-14 votes

Brainwashing Kids 4 Christ! Just $39 + S/H

Check out this commercial for a creepy new teddy bear, created by "christian" Pastor John Hagee, that indoctrinates fundamentalist christianity into your unsuspecting child...


My question is, If christ/god of the bible was really real,then why the constant need to trick and scare people into believing?


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.



For we are not as many,which

For we are not as many,which make merchandise of the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. - 2 Corinthians 2:17

But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. - 2 Timothy 3:13

13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he shall hate the one, and love the other, or else he shall lean to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and riches. - Luke 16

Kids are way too young to think for themselves?

No crap. That's why parents want to lead their children in the direction they think is best for them. For you to not understand this makes me think you don't have kids. I think the hypocrisy is judging another person for teaching them something you don't believe. Glad most people here seem to feel the same way.

Faith is dangerous and not a virtue

Teaching kids to live in fear of going to HELL is not good parenting.

Teaching a kid not to touch a hot stove-top is entirely proper though and is not the same as teaching religious dogma.

By what authority

do you name virtue and vice?

just horrible

It's just horrible! Why would you want to teach a child that "love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always hopes always perseveres. Love never fails."

Yup, your bound to get a homicidal maniac with a message like that. A much better message would be, "you came from gooo, by chance. You came from monkeys, there is no purpose for your existence except to procreate. Only the strongest will survive."

Yup, for sure, everyone will be better off when we realize that we are all just descendants from animals and the sooner we realize that and start treating each other like the animals, the sooner we will all be at peace.

Live Free or Die Trying

From goo to zoo to you


Only humans as a species

Only humans as a species willfully prevent procreation, even in the abundance of ample food and resources.

Southern Agrarian

1. Humans did not evolve by

1. Humans did not evolve by chance. We evolved via natural selection - in other words, we evolved INEVITABLY to this state because this is the state that sees us as most fit for survival.

2. You won't find any evolutionary biologists who will claim that humans evolved from monkeys. The only people who make this false claim of the evolutionary model are creationists who have no idea how it actually works and are discounting it because they think their god and science can't coexist.

3. Evolution says nothing about the purpose of life. Most atheists are humanists and do not believe that procreation is the only purpose of life, but also to be good to other humans, exhibit exemplary behavior, be charitable, live a happy life, and a number of other 'purposes.'

4. You're crapping on Jesus' teachings when you ignorantly and sarcastically disparage others via straw men you erect to belittle their lifestyle. Love your neighbor, otherwise why are you wasting your time being a Christian?

In my science textbooks in the 60's

there were artists' illustrations showing the supposed progression from monkeys to a man in a business suit. This concept was displayed at the Smithsonian and the Chicago Field Museum. Have evolutionary biologists changed their minds since then?

Your explanation, that they

Your explanation, that they present a progression "from monkeys," is false.

Another way to look at it...

Is that even if it was by chance, it's inevitable. To explain, consider what the 'chance' is of flipping a coin to a heads. It's 50/50 so there's only a chance that it will happen in one flip. It's the same chance in two flips and ten and a thousand. After 1,000 flips which all showed tails, the odds of the next flip being heads is still 50/50.

However, it's not practical. Ask the christians what the odds of flipping 1 E+100 coins (a one plus 100 zeros after it) and having all of them go tails. That's the odds of life NOT happening from all the perfect circumstances that have happened in all the seconds of all the days of all the billions of years of all the planets in all the solar systems of all the galaxies of all the universes.

Extending this to the natural selection, it's not near as high of probability but then again, it a perfectly logical scientific phenomenon too. Same for cell duplication (splitting), DNA inception, enzymes and amoebas and all the other quarky stuff in biology.

And they claim it's us that dismisses prior to doing research.

Your pushing evolution propganda

Not actual evolution teaching

1. Evolution obviously has an element of chance in it, when critters have sex the male releases 4 or 5 million sperm, only one fertilizes the egg, there is an element of chance in that. You have a school of fish a whale comes in there and eats a third, there is an element of chance in that. You have two creatures, male and female of the same species, that are genetically capable of breeding the new evolutionary best, whether they meet or not is up to evolution. You have the best ever specimen of a particular species but he dies at 2 weeks old because he was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Chance must make a particularly large portion of the evolution world view, even if natural selection is considered to make things evolve chance has a part to play in there. Furthermore I dont understand why natural selection is considered part of evolution when it has clearly been shown when a creature that is different than the rest of its species does not get to mate, for example an albino whale, or a zebra with awkward looking stripes. Natural selection has always been shown to keep the species the same not change them in any way, much less significant way.

2. I was taught in school that the first mammal was a squirrel like creature. I was taught in school that lucy was our ancestor and that lucy was an ape like creature. I think we can assume that evolutionary biologist will say that somewhere between the squirrel like creature and the ape like creature there must have been a monkey like creature.

3. Yes and no it depends who you talk to on the issue. There are a lot of people who believe evolution an are atheist because "God is bad, so I dont believe in God" and believe that way so they can do what they want to. Then there are others who genuinely believe in evolution, Depending on why you believe in evolution changes what evolution says about the purpose of life.

4. Telling others the truth is commanded by Jesus. Telling others that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, is loving your neighbor, particularly if you believe Jesus is the only way to Heaven.

1. The disconnect here is

1. The disconnect here is that I'm referencing the rules of interactions and you're referencing the interactions themselves.
Chance is also a matter of perspective. Some people will see chance in everything as an extension of the notion that 'chance is anything you can't control.' Others might see chance as impossible - factors are always controlled by some parameters whether known or unknown. A coin flip is called chance because one doesn't know the result of the flip before it occurs, but the reason the coin lands how it does is no matter of chance, it's a matter of the mechanics involved in flipping that coin, in other words, it's a matter of rules of interaction. Anyway, my point was simply that evolution is not random - evolution is a very concise and direct expression of simple rules that govern interaction amidst an infinitely complex and therefor seemingly random backdrop.

As for your specific examples: the fittest sperm prevails - not chance, the least fit fish get eaten - not chance, geographic separation and possible reduction in survival of a species due to migration - not chance, if the best ever species dies at two weeks it wasn't the best ever, but what did it die due to? I would guess that cause of death wasn't 'random chance.'

"Furthermore I dont understand why natural selection is considered part of evolution when it has clearly been shown when a creature that is different than the rest of its species does not get to mate, for example an albino whale, or a zebra with awkward looking stripes."

'Not getting to mate' is a sign that the rest of the species does not believe the traits such an example possesses would yield the most fit results. Why question their judgment?

"Natural selection has always been shown to keep the species the same not change them in any way, much less significant way."

What about domestication and horticulture?
What about bacteria becoming immune to toxins?

2. Saying we evolved from a 'monkey-like creature' is different from saying we evolved from monkeys. Humans are monkey-like creatures. We have many more traits in common with monkeys than more than 99% of other animals.

3. You can be good without god, just like you can be evil with god.

4. I just can't imagine Jesus going around being sarcastic.

Domestication and Horticultural

Is considered natural selection? I got an aunt that spends a LOT of time and money making sure her mountain bernies dogs meet the qualifications that the show. Any dog that does not match that sheet perfectly gets spayed/neutered. I think creationist and evolutionist (for lack of better terms) agree that their are genetic diversity, but creationist will argue that it is within a kind of animal and that those genetic variations are limited. In other words you can breed little dogs, big dogs, ugly dogs and pretty dogs, but it will never become a cat.

I would also like to know why bacteria becoming immune to toxins is evolution, when humans becoming immune to toxins is not evolution?

"creationist will argue that

"creationist will argue that it is within a kind of animal and that those genetic variations are limited"

And that's because creationists start with a conclusion and then seek to have all evidence verify their conclusion. Nobody independent of American creationists challenge the notion of universal common descent. There's a reason for that. The rest of the world isn't asking scientific questions from a religious standpoint.

"I would also like to know why bacteria becoming immune to toxins is evolution, when humans becoming immune to toxins is not evolution?"

Both are examples of evolution.


Everyone starts with a conclusion and then sees if the evidence matches said conclusion, its called a hypothesis (A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation). It works rather well in engineering, a man says hey I can build the biggest/fastest/tallest/best/better/cheaper/faster and then figures how to. Honestly evolution is not a new idea it has been discuses since ancient greek times, I mean aristatol talked about it. Furthermore charles lyell was the guy who gave us the idea that different layers are from different ages, but this was far before we had carbon dating.

At one time most people believed that the sun revolved around the world, and galoleo should have stopped his belief because everyone else believed differently. 52% of voters think barak oboma is a good president does that mean I should too? Or how about this most people in the world live under communism or socialism does that make it right? Majority does not make right.

how are they both examples when the definition of biological evolution is "The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation". The bacteria shows several generations but the human does not, so how can they both be examples of biological evolution?

I'm sure you can clearly see

I'm sure you can clearly see how



are entirely different.

"The bacteria shows several generations but the human does not, so how can they both be examples of biological evolution?"

You answered your own question:
"which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation"

lots and lots

of inventions have been made by people who believe in something despite everything. For example, the light bulb, rubber, the air plain. So I really dont see why either side knocks someones belief, over the years the guy who thinks outside of the box and is proven right is celebrated, and normally the guy who is wrong (like Aristotle (I think) on bleeding being healthy) is rarely vilified.

You would have to show specifically what mutated. Frankly after being told often that metamorphosis such as a caterpillar, to a cocoon to butterfly is not evolution even though their is significant change, I would like to be shown specifically what causes evolution in a single generation.

Don't like it?

Don't buy it. No one is forcing you to buy it. Personally, I see no problem with it.

It is not your business!

What parents want to teach their kids is their business, not yours. I am not a fan of John Hagee, but a stuffed bear reading the bible sure beats the feminism, consumerism, homosexual, collectivist agenda thats pushed 24/7 on the T.V.

Maybe "smart" parents don't

Maybe "smart" parents don't allow their kids to watch TV, unless they discuss what is being shown and why. The most shocking realization for me as a kid was that "we live in a system of exchange" and nothing is without a price (even when it appears that something is free...it's not). I think the sooner kids learn this lesson, the sooner they can learn to negotiate within the system.

Phxarcher87's picture


What did your parents teach you as a kid?

James Madison

I think it's a goofy gimmick

Hardly insidious propaganda, though.

I would also note that bringing someone up a specific way in no way "forces" them into that way of thinking. I was brought up a neocon. I read a bunch, came across Tom Woods, and that marked the beginning of my transition into libertarianism; my dad came along, but not as fast, and I'm still more "extreme" than he is (that is, he's libertarian, I'm teetering on the brink of anarcho-capitalism).

Ironically enough, this is despite never going through a "teenage rebel" phase.

The Liberty movement and Religion,

Must realize there is all kinds of people involved in the liberty movement, I think it's best to keep these types of things to yourself as it creates division. I gladly stand with anyone who is a Ron Paul supporter, or a supporter of liberty. NONE of us should give a crap about the way another chooses to live their life, or choose what to believe, as long as they aren't trying to force it upon anyone else.

Beep beep boop beep... I am a Paulbot... prepare for liberty and prosperity!

Oh come on! If you teach your child that there is no God,

you're forcing your atheistic beliefs on a young impressionable mind. Quit being a hypocrite!

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

As an atheist, religion will

As an atheist, religion will be one of the subjects that I teach my children at length. Unlike the vast majority of religious people, I will however be teaching them all major religions and many of those lesser-known instead of just leaving it at one religion. I see this as the only non-invasive method, as well as the only valid educational method.

But, what will you say when your adorable little child looks at

you and says, "But daddy, which one is TRUE?"? And, "Daddy, what happens to me when I die?"? Hopefully, as a dad, you will do your utmost to find the answers to those questions.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html