead of getting righteously angry with Bill-asphemous Maher, many of you, like I predicted, decided to “rebuke” me. One guy named Oscar, claiming to be a Christian of 61 years, spent considerable time condemning me and insinuating that my faith was shaky.

Reading Oscar was so very instructive. His supporters — a cadre of online groupies calling themselves “gay Christians” — were praising his erudition and gracious manner. Do I hear “Bird of a feather?”

So for Oscar-lites I say again, I did not advocate for the physical torture of Bill-asphemous Maher. What I said was, and I quote:

Back when America took the honour of God seriously, here is how America would have dealt with the likes of Bill Maher.

I then went on go quote from the penal section of the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s law on blasphemy. My point was to show how extremely exercised Christians used to get over blasphemy, and by comparison demonstrate how far the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction.

Now, instead of getting exercised over blasphemy, Christians say nothing. And what makes this so much more egregious is that they have all the freedom in the world to speak up in the USA.

Furthermore, saying I advocate for the restoration of penal sanctions, like those in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, is a fabricated lie. What I said was I lament that America had struck down blasphemy laws, i.e. the principle. This is very different from saying I am upset that American no longer whips blasphemers like Maher.

In both Britain and Canada, for example, we still had blasphemy laws on the books no less then ten years ago. The penalties — the penal sanctions — were fines and possible imprisonment, not hangings and whippings, but this is beside the point.

So for the Oscar-lite-weights, what this means is that one can advocate for the law-principle, while not advocating for a particular type of punishment, which historically was left to the discretion of the courts.

At any rate you so-called Christians helped to prove my point perfectly. You do not care about God’s honour and yet you have the audacity to call yourselves Christians. Therefore I say again, America, and especially American Evangelicalism, is hanging on by a thin thread. Don’t be surprised if God sends an unlikely candidate to judge your lawless society. Just like he used the Babylonians in the past to judge apostate Israel, I don’t doubt for a monument that he will use a twisted distortion of Old Testament law — sharia law — to teach mealy-mouthed Americans what happens when you reject His righteous rule and law.

I am Tristan Emmanuel and I make no apology.

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.” Ex. 20:7

Print Friendly and PDF



Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

comments

  • Truth Offends

    The poster, Oscar (who Tristan Emmanuel refers to in his column) also gave an especially harsh (and unfairly biased) rebuke of Scott Lively when he wrote his “Dan Cathy Takes the Mark of the Beast” column.

    • Oscar

      No, Oscar compliments and defends fair, honest, and non-violent writers at this site. Check out all of his posts, unless you don’t want to know about everything he writes. Unless you only want to read the criticisms, because the truth offends.

      He correctly calls out and rebukes those like Lively, who call for attaching the Mark of the Beast to, trying to send to hell a fine Christian man like Dan Cathy, and calls for boycotting Chik Fil A, after condemning the gays, when THEY did it.

      He also correctly calls out and rebukes those like Emmanuel, who (though he lies about it here) calls for bringing back beatings (also referred to and hinted at stocks, burnings, etc.) for unsaved comedians’ comments. In other words recommending the same violent acts that Barbwire prohibits among its posters. Read the posting rules, and tell me if Emmanuel’s article would be allowed here.

      He comdemns evil and violence, wherever he finds it, even when it comes from the mouths of Christians. And it is a shame in the eyes of a Holy God, when even the gays that he regularly condemns here, are willing to see and condemn these wrongs and stand with him against them, and some of the Christians at Barbwire like truthoffends, have a moral blindspot where their backbone and their conscience should be located.

      God is weeping because there are so few like this Oscar guy who will still stand up and say something wrong when, you know, something is defintely wrong.

  • The Skeptical Chymist

    Despite his protestations now, there was nothing in Tristan Emmanuel’s original column that implied that he was not in favor of the punishments outlined in the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s law regarding blasphemy. He certainly seemed to be extolling those “good old days.” As far as the value of “defending the honor of God” is concerned (Emmanuel’s words), the Muslims do a great job of “defending the honor of God” in countries where their anti-blasphemy laws are in place. Do we really want to emulate them?

    I do not feel that Bill Maher’s remarks should be limited in any way. He was pointing out one way of viewing the Bible’s Noah story, one that is dramatically different from those of Bible-believers. He did so in a way that was jarring and thought-provoking. If it damages someones faith, then that faith was not very strong to begin with.

    I am against blasphemy laws in all places, at all times. We’ve seen how they have been terribly misused in the Middle East against Christians and atheists, or even against people who have a property dispute with a neighbor. They, and similar religiously-inspired laws, were likewise misused in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, as anyone who recalls the events in Salem in 1692-3 will attest. It would surely be a step backward to re-enact them now.

    • Oscar

      Excellent, chymist, but that is so obvious that it goes without saying, (well, except for in this author’s mind).

      Thank God that the entire western world and all of Christendom has correctly abandoned this barbaric practice. It is alive and well only within this demented “Christian” author’s heart.

      It is a crime against God and the Bible, that it is allowed to be expressed here at Barbwire, of all places.

      Paul gave himself stripes, but never advocated them for unbelievers. Jesus took stripes for unbelievers, but never advocated giving them to unbelievers. I stand with Christ and the Aposte Paul and the Bible, against this sad, sick man. I’m Oscar Lynch and I make no apologies.

      Tristan Emmanuel doesn’t either, but according to God and His Word, he should. We are waiting, sir…

  • Mandrí Titella

    At this point in human history the Abrahamic superstitions are a curse
    on humanity, the arc of human progress leads directly away from this
    primitive nonsense and has for hundreds of years.

    Indoctrinating children in supernaturalism before they are old enough to
    understand the concept of fiction is nothing less than ritualistic child
    abuse. It is by this process of indoctrination that this communicable
    mental illness is spread.

    It gives us a world filled with permanent two year olds scared of the
    dark and the bogeyman who have a built-in pushbutton connected
    directly to their fear response, a handy thing for social control.

    It is the World’s Oldest Confidence Scheme:

    “Psst! Hey Rube, this is your lucky day! I have an inside line with an
    invisible being with super powers! Do as I say or my invisible friend
    will kick your butt! Now give me your lunch money and thank me for
    taking it.”

    • Oscar

      Off-topic, offensive, insulting, and FLAGGED.

  • BillTheCat45

    Tristan the Christian exemplifies today’s poisonous believers of the sky god cult.

    • Oscar

      NO HE DOES NOT.

      The God of the Bible has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this man’s hideous position. Do not put his sick call to violence in His mind or His mouth.

      You can correctly criticize Tristan, but LEAVE GOD AND CHRISTIANITY OUT OF IT.

      Jesus, and Jesus-Followers everywhere, ALSO CONDEMN this sad view. Emmanuel is about as representative of Christianity, as Judas was of the twelve disciples.

      NO CONNECTION. DISHONEST AND UNFAIR.

  • Halou

    The strictest and of most widely known blasphemy laws in the world are those of Pakistan and Afghanistan. When anyone talks about blasphemy, that is the first thing that comes to mind.
    The situation is so bad (or good, depending on your point of view) out there that evidence of blasphemy cannot even be put to a court of law since the displaying or reciting of blasphemous material is itself blasphemy, regardless of situation or context. The official punishments also include the likes of public flogging and stoning, but angry mobs can do far far worse if the police aren’t on the scene to stop it.
    An angry man burned pages of his own Koran and blamed a christian schoolgirl for it, causing her and her entire family to go into hiding for fear of their lives. And last year the UK accepted it’s first atheist asylum seeker, a man from Afghanistan.

    You say blasphemy laws and everyone’s mind jumps directly to the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    • Oscar

      And the horrors of your examples are exactly what Emmanuel wants to bring to US shores. He is not even an American, but wants to infest America with these hideous barbaric practices. AND CALL THEM CHRISTIAN, NO LESS.
      I will stand against this destructive and pathetic caricature of Christianity as long as I have breath in my body. I’m Oscar Lynch, and I make no apology.

      • The Skeptical Chymist

        We may disagree on other issues, but I stand with you on this, Oscar.

        • Oscar

          Thanks for having my back, chymist. I knew when I put on my big boy pants and stood up and called this guy out, some here would find some way to defend him and make ME out to be the bad guy. That’s ok it’s worth whatever the cost to stand against evil and stand up for what is right. I’ll go down swinging on this one. I will fight this slop, passing as Christian thought, as long as I have breath in my body.
          I had believed that, at worst, Tristan would politely try to find a way to defend his unbiblical position, and at best, that he would repent of it. I never DREAMED he would continue to make a word game out of “Bill” and “blasphemous” as well as do so with my name, which is schoolboy behavior. Even less that he’d start in on the “so-called Christian” type of slurs! He even misquoted me, falsely making my AGE into the number of years I’ve been a Christian. I never accepted his heretical position, but now I’ve lost respect for the man as well.

  • rustywheeler

    Is this where a Master’s of Theology gets you?

    • Oscar

      Sadly, it appears so. The only questions now are where did Emmanuel get that Masters of Theology, and if they advocated Christian violence there. I hope we get to know one day.

  • nowaRINO

    Darn that pesky US Constitution!

    • Oscar

      If you are making a point that Emmanuel had the right to write those vile, demented things like calling for violence against unbelievers, I agree.

      If you are saying that the constitution demands that I shut up about his call to violence, I don’t.

      If you are saying that there should be no consequences for calling for Christian violence against unsaved comedians, I don’t.

      If you are saying that the constitution forbids me from stating exactly what is his constitutionally protected right to make a fool of himself and to shame the name of Christ, I don’t.

      If you are saying that the constitution gives Emmanuel the right to say something THAT unbiblical and destructive then try to put it in the mouth of my Savior, I don’t.

      • nowaRINO

        I am saying the Constitution doesn’t give a damn about his or Maher’s religious views.

        • Oscar

          Then why couldn’t you have SAID so and saved us both a lot of effort, RINO? I agree (minus your profane terminology), now that I finally understand your claim. Before, it was anything but clear, and I had to posit and respond to various self-provided scenarios, in order to coherently reply.

          Yes, the U.S. Constitution provides legal protection to both Maher’s blasphemy aand Emmanuel’s blasphemies. And other than that legal protection, it is largely indifferent. (I had to expand upon and clarify your – as usual – short, vague, and unclear statement.)

          That does NOT mean, however, that all vile (but protected from Tristan’s favorite blasphemy laws) free speech is protected from its CONSEQUENCES, as I’m sure you’d agree. (Fires, theatres, etc.)

          This is to say the obvious (at least to everyone on earth minus Emmanuel) that Christians and atheists have EVERY right to blaspheme God (and both of these gentlemen have done so nicely, for your example) and that other Christians have EVERY right to notice, respond and condemn BOTH Tristan and Maher. Which we have done here.

          The Consitution gives us no right to flog either man for expressing unbiblical views, (but ironically, Emmanuel, though he doesn’t even recognize it, would be first in line for one, for daring to suggest such violence AS A CHRISTIAN).

          Tristan’s favorite (immoral, illogical, and unconsitutional) blasphemy laws were LONG AGO realized such and rightly done away with. Thus, no whippings for either, but LOTS of deserved condemnation, for both. (I reserve FAR more condemnation for a violent man who speaks the way he did, while claiming to know better, than for a sad but non-violent atheist comedian, who doesn’t.)

          How’d I do?

  • Jim

    What is McMaster Divinity School? I know of McMaster Divinity College, once affiliated with McMaster University but no longer. MDC is a well-respected institution. I can’t find something called McMaster Divinity School. Are the school and the college supposed to be the same thing? If so, why would somebody claiming to have received a master’s degree from MDC get the name wrong? If not, what and where is McMaster Divinity School? Can we get a clarification on Tristan Emmanuel’s academic credentials–whatever they might be?

    • Oscar

      Good question. I would be interested in seeing how this plays out. Barbwire should clarify which it is.

  • Alencon

    Excuse me, but I think I’m going to go buy my copy of the 1st Amendment a nice gift. Perhaps it would like a new oak frame?

    As for Emmanuel, perhaps we should all chip in and get him the latest collection of Bill Maher CDs? We could even throw in a video of George Carlin.

    • Oscar

      I get your sarcasm, but this is actually a very serious matter. When a Christian says something so vile, so illegal, so outrageous, so immoral, and so sick, then claims he found it in my Bible, I don’t feel a need to make jokes. God and I weep, not laugh, at the tremendous harm done to His Kingdom by this man’s demented article.
      In Emmanuel’s case, the damage has been done. But we should all soundly condemn this kind of violent tripe, then put as much distance as we can between him and us. There’s a real smell of smoke on this guy, and I can guarantee you it didn’t come from heaven.
      To summarize, your post wasn’t funny, and this guy’s article was even LESS so. I agree that if Emmanuel’s article was tongue-in-cheek, we could find some sick humor here. But HE IS ACTUALLY SERIOUS! He had a chance to repent, but instead doubled down on this thoroughly unbiblical call to violence. And that’s too SAD TO BE FUNNY.

      • Alencon

        There is a difference between comedy and ridicule.

        You make it sound like this is the first time you’ve run into a vile, sick or immoral pronouncement from a so-called Christian.

        Where have you been? Emmanuel’s rant strikes me as not significantly worse than some of the delusional rants I’ve heard from others who claim to speak for Christians and Christianity. And I’m not even including the ever popular Westboro Baptist Church.

        The fundamental problem with people like this is they’re terrified of folks who don’t look like them, live like them or think like them. They’re so ethnocentric that they cannot conceive of the idea that different doesn’t necessarily mean inferior or threatening.

        Of course the 1st Amendment (my copy now has a spiffy new oak frame) protects their hateful speech as much as it protects speech that is more productive.

        I refuse to stoop to their level so ridicule strikes me as the only rational response.

        • Oscar

          Gotcha. NOW I understand you first post. But we’ll have to disagree, because we’re coming at this from two polar opposite directions, about ridiculing the author being the only rational response.

          If I was not a Christian, and if God’s good name was not at stake, I’d probably be laughing at the absolute absurdity of this guy’s article, too. But to us, Tristan is not funny. To us, Tristan is not representative. To us, his position is disgusting and totally unbiblical.

          I’m sorry that you now have an example of an overheated, unthinking, violent-minded believer. But please, Alencon, don’t put us all in that same basket. He doesn’t speak for us. He doesn’t speak for Christ.

          Westboro Baptist has been so thoroughly discredited and condemned by virtually all of Christendom so your hateful and extreme example fails. They are not representative of Christianity, any more thatn Tristan is of Christ. That would be as honest as saying Judas was a good respresentative of the twelve disciples!

          Yes, Emmanuel does seem absolutely terrified by one stupid, dismissable comment from some foolish atheist comedian. But instead of being secure enought in his faith to just laugh at his ridiculous statement, (actually thinking that he could sit in judgment of God), instead of promising to pray for his soul, Emmanuel literally calls for restoring laws that would require his physical beating. Maher’s job is to be offensive. He is a sinner, whose job it is to sin. That seems to surprise and infuriate Tristan. I don’t get that he doesn’t get it.

          • Alencon

            I said “I’m not even including the ever popular Westboro Baptist Church.” I understand they are thoroughly discredited so I didn’t actually give an example.

            I might point out that Maher wasn’t sitting in judgement of “god.” He doesn’t believe in a god. He was actually sitting in judgement of people who believe the stories in Genesis and blindly accept the “morality” of the OT even though some of that “morality” is, to many of us, immoral.

          • Oscar

            You actually DID mention it, Alencon, or I would not have responded to it and we would not be discussing it right now. That’s about as honest as Tristan Emmanuel, calling for blasphemy laws in his first article and now insisting he did not call for blasphemy laws.

            It’s kind of hard to claim you didn’t mention WBC, when you even found a way to do so yet AGAIN. And you still say you didn’t, in your evasion tactic of beginning with “I’m not even including the ever popular WBC…” And now, you agree with me that they have been discredited. In your original post, they were “the ever popular…” Slick. You and Tristan ought to go into business together.

            Actually Maher DID rant exactly against God, even though as you mentions, he claims he doesn’t believe in one. He specifically ranted about God’s judgment on the world, and made a pointed joke about Him appearing in a movie with Russell Crowe, and still being the one with more anger problems. There’s no honest way to get around that Alencon.

            So I’m not buying your intent to excuse the profane comedian. Your explanation sounds plausible, at least until one LISTENS to Maher’s actual blasphemous words. Maher’s rant against God is ALMOST as offensive to me as Emmanuel’s diatribe, thinking he’s defending Him.

            As an interesting aside about the Noah movie, at least to me anyway, (knowing you’re not a person of faith) is the fact that God told us in Genesis exactly why He was going to destroy the world. Man’s “wickedness” was given as the general cause. Guess what even MORE specific (actually the ONLY specific) sin that is listed? The SAME one that Tristan is calling for : “violence”. Ironic, no? We Christians believe that God destroyed the world, for the EXACT sin that Emmanuel calls us to return to. There simply are no words to explain how a Christian could be that tone deaf!

          • Michael Neville

            Many of us atheists became atheists because we read the Bible. According to your own propaganda, your god is a sadistic, narcissistic bully with the emotional maturity of a spoiled six year old. He kills people just because he can. That sort of god deserves all the abuse anyone can dish out. Sorry if this is offensive to you. Your fawning over a thug of a god is offensive to me.

          • Oscar

            I don’t know what Bible you have read, or what propaganda you have heard. I have been a Christian and studied the Bible for decades, and have never, once heard from one of my brothers, or, once, read in my Bible, anything like what you have described (ok, pre-Tristan Emmanuel, whose slop I was shocked at and condemn just as strongly as you do).

            But insults are not arguments, Michael, Simple name calling does not convince anyone here, sir. Given your vicious post, it is really difficult to believe that you have any other motive, visiting Barbwire, except smearing believers, and feeling really good about it. (I bet right now, you are patting yourself on the back and congratulating yourself for that smackdown of those knuckle-dragging Christians. Did I get that right?)

            Why don’t you stop the self-congratulation and see your argument for how weak it is? Why not be honest, and admit that you made up that thug of a god, and that he is not anything resembling the God of the Bible? Why not put down those insults and really THINK for a change?

            CHALLENGE:

            1. We will take your arguments seriously, if you will take our God and His Bible seriously. We won’t put words in atheists’ mouths if you won’t put words in our God’s. Deal?
            2. Tristan Emmanuel’s hateful rant did not come from the Bible, offends Christ just as much as you, and is not representative of 99% of Cristendom, so we will rule out, a priori, his vile views. Fair enough?

          • Eric Collier

            You don’t know what bible he’s (we’ve) been reading? Its the same one, pal. The one in which jahweh commanded his chosen people to move into one Caananite city-state after another and exterminate every living thing in them, men, women, children, animals. The one in which it says, “Happy is he who dasheth the little ones’ brains out against the rocks”. The god who got a little peevish & drowned nearly every living thing on earth in a global flood. The god who slew Uzzah on the spot just for trying to steady the cart on which the arm of the covenant was being carried. The one who allowed the slaughter of the innocents just as a stage backdrop for the escape of one child. Yeah, that god. That bible. What bible do you recommend?

          • Oscar

            You seem quite comfortable in your cherry-picking ignorance, Eric. It appears you are quite satisfied to remain in your hatred and bigotry. Good luck with that.

            You have made it clear that you don’t really want to know, that you have no real curiousity about the truth of what the Bible has to say. Your mind is made up, your decision is taken.

            You obviously came here to do a drive-by shooting; throwing out tired insults, misquoted passages, cherry-picked verses, and leaving before a response. I would take you seriously, except for the evidence of all the above.

            By the way, Eric, your vile insults and dishonest slanders of God almost convinced me that the writer of the article was a moderate. Your bigoted hatred for people of faith and their scriptures just made the author of this article look reasonable by comparison.

            We cannot go forward when your only argument is slurs, and you make your case with hatred. One day you’ll see how just wrong and foolish you were.

          • Eric Collier

            “Vile insults?…bigoted hatred of people”? Oscar, where did you derive all that from what I wrote? I insulted no one, I slandered no one. Yes, I employed some vitriol, but it wasn’t directed at any person. It was directed at the odious nonsense in your holy book,–& I supose at the odious behavior of your jahweh, at least as depicted in the OT. Best thing about that guy is, he doesn’t exist.
            “Cherry-picking ignorance”? I’ve read the bible cover to cover, read many analyses and exegeses of it by christians & non-christians. I stand by what I said about the OT: its a silly & vile mythology.
            Of course, if I’m wrong, you will have the enormous satisfaction of looking down from heaven & watching me fry in hell. Just hang on till then. In the meantime, get some medication.

    • Lamont Cranston

      Clearly what the man needs more than anything is a case of lube.

      • Oscar

        When you stoop to the level of this author and start advocating violence, you can expect to be FLAGGED.

        • Lamont Cranston

          Advocating violence would be to deny him lube.

      • Oscar

        And when you stoop to the level of Tristan Emmanuel, you can expect to be FLAGGED.

  • James

    –“Laughably they all insisted— while calling me every derogatory name possible — that they are the defenders of free speech.”–

    While not in any way approving of those calling you derogatory names, I should point out that calling you derogatory names is in no way incompatible with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the freedom from government interference in your speech; unless they represented a credible threat that the government would squelch your speech, your freedom of speech remains no less intact than it was yesterday.

    –“So for the Oscar-lite-weights, what this means is that one can advocate for the law-principle, while not advocating for a particular type of punishment, which historically was left to the discretion of the courts.”–

    So it’s not so much that you *don’t* think Maher should be whipped and tortured for saying something you disapprove of—it’s that you don’t think that whipping and torturing shouldn’t necessarily be the legal punishment. You still think he should be subject to legal punishment for saying something you disapprove of, it’s just that it shouldn’t necessarily be whipping and torture, it can be something as simple as a fine or jail time.

    –“At any rate you so-called Christians helped to prove my point perfectly. You do not care about God’s honour and yet you have the audacity to call yourselves Christians.”–

    Imagine a person who, when someone insults him, literally kills them for it—and who, furthermore, wants there to be laws against insulting him, but not against insulting anyone else. Would you have anything positive to say about such a person? I’d wager that the answer is “no.”

    So why do you ascribe those very properties to God and pretend that this is somehow “honoring” God? Is portraying God as a petty, vindictive, and immature being, quick to take offense and strike out at even the slightest hint of an insult—something we would consider a rank insult to any of our characters, if it were said about us—really an act of “honor”?

    • Oscar

      Excellent questions, James; I’d be interested in seeing the author’s repsonses to them.
      This sad man has revealed himself as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Instead of repenting and abandoning his sick call to violence, he has actually doubled down here. Instead of responding to my legitimate criticisms, he simply makes fun of my name then lumps me in with the radical atheists who made (understandly) blasphemous comments in response to his sick violent article. Instead of a sincere, heartfelt apology that we all (Christians and atheists alike) deserved, he denies us that, and paints himself further into the corner with his heresy.
      Now he has to live with and defend his sick, sad position. To do so, he will be forced to twist himself into logical, moral, and theological knots, because he can’t do so using the Bible. He will be forever known as that demented guy who called for violence against unbelievers when they say something he didn’t approve of.
      Emmanuel has horribly damaged the cause of Christ and a shameful man as he (calling himself a Christian, no less!) should never EVER be seen on these pages again. He has NOTHING IN COMMON WITH BIBILICAL CHRISTIANITY. Readers, never EVER waste your time and poison your soul with one of his demented articles.

  • Mikey Solominow

    So, Mr Emmanuel didn’t say bring back anti-blasphemy laws, he said he regrets they were overturned in the first place… seems a distinction without difference to me. This column seemed particularly angry and defensive, even for BarbWire, with more than its share of condescension and name-calling. It’s worthy of having been written by Mr Barber himself. It saddens me that there are those whose hearts have become so hardened that they can’t even listen to another’s views without demeaning them. As the Quakers are fond of saying, there is that of God in everyone—sometimes we need to quiet ourselves and just listen for a change.

    • Oscar

      Exactly right about the sly manner that Emmanuel now dishonestly utilizes, to insist that he never called for the violence against unbelievers, that he obviously called for in his first piece. Anyone who can read will see what he advocated. Instead of repenting of the call to violence, he now doubles down on it and digs himself in yet deeper. And adds lies to his previous call for violence.
      But sorry, Mikey, Barber NEVER, EVER has stooped to the sad, sick level of Lively and Emmanuel. DON’T dishonestly try to compare the two. There is no comparison to be made. If I am wrong, prove it. I’ll bet my mortgage you can’t. Don’t drag Barber’s good name into this. His mistake was allowing this kind of slop to infest Barbwire, not allowing it spill out of his own mouth. He has enough problems before God for letting these sad, sick men write for this site. He doesn’t need you to make it worse.

  • tomd

    It’s interesting to speculate that were Emmanuel to be transported back to the days when people defended the “honor of God” in colonial America, he may have been on the wrong end of the stick simply by what he believes. Americans of the 1600’s had little patience for this “religious freedom” garbage – they came here to set up their own little pools of religious purity, and weren’t too keen on anyone who didn’t toe the party line.

    • Oscar

      Sadly that is true, and even more sadly, I completely agree with my favorite nonbeliever, tomd. Even though his motive was to slur Christianity in the process, tomd is right here, at least about the effects of taking Emmanuel’s irrational position.

      Many of the early Christian Americans who wanted freedom of religion for themselves, weren’t too keen on giving it to others. Point stipulated, tomd. Like a broken clock, he is occasionally correct, I painfully admit.

      He is also correct that it is not simply ugly for a Christian to call for violence against unbelievers, it is not just unbiblical to say something that totally and obviously wrong, it is not merely immoral and an extreme offense to God, it is also very, very dangerous, very, very thin ice logically. It doesn’t seem to have occured to Emmanuel that this very violence he is calling for today, could very well, on another day, under a different leadership, come back on him.

      There simply is no defense, no excuse, and no explanation as to an article so very wrong appearing here. Even my favorite unbeliever tomd can see that. Too bad Barber hasn’t yet come to his senses. Give him time and prayerful consideration, and I am certain that he will cut his losses, rightly condemn this sick position taken by Emmanuel, and disinvite him to write further here.

      • tomd

        Christianity has nothing to do with it. Blasphemy laws are bad, and directly opposed to the Bill of Rights. This same author tries to invoke freedom of speech while promoting something totally opposed to it, and indicates in several ways that he has no idea what free speech means.

        • Oscar

          Christianity has EVERYTHING to do with it, (but I didn’t expect you’d see or understand that).

          The Christian faith is by far the greatest moral force in the US. A sad, sick man like this Emmanuel, calling himself a Christian, appearing at a Christian site, claiming to speak for Christians, claiming to find his heretical call to violence in the Christian’s Bible, using Christian capital to validate his point, claiming to speak for the Christian’s God, advocating a version of Christian shariah law, using his Christian God-given right to free speech while trying to deny it to those who disagree, HAS TO DO with Christianity, sir. It has EVERYTRHING TO DO with Christianity.

          I really wish you had stopped when you got it right above. Your first sentence was laughably wrong, but the remainder, exactly right. I ALMOST started respecting your views. Now this, and you’re right back to Start.

          • tomd

            You have your own perspective on problems with this author stemming from the fact that you share religions. My issues are independent of his actual religion – his arguments are bad and show a serious lack of understanding of how free speech operates. Wouldn’t matter if he were Christian, Muslim, or an Atheist.

          • Oscar

            Your issues may be “independent” of his actual religion, but I am furious with him EXACTLY BECAUSE of his “actual religion” and how he abuses it.
            We both rightly condemn his call to violence, his lack of argument (which led to the call to violence in the first place) and his profound misunderstanding of free speech.
            I will raise you another: A Cannadian, calling for the reinsitutuion of blasphymy laws, which would bring absolute chaos in my country, if we were ever FOOLISH enough to take this man seriously.
            Ok, changing your position to state that a monster is a monster no matter which faith he follows is something I could agree with. The sad thing here he is that Tristan does not claim to be with those others. He actually tried putting that violence in the name of my Lord Jesus Christ!

          • Oscar

            I would stand against violence no matter the author’s faith. But when it drips from the mouth of a person who wears the name of CHRIST, it really makes my blood boil!

          • Bass

            We? Who are you speaking for other than yourself?

            There are many Christians who wish for theocracy exactly like Tristan. And have no problem supporting their lunacy with scripture.

            P.S. Did you seriously just imply that all Christians are right wing and all gays and atheists are left?

  • Thomas McCabe

    If blasphemy laws are introduced, against which deity? Jews and Muslims consider the assertion of Christ’s divinity to be blasphemous. Would Mr Emmanuel be happy being dragged into court to answer a charge from some members of those faiths? Can you be convicted of blaspheming against Shiva or Vishnu in his scheme? Or is it only “Christians” who will filing the charges? He might also want to remember a certain Yeshua ben Yusuf who was accused of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin.

    • Oscar

      Good catch. A Christian, actually daring to state that he wants to bring back these laws and their violent penalties, is clearly obscene.
      A Christian, allowed to write at Barbwire, yet obviously lacking the mental facilities which would enable him to see that it is illogical, immoral, and will one day come back on him, is even WORSE.

  • M Jackson

    A call for christian Shariah law. Really?
    Breitbart for the scorched-earth evangelical christian crowd. What a sickly stench this one leaves.
    Whoever this a**hole tristan emmanuel is, beg pardon if I don’t put him at the top of my list as this nation’s moral judge jury and jailer.

    • Oscar

      Yes, he really went there!
      Yes, there is definitely a stench of sulfur on this guy’s comments.

      But wait a minute there, Jackson…

      Whoever this XXXXXX is, he is not a biblical Christian.
      Whoever this “judge, jury, and jailer” is, he is not representative, in any meaningful way, of Christendom.

      And don’t insult Breitbart, a fine non-violent non-believer, by comparing him with a hideous and violent believer. Breitbart, though not a Christian, NEVER advocated this kind of slop. He had more morals than Tristan.

  • portertx

    I find it quite interesting that an “Omnipotent Supreme Being” would require mans lame attempt at protection.

    Also the law that Tristan speaks of is from 1697-1759….America wasn’t even an independent country back then (only a colony). This was even around during the Salem Witch trials…..Do you ever wonder why out founding fathers wrote the first amendment they way they did?

    1697. Anno Regni Regis G U L I E L M I, III Nono.

    Atheism & Blasphemy C H A P. VIAn Act against Atheism and Blasphemy.

    BE it declared and enacted by the Lieutenant Governor, Council and Representatives, convened in General Assembly, and it is enacted by the Authority of the same, That if any Person shall presume willfully to blaspheme the holy Name of God, Father, Son, or Holy Ghost; either by denying, cursing or reproaching the true God; his Creation or Government of the World: or by denying, cursing, or reproaching the holy Word of God; that is the canonical Scriptures contained in the Books of the Old and New Testaments; namely GENESIS, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Samuel, Kings, Kings, Chronicles, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel; Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: MATTHEW, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Corinthians, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, Peter, Peter, John, John, John, Jude, Revelation: Every one so offending shall be punished by Imprisonment, not exceeding six Months, and until they find Sureties for the good Behaviors; by sitting in Pillory; by Whipping; boaring thorow the Tongue, with a red hot Iron; or sitting upon the gallows with a Rope about their Neck; at the Discretion of the Court of Assize, and General Goal Delivery, before which the Trial shall be; according to Circumstances, which may aggravate or alleviate the Offence.

    Provided, That not more than two of the fore-mentioned Punishments shall be inflicted for one and the same Fact.

    The Council and Representatives, convened in General Assembly, of His Majesty’s PROVINCE of the MASSACHUSETTS-BAY in NEW-ENGLAND.

    • Oscar

      At least this is evidence that people have checked out early American history. They will find that the colonies were wrong about blasphemy laws, and that the country repented and corrected this horrible mistake in 1952. (I guess there WAS one benefit from this sad, sick call to violence after all!)

      Hopefully, Christians will now read their Bibles and find that Christ taught NONE of this violence. That He TOOK stripes, but never, once, advocated GIVING them to atheist comedians. Hopefully, Jesus-Followers everywhere will study their Bibles, and afterwards, put as much distance as they can between themselves and this poor fellow Tristan. Maybe, just like the blasphemous Noah movie, the blasphemous Emmanuel article will do a bit of good, along with all the damage it has done to the name and cause of Christ and to this site. One can pray.

      I don’t think you are a Christian from the general tone of your post, but your opening sentence was POWERFUL AND TRUE. That Emmanuel would actually call for beatings against some atheist fool for his statement, tells me far more about Emmanuel than it does Maher. That his faith is SO fragile, it must be protected by beatings!

      I’d side with a nonviolent, atheist fool (who doesn’t know better) than a violent, Christian fool (who should!!!). I wouldn’t want to be in Tristan’s shoes on That Day, for inventing this heresy then sticking it in the mouth of a Holy God! He will not be pleased.

      • portertx

        As for being or not being a Christian is between me and God. I do not require a litmus test of “being or believing” a certain way to validate my belief & faith. Unfortunately to many like Tristan do, this speaks volumes about how weak their faith & beliefs really are.

        • Oscar

          I simply stated I didn’t know either way, and then complimented you. Calm down.

          No one demanded to know, or even ASKED, for heaven’s sakes. Much LESS called for a “litmus test”! I think your argument may be with someone else. It certain isn’t with me. Chill.

          If you want to argue with someone, do so with Tristan, the man with the weak faith and beliefs, not the one whom you agree with, in this case.

          • portertx

            Ocsar – i did not mean to offend. I realized you did complement me and thank you. I was not referring to you – – it does get tiresome that people question if someone is Christian or not….thus my rant – but that was not directed at you.

          • Oscar

            Thanks for your thoughtful and reasonable reply.
            Now, if only we could get Tristan to do so….

  • Peter Quebbeman

    This man is justifiably institutionalizable.

    • Oscar

      Agreed.

      But I bet our reasons for believing in his justifiable instututinalization are different. Here’s my take on your call for institutionalization:

      For blasphemy of God, yes.
      For saying he found his vile and violent idea in the Bible, check.
      For crimes against morality and basic logic, of course.
      For daring to spit this poisonous sickness at a Christian site, while at the same time wearing the name of Christ, certainly.

      Tristan is guilty as charged. His condemnation comes right out of his own mouth. But admitting he DESERVES institutionalization, and writng an article CALLING for that very act, in God’s name no less, are two different things. I did the first, but refuse to do the second.

      Even I, a “Christian compromiser”, “birds of a feather” with the gays, “lightweight”, “so-called Christian” would not stoop THAT low.

  • Truth Offends

    TO THOSE OF YOU WHO READ OSCAR’S COMMENTS
    Oscar claims to be a Christian. But, all of Oscar’s self-righteous condemnation of Tristan Emmanuel is based on a LIE! Breaking God’s 9th commandment against bearing false witness, Oscar repeatedly says that Emmanuel “calls for violence.” And if that isn’t bad enough, Oscar then harshly judges and condemns Emmanuel (for what is a lie).

    Emmanuel did NOT “call for violence”! He did not “call for violence” against blasphemers, or anyone else for that matter. When Emmanuel said, in the first sentence of his column, “I think it’s time to bring back blasphemy laws,” all he did was tell us what he thinks. He did not call on America to enact blasphemy laws. He did not call on Americans to petition their legislators to draft legislation against blasphemy. All he did what tell us what he thinks, and why. And, one only needs to read Emmanuel’s column to know that the only thing he called for is Christians to exercise their 1st Amendment rights!

    Emmanuel called on American Christians (not America) to do the following:
    When people use their 1st Amendment right to publicly blaspheme God the way Bill Mahar did, then American Christians should also use their 1st Amendment rights and unite to publicly condemn such blasphemers.

    If anyone would like to challenge me on that point, then I would only ask that you please go back and read the column, and then show me where I am wrong.

    • Oscar

      Exactly readers. Find and read Emmanuel’s original article, and you will be able to read his words and decide for yourself if I made that all up, or if Tristan REALLY SAID THOSE VIOLENT AND DISGUSTING THINGS, right here at Barbwire.

      Or, you could simply read truthoffends’ direct quote provided above from Tristan’s article, and save yourselves some time. Truthoffends quoted Emmanuel correctly: “I think it’s time to bring back blasphemy laws”. (The author didn’t stop there. He goes WAY BEYOND THAT, to talk about beatings as being the appropriate response to the comedian’s remarks, but I’m getting ahead of myself.) You need only THAT MUCH to see that Truth is lying and Oscar is reporting what he read directly from the lips of this sick, sad Tristan Emmanuel.

      But you would need to read it ALL, to understand the whole sick, poisonous filth the man wrote, here at Barbwire, no less. Something so disgusting and offensive that it made my mouth drop wide open. I read it again and again to see if I had actually read what I thought I had.

      You seriously need to visit that article, reader, just like you would a Holocaust Museum. Not for fun, but to be awakened at how low some people can actually sink. Sorry for the insult to the Nazis. I, too, was offended by Maher, but NOTHING compared to my fury at this writer’s attempted destruction of Barbwire and the name of my Lord Jesus Christ.

      I did not even get into the fact that this guy literally quoted, (thereby implying agreement with) the colonists’ other grisly practices, such as stocks, tongue burnings, and well you get the vile idea. The deeper you get into this offensive and heretical article, the more profoundly you will be shocked and dismayed by what he privately thinks and publicly says. It is almost beyond belief.

      But this article WASN’T written by an atheist or a Nazi. It was written by a “Christian” author, with a theology degree from a Christian school!!! (We’re still investigating which school he attended, because either, in his blind rage against atheists, he doesn’t remember its correct name, or he is not being honest about which one it was. We are also checking into what Blasphemy & Punishment 101 classes were offered there. To be continued…).

      THAT’S WHAT TRISTAN SAID and THAT’S WHAT TRISTAN BELIEVES, readers. Truthoffends JUST PROVED MY ARGUMENT, much better than I did! Sometimes, truth offends. And bearing false witness, in order to wrongly protect a writer against people finding out what he wrote and to slander the person who stood up and said “THAT IS WRONG!” is STILL against the Ninth Commandment. (Thank God, America had the moral and common sense to do away with those laws that would have called for truthoffend’s lashing for blatantly and publicly doing so!)

    • James

      First, let’s be clear about one thing: Just because Mr. Emmanuel wrote that he doesn’t necessarily think that those who engage in what he deems blasphemy should be whipped and tortured, that doesn’t mean that he wasn’t advocating violence. Imprisonment is violence. Fines (with the coercive threat of imprisonment for failing to pay the fine) are violence. They may be wholly-legitimate forms of violence for the state to engage in, if due process is followed in executing a just law, but they are violence nonetheless.

      Second, just because Mr. Emmanuel didn’t engage in specific calls to action for bringing back laws against blasphemy, doesn’t mean that he wasn’t advocating that laws against blasphemy be brought back. It’s a pretty remarkable act of rhetorical gymnastics to say that when someone says “I think we should do XYZ,” they’re not actually advocating for XYZ. If you agree with Mr. Emmanuel that laws against blasphemy should be brought back, why not just be honest and advocate for that instead of arguing that Mr. Emmanuel didn’t say what you yourself are paraphrasing him as having said?

      • Oscar

        Amen and amen.

      • Truth Offends

        First, I paraphrased what Emmanuel said, NOT what he did not say.

        Second, Emmanuel did not advocate for imprisonment, or fines. But, for the sake of argument, even if he did, I believe neither of those are acts of violence. As I understand it, violence involves physical force.

        Third, I agree with you that if someone said “I think we should do XYZ,” that means the person is advocating for XYZ! And what Emmanuel said Christians should do, what he advocated for (XYZ), is to exercise their 1st amendment rights!

        Emmanuel said, in effect, “I think it’s time to bring back ABC (blasphemy laws). But, such laws are unconstitutional. So, what we should do is XYZ (exercise 1st amend rights).

        So, again: Emmanuel was not “calling for violence” as you imply in your comment above, and as Oscar repeatedly says on this page.

        • Oscar

          If you have to tie yourself into all those silly logical and mental knots to make Emmanuel say something other than what he actually, you know, SAID, it might just be that Occum’s Razor applies here, which says the simplest solution is the likeliest.

          It might just be that Emmanuel blasphemously called for violence, that Oscar noticed that, was outraged and reported it, and that you are now in some weird lotus position, with a red face, looking really uncomfortable and silly, trying to make Oscar into a liar and making Tristan say something other than what he said.

          Just admit it, Truthoffends; sometimes, the truth, offends. And get up off the floor, for heaven’s sakes!

        • James

          –“Second, Emmanuel did not advocate for imprisonment, or fines. But, for the sake of argument, even if he did, I believe neither of those are acts of violence. As I understand it, violence involves physical force (or something like what happened yesterday at Fort Hood).”–

          So you don’t think it’s a violent act to take someone from their home and force them to be confined in a cage for a period of months or years? You don’t think it’s a violent act to threaten to do that to someone if they don’t give you a certain amount of money? Because that’s what imprisonment and fines are.

          Again, don’t get me wrong here; their being acts of violence does not necessarily make them wrong. They are wholly-legitimate forms of violence if engaged in by the state, as part of the process of enforcing just laws with due process for the defendant. But they are acts of violence nonetheless.

          –“Emmanuel said, in effect, “I think it’s time to bring back ABC (blasphemy laws). But, ABC (blasphemy laws) is unconstitutional. So, what we should do is XYZ (exercise 1st amend rights).”–

          This is a direct quote from Mr. Emmanuel’s piece: “So for the Oscar-lite-weights, what this means is that one can advocate for the law-principle, while not advocating for a particular type of punishment, which historically was left to the discretion of the courts.” The “law-principle” for which he is explicitly advocating is that of having some kind of legal punishment for blasphemy, while leaving the specifics up to the legal system to determine.

          He’s not advocating that Christians should advocate for people to freely choose not to engage in what he characterizes as blasphemy despite their being no legal punishment for their doing so; he’s advocating that it be illegal for people to engage in what he characterizes as blasphemy.

          He’s not simply saying that Christians should “exercise their 1st amendment rights” in saying “that’s blasphemy, and it’s wrong”; he’s explicitly calling for legal punishments to be reinstated against those who say things he disapproves of.

          So let’s call a spade a spade here. He is advocating for laws that criminalize speech he disapproves of. We may disagree on the merits of that proposal—I find it more than ridiculous, not to mention completely unworkable legally—but let’s at least be honest about what the proposal actually is.

          • Oscar

            James, you will never know how much I appreciate your reasoned, thoughtful, and logical call to take Tristan’s sad words on their face. To respect this demented author enough to say that he said EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTED TO SAY, not what Truthoffends is now trying to put in his mouth. Not what Truthoffends WISHES he had rather said. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

            If there is ANYTHING in this whole sad spectable more tragic than what Emmanuel stated, at a CHRISTIAN site no less, is that Truthoffends tries so hard to DEFEND this blasphemy. Tries to explain it away. Tries to make the author say the oppositie of what the author said.

            I take a little different view of fines and imprisonment in that I would call them coercion. Whippings, stocks, tongue burnings, hangings, and whatever else Tristan loves to dream about and return to, however ARE violence.

            But something I NEVER thought I’d ever be doing in my lifetime, is actually talking about these hideous acts here! I could have NEVER predicted, that a Christian man, with a Christian degree, at a Christian site, SERIOUSLY believes hideous things like that and we are having to set him straight! It’s right out of Alice in Wonderland! But it’s real and it’s happening!

            Again, I am more grateful than you know, that you are here, and watching my back, James. Bringing your thoughtful opinions and sound reasoning to this subject. For putting my outrage into words much better than I. God bless you, and thank you for having the guts to oppose this clear evil, disgustingly put in the mouth of a Holy God. I was beginning to think I was the only one to actually see what I saw!

          • Truth Offends

            No. I do not find either imprisonment or imposing fines as acts of violence. I actually find it absurd to believe they are. And, I think it would be pointless to continue to discuss this matter any further. So, let’s get back to Emmanuel.

            You’re wrong again. You’re conclusions are completely baseless. In fact, Emmanuel’s quote you point to as the basis for your conclusions PROVES you’re wrong. Here’s his quote:

            “One can advocate for the law-principle, while not advocating for a particular type of punishment, which historically was left to the discretion of the courts.”

            To assist you in understanding a simple sentence, I added comments within parentheses in Emmanuel’s quote:

            “One (Emmanuel) can advocate for the law-principle (spelled out in his first column: Christians should exercise their 1st Amendment rights to publicly condemn those who publicly blaspheme God), while NOT advocating for a particular type of punishment (the types you and Oscar wrongly conclude he IS advocating for), which historically was left to the discretion of the courts (before they were found to be unconstitutional).”

            So, again: You and Oscar are both wrong. Emmanuel was NOT advocating for the re-instatement of blasphemy laws. He was advocating for Christians to exercise their 1st Amendment rights. And, now, I think it’s time for you (and Oscar) to take your own advice: “be honest about what the proposal actually is.”

      • Oscar

        James, you are spot on, in your assessment of Tristan’s deception. You could NOT be more correct.He parses his words, he slyly chooses his phrases, he hints at things but doesn’t state them clearly, ALL done on purpose, to be able later, to deny saying what he obviously SAID.

        I EXPECT to see that kind of deception in modern secular advertising, for example, where terms like his “weasel words” are utilized, which means they are so DELIBERATELY vague that they are unclear. They call the space gotten by using weasel words “wiggle room” (which means you can easily escape later, if called on the carpet about your false claims for your product). Maybe Tristan has studied advertising. He at least is just as slick and slippery!

        I EXPECT the world to lie. I EXPECT them to use weasle words to leave themselves wiggle room. I EXPECT atheists to sin. I EXPECT unsaved comedians to be irreligious. That’s their job, and it’s no surprise to anyone expect Tristan.

        I DON’T expect to see that at Barbwire. I DON’T expect that from a Christian writer. I cannot tell you how ashamed I am of this fraud of a Christian, and at times like this, of modern American Christianity. Wanting to return to whippings and writing so slyly. Doing away with blasphemy laws was such a no-brainer, it was so obviously unbiblical, that the US did away with them over SIX decades ago.

        Tristan actually brags that his country still had them until recently! That is tantamount to saying look, all the Muslim countries are right, and the Christian ones WRONG! Tristan LOVINGLY AND LONGINGLY, quotes those vile punishments at length, wishing they were still in effect, wanting to live in the past, and totally oblivious to the fact they’d be used, first of all, on HIM!

        If there is anything SADDER than this man’s call to violence, and his blindness as to just how blasphemous it was, it is that you, James, would have to try to EXPLAIN IT TO HIM! His original article, and his second, digging himself FURTHER into the heresy pit, is almost like living in Alice’s Wonderland or something. This is WAY beyond reason. This isn’t in the biblical doctrine BALLPARK. This is shameful and disgusting for all concerned. What an EMBARASSMENT to God’s Kingdom. What SHAME he has brought on all of Christianity!

        Barbwire, instead of all the other good things they stand up for and the evil they stand against, will now be forever simply known as that crazy site, where the insane pastor actually called for America to return to blasphemy laws. Barbwire could not have handed Satan a better gift with which to blast Christians for decades to come! He has given the gays and the atheists tons of ammunition with which to accuse us of these vile, unspeakable acts of violence, for YEARS TO COME, should the Lord tarry.

        I don’t know how, expect firing this fraud and fully repudiating his heresy publicly, Barbwire can extract themselves from this horrible situation, and regain respectablitility as a Christian voice. I am praying that they do EXACTLY that; cut all ties to this vile man and his ilk, and put as much distance as possible between Barbwire and Emmanuel.

    • Oscar

      Readers, what is MUCH more likely than Oscar “sincerely does not know that is not true” is that Truthoffends now sees he was clearly wrong about the content of Tristan’s rantings, and therefore has chosen to edit his original post. Slick, no?

      What is MUCH more likely, is that Truthoffends now sees how embarassing it was to state that I was breaking the Ninth Commandment, when he now realizes that HE has been doing exactly that. Whoopsy!

      What is MUCH more likely, is that Truthoffends is now furiously backpedaling after being called on the carpet for lying about both what I said and what Emmanuel said. And for doing that with Truthoffends as his handle. Ironic, no?

      But you know what, readers? WHATEVER are his reasons, Truthoffends has finally done the right thing, and told, you know, the Truth. For that, I am content. Now, on to Tristan Emmanueal, and HIS DESPERATE need to repent….

  • Oscar

    UPDATE ON EMMANUEL’S CALL FOR BLASPHEMY LAWS AND THEIR VIOLENT PUNISHMENTS:

    Don’t know if you all have seen this latest news, but check it out. Bredndon Eich, CEO of Mozilla, has resigned under pressure from the leftists, amid the homosexuals’ rage over his stance on traditional marriage.

    Read the reports and find that the extremist homosexuals called for his ******PUBLIC BEATING****** (yes, you read that right) for not supporting gay rights. (I guess Tristan Emmanuel has a greater following, and greater influence, than I ever thought possible. I am only HALF-kidding; these leftists must have found, read, and taken his violent, unbiblical advice.)

    What does this sad news say about a fraud of a Christian leader, calling, here at Barbwire no less, for EXACTLY the same punishments, for what they both believe is the same EXACT crime? The radical gays, and a Christian writer, both believing that violence is the solution to disagreement?

    Seriously, this sad Christian writer has further painted himself into a logical, moral, theological, and biblical corner, when he doubled down here on his call for blasphemy laws and the violence they entail in this follow-up piece. There is no escape (minus sincere repentance and changing positions 180 degrees) for Emmanuel, from self-caused connundrum. He asked for it, and he got all this controversy, for not praying and thinking before writing. For letting his rage at an atheist drive him to calling for violence. For letting his old man take control and greive the Holy Spirit, whom he says lives in him. By instead of laughing at an atheist’s pathetic comments, and instead of calling us to pray for his soul, actually wants to visit violence upon him.

    Barbwire, at least formerly a fine Christian site, has also placed itself squarely in the crosshairs of this moral outrage, by inexplicably allowing these outrageous and thoroughly un-Christian articles to appear here. The ONLY manner of extracting themselves from this sad situation is the following:
    1. TOTAL PUBLIC REPUDIATION OF THIS HERESY.
    2. FIRE THIS FRAUD OF A CHRISTIAN, AND GIVE HIM NO REFERENCES TO CONTINUE PRACTICING HIS VILE CRAFT ELSEWHERE.
    3. DISTANCE THEMSELVES AS FAR AS POSSIBLE FROM THIS SICK MAN’S POSITION.
    4. REPENT OF THIS HORRIBLE DECISION AND MAKE IT RIGHT.
    5. NEVER AGAIN ALLOWING THESE HIDEOUS POSITIONS TO BE SPILLED ONTO THESE PAGES.
    6. NEVER AGAIN ALLOW THE NAME OF GOD TO BE STAINED IN THIS WAY.

    I (according to Emmanuel) a “Christian compromiser”, a “lightweight”, a “bird of a feather with the gays” (obviously Tristan has never read my brutal comments here against that particular sin), a “so-called Christian” am going to pray for exactly that to happen, so that we can continue to support Barbwire. So that it can continue to stand up for what is right and that we can, together, speak out against against evil in the world.
    And to do it all WITHOUT VIOLENCE.

    I’m Oscar Lynch, and I make no apology for standing against sin, no matter where I find it.

  • Oscar

    UPDATE ON EMMANUEL’S CALL TO VIOLENCE:

    Emplyees at Mozilla have forced out its pro-traditional marriage CEO. The group was livid at him for donating to California’s Proposition 8, and Brendon Eich finally resigned under pressure.

    The pro-gay groups who were lived at Eich for not supporting gay marriage, had called for *****public beatings***** of the man, prior to his resignation. This call to violence was for his “blasphemy” of not supporting homosexual marriage. Same exact situation – a controversy over “offensive” remarks (someone disagreed with them) and both suggested violence (public beatings) as the solution.

    Apparently Tristan Emmanuel has great influence in the gay community, because the homosexual rights groups and their supporters did exactly as the Christian leader had instructed in a recent Barbwire article. The gay rights groups followed Emmanuel’s cues to the letter, calling for public physical punishment of a man who believed differently than they. Exactly as Emmanuel did, in his article at Christian site Barbwire, in which he called for a return to blasphemy laws, which mandate such violent punishment as fines, imprisonments, whippings, hangings, and tongue burnings, among others.

    I had no idea how closely homosexual groups hang on Tristan’s every word, and how willing they are willing to take him literally when he calls for such violence as public beatings. If I am wrong, and they did not read and obey his call for a return to blasphemy laws and their mandatory punishments, at a minimum, both think similiarly and both have angry, violent knee-jerk impulses if someone disagrees or dares to say something they don’t approve of.

    If there is a more perfect example of just how unbiblical, how heretical, how reprehensible, and how opposite to WWJD is Tristan’s call to violence against a comedian, I do not know of one. If this news article does not display just how sad and sick and rage-filled a blasphemy against God was his article, I don’t know what would be. Violent, angry pro-homosexual groups and a violent, angry “Christian” writer think and talk and act EXACTLY ALIKE.

    Now that it has been empirically proven how shameful is the view of this sick Emmanuel, it is Barbwire’s move. Those in charge should fire this man from this Christian site, have nothing more to do with him and his violent views, publicly repudiate his violence, and admit what a mistake it was to have allowed him here in the first place.

    The damage to the name of Christ has been done. This site as well, will forever be known as the one where some fool actually called for violence against atheists. But they can cut their losses, and minimize the damage by putting as much distance between themselves and the likes of this Tristan Emmanuel as possible. Let’s pray that those in charge do so, because this will only get WORSE if they do not act.

  • Guest
    • Oscar

      I think you should stop while you’re ahead, Truth (or at least before you bury yourself even further) because you are making my case for me MUCH better than I.

      This group’s offensive demand for the resignation of a man who simply believes differently than do these homosexual activists, AS WELL AS THEIR CALL FOR HIS PUBLIC BEATING, puts them and Tristan Emmanuel squarely in the same camp. Soul-mates, as far as their violent tendencies, their knee-jerk reactions, their overbearing rage, and their unbiblical reactions to those who disagree.

      I agree completely that this homosexual rights group’s vile and extreme reaction to a man who hold different views could be accurately described as HOMO-FASCISM (though I would certainly choose to use other words). Now, Truth, will you agree that Tristan’s sad, sick call for a return to blasphemy laws was CHRISTIAN-FASCISM?

      Let’s review:
      Two men (Maher and Eich) make statements offensive to some one.
      Two hate-filled, intolerant individuals or groups (Emmanuel and the gays) angrily react by reprehensibly calling for public punishment of these men for their beliefs.

      Is that about right?

  • Oscar

    Let’s review Barbwire’s Posting Policy:
    “We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.”

    Sounds fair to me. Excellent rules.

    Now let’s analyze Tristan Emmanuel’s two articles on Bill Maher, in the light of Barbwire’s Posting Policy:
    Comments containing violence? YES.

    Included discourteous behavior? YES.
    Contributed to a courteous environment? NO.
    Reasonable discourse? NO.

    Would Emmanuel’s two full articles have been allowed to be posted in this space? NO.
    Do the rules apply both to Barbwire readers and Barbwire contributers? NO.

    Is that fair to readers? You decide. In my view, it’s not even CLOSE.

    Question:
    Why is Tristan Emmanuel allowed to utilize hatred and calls to violence, utilize everything EXCEPT a courteous and reasonable manner in doing so, yet we cannot? Why do we have to follow rules that Emmanuel mocks in almost every line of both articles? Why do we have to behave in ways Tristan does not?

  • http://timgueguen.blogspot.ca tim gueguen

    Mr. Emmanuel might want to read his Bible again. It’s hard not to consider God the greatest mass murderer ever if you take the Noah story seriously. (Not that I do, but I assume he does.)

    • Oscar

      Actually, everyone dies, Tim, so with your small view, you also could try to say that God kills every person who ever lived (hope I didn’t give you yet another lie to try to pass off as truth, and with which to slander God and the Bible, as you so obviously love to do).

      Yes, I’m afraid that, tragically, Mr. Emmanuel’s god may be just as you have described him. But Emmanuel, nor you, found that, or anything of the sort, in the Bible. You and Emmanuel seem to have the same angry and wrong view of an violent god; ONE WHO DOES NOT EVEN EXIST. You and Emmanuel are both slanderers of the God of the Bible. It doesn’t seem to both either of you, at least now. But I promise the both of you that one day, it will.

      The True God, not the one Emmanuel and you have invented, did not WANT to kill anyone, much less everyone. The True God, the God of the Bible, ordered Noah (a symbol of God) to preach to the people, to urge them to leave their sins, enter the safety of the ark, and be saved. He obeyed and did so, calling for them to enter, for many years. Anyone who had taken his counsel (directly from the mouth of a merciful God) could have been saved. THAT is the God of the Bible.

      The FAKE Noah, in the recent film fraud (exactly as does Emmanuel, a fake Christian) violently tried to keep people OFF the ark. That is not the Noah of the Bible, and that is not the God of the Bible. That is yours, and Emmanuel’s, FAKE God. Emmanuel, (because of his wrong view of God) instead of preaching for people to repent, calls for violence against them. You (with your wrong view of God) use verbal violence against believers, and actually think that will convince them to jettison their faith, and go with whatever it is you do not believe in.

      Your views are as despicable as is Emmanuel’s. You both invent false gods. You use yours as verbal ammuniton with which to beat up on Christians. Emmanuel uses his, as verbal ammunition with which to beat up on atheists like you, and worse, he invents a way to call for physically beating up on them. You are BOTH unhelpful and completely WRONG. But I will give you this: at least until now (that I know of, anyways) you have not called for physical violence against Christians. It appears to me that as an atheist, unlike Emmanuel, you DO have SOME morals.

      Make up whatever vile murderous god you want; it’s a free country. Criticize Emmanuel if you choose; I have certainly done so, but for the opposite reason. Make fun of Emmanuel’s (and your) murderous god. Knock yourself out. Just do not say you found him in the Bible.

      I could take your argument seriously, if you would be honest with my Bible and mine. Until then, your arguments are demonstrably false, and therefore bigoted. You make a paper tiger of a god, then blow him over and say “Look how strong I am!” You invent a straw man of a god, then say “Wow, am I moral, not to believe in a mass murder like the god I just made up!” I’m less than impressed, Tim, and I will stand against Emmanuel’s and your bigotry and false gods as long as I have breath. Both are failed arguments and both are despicable.

      • Curiousbill

        You are correct in one sense. There no place in Genesis in the KJV that Noah or his family tried to keep people off the ark. I don’t see anywhere however that god in any way told him to ask or beg people to come on board. Just his family and lots of animals before he destroyed everyone and thing else.

  • Oscar

    Since I was personally mentioned, and personally attacked in this article by Tristan Emmaneul, with my very name (mis)used in the title, I believe I have earned the right to offer a personal response:

    I am a Baptist missionary living in Mexico, who likes to read the news from home, especially conservative, Christian news and opinion. I was really happy to hear of a new Christian site that was willing to take a moral stand against evil.

    And then I read Emmanuel! BREATH-TAKING!

    When I first finished reading his article, with its vile, poisonous, unbiblical and violent hatred of an atheist, something THAT reprehensible and offensive, dripping from the lips of a Christian with a theology degree from an as yet unknown school (more on that later) I first thought it was written tongue-in-cheek. It HAD to be a farce, using dark, sick humor to poke in the eye someone who could believe that way and still call himself a Christian.

    I soon learned that he was actually serious! That he was DEADLY serious! That he indeed wishes to live in the past, and loves to research and think about the good ol’ days, when people could be hung, fined, imprisoned, put in stocks, have their tongues burned with red-hot pokers, etc., if they said something that a Christian didn’t approve of, or something considered blasphemous! I read it again to be sure it was not a sick joke.

    When I read it again, picked my jaw off of the floor, and collected myself (I was so furious at this sickness, stuck in the mind and mouth of my Christ, and allowed to be presented as Christian thought at a Christian site, I honestly admit I ALMOST reacted like the author did, in his blind rage). I calmed down and wrote a response to the piece, and its very mentally ill author, condemning it as being totally outrageous and absolutely unbiblical. (As if Christianity doesn’t have enough problems, and needed to create an entirely NEW one to fight! As if one atheist comedian, in one sad comment, is reason enough to start a war! As if America needs to go back to those sad days of public whippings! Yeah, that is what Tristan has created here! That is actually what he wants!)

    Now we have been offered a follow-up, where this same excuse for a Christian author, in further evidence of his moral tone-deafness, of his determination to NOT see or address the sin in his own life, of his hatred and fury at those who dare to express that they do not believe in God or are angry at Him, of his continuing violent knee-jerk reactions replacing reasoned and thoughtful discourse, and of his refusal to repent of something SO unbiblical and SO un-Christian coming from his own mind and heart, responds instead as follows:

    1. Tristan further spilled his slimy bile on the unbelievers, again expressing his sad condemnation of them insteading of reaching out to them in love. Christian readers, do you want to be on that side, or stand with Christ AGAINST him?
    2. Tristan claimed that the (“the legions of”) atheists (“in their insatiable lust to slander and spread slurs”) are the haters, when in FACT, they only responded in kind to his sick baiting of them, and when their comments ALSO included the EXACT calls to violence, as his! Christian readers, do you want to be in Tristan’s Club, and win souls to Christ with LIES?
    3. Tristan called an unbeliever, at this very Christian site, “one of Satan’s minions”! If this person dies, still an unrepentant unbeliever, and goes to an eternal, unquenchable hell, Tristan Emmanuel, by his blasphemous hatred for him, will be partially responsible for sending him there. Christian readers, do you want to be any part of that?
    4. Tristan lied, and said the purpose of his original comment, was to prove that Christians won’t stand up to comments like Maher’s, and that we proved him “right”. It did NOTHING of the sort. It was clearly a call to return to blasphemy laws and their violent public punishments, as anyone can see by reading it. It was an article obviously baiting unbelievers and believers alike, to dare to disagree with him. Christian readers, do you want to side with the Father of Lies, or stand for the TRUTH, against this foul liar?
    5. Tristan personally slimed me because I had the guts (along with a dozen of both gays and Christians here) to stand up and say “This is WRONG!”. He assinged me a “cadre of online groupies…gay Christians”, and implied that I am an unrepentant homosexual by his use of the word “feathers”or that I am effeminate. He further called me a lightweight, a compromiser, a so-called Christian, and WORSE, for my crime of calling his unbiblical nonsense out. I’m a big boy, and when I consider the sad source of these sick terms, I am extremely proud to be called an enemy of Tristan Emmanuel. To be considered on the opposite side of this type of vile, violent Christian. I wear that as a badge of honor.
    6. Tristan actually dared to conclude, at a Christian site no less, that if we do not agree with his sick, sad, violent, unbiblical blasphemous opinion, that we “do not care about God’s honour”! Those are HIS WORDS, describing you all, Christian readers! Does that slanderous smear fit you? Or more correctly, is standing AGAINST his violent and destructive heresy, more correctly “caring about God’s honour”? I strongly believe the second one describes it, and would be shocked and saddened if it didn’t (thoughI admit, there was ONE poster here, named Truthoffends, who actually DID try to explain and defend this violent, hateful author).

    I will close by saying that if Tristan Emmanuel thinks that we will shut up or give up, sit down or back down, against this type of violent blasphemy of the God Who saved us, he doesn’t know us. And he doesn’t know us. Personally, until my last breath here on this earth, I will stand with my Christ, and I will fight against Tristan’s hatred and violence.
    I hope you join me in my my prayer and my call for Barbwire to send this fraud packing, to publicly repudiate his unbiblical hatred and sick call to violence, and to repent and return to thoughtful, reasoned, Christian discourse. To stand with Christ, and to stand against this blasphemous author and his hatred, with every fiber of our being. Barbwire, its readers, and most importantly, GOD DESERVES BETTER than Tristan Emmanuel. Amen.

  • TBP100

    “Furthermore, saying I advocate for the restoration of penal sanctions, like those in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, is a fabricated lie. What I said was I lament that America had struck down blasphemy laws, i.e. the principle. This is very different from saying I am upset that American no longer whips blasphemers like Maher.”

    Actually, no, it’s pretty much the same thing.

    • Oscar

      Thank you for having a head and being able to use it.
      Thank you for having eyes, and being able to see.
      Thank you for understanding logic and using it.
      Thank you for not falling for the bald lies of this vicious Tristan, as he digs himself deeper and deeper and deeper into the heresy he created, and now finds no way out, except with more evasions and more personal attacks. And this, from a “Christian author”!

      As someone else mentioned here, Tristan’s hair-splitting and word-parsing and back-tracking ABOUT WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID, in the sentence you quoted, is but “a distinction without any difference”.

      What a tangled web Tristan has woven, first, by calling for violence, then trying to find a way to say he didn’t call for violence. What obvious lies, and dishonest word games he now plays, to extricate himself from his heresy.

      Thank you TBP.

  • Oscar

    Has everyone here read Bill Maher’s LASTEST outrageous comments? He just recently said, “There is a gay mafia – If you cross them, you do get whacked.”

    Questions:

    Is Maher confused, and actually referring to Tristan and his article here?

    Was Maher perhaps mistakenly speaking about the Christian Mafia, headed by “Christian author” Emmanuel, at Barbwire?

    I’m confused.

    Both of them are absolutely INTOLERANT of opposing views,
    Both of them advocate ugly VIOLENCE against their opponents, and
    Both of them see BLASPHEMY under every bush.

    Again, which mafia was Bill Maher REALLY referring to?

    Readers, any help?

  • Roger Peritone

    Uh huh. Thanks for showing the world what it would be like with xian theocrats in charge…

    It is those who call for physically assaulting those who dare to speak against so-called “gods” who are the enemies of free speech. NOT those who oppose such barbarity.

    The true kicker is that this Emmanuel guy is going against the posting rules of his own blog here. “no tolerance for comments containing violence”? Hello??

    Typical religious hypocrisy.

    • Oscar

      I cannot disagree, Roger, that this sad man’s vision for my country is indeed a hideous one, and I’M a CHRISTIAN. That is why 99% of the readers here have roundly condemned his sick call to violence. That is why 99% of Christendom would join you in being horrified with his view.

      But you need to understand that his is some special kind of mental illness, which has NOTHING to do with the Christ of Christianity. As you mentioned, it totally violated Barbwire’s own posting policy, He did NOT find these sad ideas in the Bible. Jesus would join you in pointing out his blatant hypocrisy. We here all hope that this fraud of a Christian is sent back to Canada, where he can call for all the blasphemy laws he wants.

      Please do not judge us all by one sad, sick, hypocritical man. He does not serve the same God we do.

      • Roger Peritone

        I would wish that more of the religious thought like you, than like him.

        • Oscar

          I am embarassed for this sick version of Christianity, too.

  • Roger Peritone

    Tristan said:
    “At any rate you so-called Christians helped to prove my point perfectly.
    You do not care about God’s honour and yet you have the audacity to call
    yourselves Christians”
    Maybe those so-called christians hare more civilized than you? Maybe they have better things to do than to sit around and whine that not everyone takes your bronze-age superstition seriously?

    You have yet to show just how a mass-murdering, baby-killing psychotic being such as your god could possibly HAVE any “honor”.

    Tristan said:
    “In both Britain and Canada, for example, we still had blasphemy laws on
    the books no less then ten years ago. The penalties — the penal
    sanctions — were fines and possible imprisonment, not hangings and
    whippings, but this is beside the point.”
    It shows how far we’ve progressed that actual free speech is being accepted more. The only thing shameful about this is that those idiotic laws lasted so long in the first place.

    • Oscar

      That he would lovingingly quote and longingly wish to return to those shameful laws is indeed a sign of a moral sickness; the man needs to get help and fast. We cannot disagree with you and are embarassed beyond words that this special kind of stupid man was allowed to spill his bile at this site.
      How he has damaged the cause of Christ! How he has brought into disrepute those who follow Him!
      On this, Roger, we Christians stand WITH you and against this sad person Emmanuel. We condemn his hideous call to violence, right alongside you. We stand with God and you against this vile kind of slop presented here as Christian thought.

  • Oscar

    Has anyone noticed what Andrew Sullivan, an honest and fair homosexual, has said in his remarks rightly condemning his own gay brethren about the Mozilla forced CEO firing? He sarcastically joked, “What’s next, stocks (for those who disagree with homosexual marriage)?”

    Did you get that, folks?:
    An admitted homosexual, has enough morals, to confess publicly how very wrong are those who engage in this kind of offensive thinking! More morality than the Christian Tristan Emmanuel!
    A practicing gay, has enough honesty to publicly condemn this kind of violent, vile thinking? More honest than Tristan Emmanuel!
    A homosexual, who obviously does not claim to be a Christian, has more moral insight, more courage, and more honesty, than the coward Tristan Emmanuel did in his call to violence on those who disagree with him! More
    insight, and more courage, than Tristan Emmanuel!

    A homosexual, rightly noting, and correctly condemning violence, and a Christian writer, here at Barbwire, who wants to ENGAGE IN IT!

    What is WRONG with this picture?

    • ben

      Actually I’m pretty sure that Andrew Sullivan is Catholic. Does not not qualify him as a Christian?

  • crewe49

    Religion is such a meal ticket for so many Americans. No wonder you fight over it so much.

  • E.A. Blair

    You’d think a deity as powerful as these so-called Christians think he is wouldn’t need mere human laws to protect and defend it. Such a pathetically wimpy being deserves neither my worship or respect. And since they seem to be inclined toward the sociopathic Old Testament version, that is a further incentive to be a nonbeliever.

  • Michael Falsia

    Those who get their education from this repugnant little wimp are all low lives! Atheists in general are vulgar and detestable people. If they did not have a middle finger how would they ever meaningfully communicate? Atheist forums are usually filled with obscene invectives and profane verbal gestures. This faith appeals to those who wish to live an animal existence! Sex and other wonton pleasures of the flesh dominate their behavior and mannerisms. After all if your nothing more than an animal and no better than a blade of grass why not live like a depraved creature? And what is so ironic is that these reprobates have the audacity to belittle the Bible and Christianity on a moral basis? It shows just how depraved and mentally ill Atheists and other rabid God haters are! The fool has said in his heart there is no God etc. Still hold true today and will tomorrow! Let God be true and every man a liar! Hey Bill you are a certified self aggrandizing fool and one day you will feel the wrath of God and regret it!

  • Michael Falsia

    Christianity is in a state of apostasy by virtue of its moral cowardice, doctrinal errors and love of the world. The Bible forewarns us of this in many places and promises that God will expose all of the hidden sins of the heart according to the gospel! Paul letter to the Romans seems to be out of sorts in todays faithless Christian world which is very convinced of its fidelity in spite of the ominous warning given by Christ in Matthew 7:13,14,21,22. Love never remains silent in the face of blasphemy and evil manners! But thanks be to God there are the 7,000 who have not surrendered to Baal!

  • Keep The Reason

    Here’s your first problem:

    “I expect godless people to behave in a reprehensible manner.”

    Exactly. You think people who don’t believe in your god are going to be “reprehensible”, so you begin your entire argument founded on a lie, and a bearing of false witness. I don’t believe in god, but I do believe in morals, ethics and decency. For instance, unlike Jesus, I am fore square against slavery.

    Your second problem is the idea that your god needs his “honor defended”. Why would this be? Think about it. According to you, he ALREADY has a consequence of infinite proportions planned for those who do not worship him, so what does he need a mere mortal like YOU (and others like you) to defend him?

    I suggest that you let him defend himself. I’m sure, if he exists, he’s capable of doing so. I’ll be happy to let you know if he does it. I do in fact consider Yahweh a fictional character in a book written by people who were superstitious and ignorant of how the world works, and I do happily reject gods, salvation, heavens and hells, the concept of sin, resurrection, miracles, etc. — so if you’re right and this upsets him, I will be happy to have him come and defend himself.

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!