6 votes

Bloodthirsty, Frothing-at-the-Mouth Religious Fanatics

I speak of course of American “evangelical” Christians who the Republican Party is apparently whipping up into a frenzy to support a war in Syria. Referring to the Old Testament, these phony-baloney, Mercedes-driving preachers inform their flocks that Jesus Christ needs their human help in the form of committing mass murder and mayhem in Syria before he can return to earth. These are the same people who nearly booed Ron Paul off the stage at one of their conventions for reminding them that Jesus is known as The Prince of Peace.

Thomas Delorenzo

Comment viewing options

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

Not to mention...

The gift that keeps giving, Thousands of tons of Depleted Uranium. The damage being done from DU to innocent Children has been a war crime of it's own.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

nailed it


I'm an atheist and this comment is wrong

All Christians are not bloodthirsty chickenhawks. Some are, but there's plenty of statists who are too, and they call themselves 'atheists'.

Though you can't be a statist and an true atheist.
Real atheists don't believe in any god, most especially not the god of government. Magic man in the sky who wishes you well makes way more sense than magic man in DC who wishes you well.

nobody said "all"

and the article thomas was responding to said "SOME" in the headline.

I was

I was appreciative of the defense of Christians not being all war hawks, so thank you. But then you had to go and do the bull crap about Christians thinking God is a magic man in the sky thing. I hate it when people act like they're being nice, only to use some false straw man argument to be insulting in the next sentence, so thanks, but umm... no thanks. Why do people feel the need to take pot shots at people? Oh, right because we have a sin nature that always leans toward evil. Gotcha, heard about that in the Bible, but thanks for exemplifying it so I knew it wasn't just in me!

I wasn't trying to be nice

I respect you Mr Baptist, and I am very glad we're on the same side. At least I hope we are.

I can't apologize about the magic man comment though, except to say perhaps I could have been more tactful.

I've expanded on it prior, but simply, your faith can come into conflict with my survival. I respect your assertion your belief in Christianity (is that right? do you believe in a religion? or do you believe in Jesus?) is in consonance with liberty.

But my adherence to liberty can never conflict with your religious belief. Unless of course you intend aggression.

Unfortunately your faith can never logically deny aggression, because your belief denies anything but itself. Faith is it's own virtue.

As religions go, I love Christianity. That is not sideways compliment. Compared to statism? Not even a choice. But you do harbor the seed of evil. It's the idea that we might need to use force at come point to control other men that led us here. The founders, believing they were virtuous, still gave us a state. They wouldn't need that power of course but someone might.

IMMEDIATELY Adams passed the Alien and Sedition acts.

The seed of evil is in us. Adams was a Christian. Jefferson was a deist. All evil.


Please, don't miss my actual response, but I wanted to add two quick things, one, why weren't you trying to be nice? Why not be nice?

Second, I felt that your response was nice, and I appreciated that very much. It makes the whole exchange better doesn't it?

I would add

I would add that if Atheism ruled, then this word evil you keep using is undefined. There can be no judgement whatsoever (if you're being intellectually honest) of religious people being "evil". Because there is no standard by which to make that judgement other than personal preference. There is no seed of evil in Christianity, I deny that statement. If you argue from a Christian framework, or some other framework that provides... well... a framework, ha, then you can condemn this group or that for their "seed of evil". But otherwise, there is no such thing as evil, only humans dancing to their dna (a la Dawkins), and as Bastiat said, people will always choose the path of least resistance to get what they want, and plunder is easier. Without a Christian framework, or some objective framework which Atheism decidedly IS NOT, then no one can claim that plunder is "evil". All we can say is, survival of the fittest or majority rule will probably prevail, because as you said, evil does indeed reside in us (as scripture teaches) and that will prevail in this age. We see it all the time.

That being said, we are indeed on the same team, I will defend your right not to believe always, take it to the bank and I do in turn truly respect you. I believe about you as you believe I'm sure about me, that your belief is ultimately irrational and incompatible with liberty. Ha, but I'm glad that such a smart guy is on my side. Peace.

Lol what state granted IP rights on 'evil' to theists?

Evil isn't a religious concept. It's a moral concept, and it can be and is far better defined by ethical language than religious.

We think evil actually has a meaning. Theists typically consider evil to be what their deity says is evil. That interpretive nature to the definition is not exactly comforting to atheists:)

Anyone can define evil by their ethical standard and then you can know a lot about how they will behave. But a religionist relies on multiple and various sources of interpretation of the given word and will naturally be inclined to choose interpretations according to aesthetics.

Ultimately a faithholder will act on what is understood to be given truth. This may or may not be moral. History shows this is often murderous and barbaric. Often not, but often so.

What religionists call evil leaves much to be desired.

But if I say what I think is evil, it's what it is. I can later act against that, but I then won't have the defense, "Well I prayed and understood that this was the right thing to do", and since your 'evil' is determined by faith, how can I counter that you are a hypocrite? I can't, because your 'evil' is what god says, and stipulating god is in fact saying, what god tells you is only ever known by you.

If I say something is evil but then do otherwise, I'm a hypocrite at least, or criminal at worst. I leave myself no moral 'out'.

Essentially the faith holders definition of evil isn't a definition at all. It's a mutable changing thing that may or may not be determined by divine truth. Even if there is a divine truth, only the person receiving it has evidence of it.

Put another way, if I had to determine what good and evil is from the actions of Christians.. I would be go insane:) There's peace and there's murder. There's adherence to property rights, and wanton plunder. There's little empirical pattern here:)

I do think we are on the same side. Your working interpretation of what you believe to be divine truth is consonant with my morality. But many of your coreligionists have strongly differing views about the morality of liberty. Historically religion has not been terribly friendly to liberty, except in the founding of the United States. Liberty fundamentally challenges religion because religions want to self propagate, and embracing liberty denies forcible propagation.

Also you're wrong about my belief being irrational. What I have been trying to explain is that I don't believe. It's not that I don't believe in God, or that I don't believe in Allah. I don't believe. I also don't believe there is no God nor there is no Allah.

I don't believe.
I do think.
Lacking certain knowledge I make assumptions based on the best information. These assumptions are always subject to change as I get more information.

That may be irrational to you, but it's not belief:) I'm a methodological skeptic. Rejection of belief is one of my core values. I don't believe it's likely for me to understand if I accept information that is liable to be false.

So you see why I make judgements not just about religions, but between them. Today, Christianity has a lot more moral people than the other big contenders of Islam and Statism and Hinduism.


I didn't read your whole post, I'm sorry. I haven't time to write dissertations. So I will deal with your assertion that ethics are not a religious concept. Which is just bull. Ha. We use ethical language indeed to discuss ethics. My point is all the ethical babbling we do, apart from a moral law given by a moral law giver is pure fantasy. It is fiction. If God did not create an overarching moral law that all must follow, then who did? Majority rule? A vestigial ethics gland that we "evolved"?

You may get quite technical and make claims about supposed evolutions of ethics, but the fact remains, if any ethical claim can change in truth, then there is no truth in it. Truth and ethics can not change. People's morals may, the given way they commonly act in various societies, but that does not change the moral law. It is always wrong to murder.

Religious ethics are not

Religious ethics are not ethics.

Ethics aren't religious and religion isn't ethical in any real sense.

You believe in an embodiment of truth in your God. But that just means there is not ethical principal you abide. I can ultimately hold you to no morality whatsoever, because you can say "God said". Since only you can know what he said or in what lens you interpreted him, there is no ethical standard whatsoever. Your faith denies that you ever be held to any objective standard. Though of course you will be anyway, but to you, obeying what you understand to be God's word will always trump anything else. You proudly proclaim the virtue of faith that denies any other ultimate standard except the God which you also assert to be ultimately beyond human understanding. And who are you to judge God's will? Which you don't know, can't predict, and can only pray you get it right, and then have faith you did get it right and aren't doing something evil.

That's what faith means.

You believe killing is wrong because God said. If he said something different, you would believe that.

You can say "well God would never say that killing is ok" but history is full of people who claim otherwise. And how do we know they weren't telling the truth? Surely many did honestly believe their interpretation of God's will was such that killing was ok for some people and some circumstances.

I think killing outside of direct self defense is wrong because it is a violation of natural law, and an ethical system which allowed murder is inconsistent with an expectation of not being murdered.

I think murder is wrong per se.
You believe murder is wrong per God's say.

This makes you inherently a potential threat to your fellow man. This is a seed of evil that exists in humanity. The propensity to have faith is a seed of evil like the propensity to collectivism. (to me this is in our nature due to evolution, and collectivism and faith are interrelated)

There are other epistemological problems with religious morality. If God is all powerful then he cannot be constrained by any human agency. This means that you can never know anything about him because that knowledge would be a constraint on God.

Unfortunately this means that if God exists and is all powerful, then anything you assert about the nature, intention, or scope of God is an assertion based on lack of knowledge. You can't know anything about God.

God can exist and be knowable to humans if and only if God is not omnipotent. In that case even if it's via non verifiable means, it is at least possible to have knowledge of God. If God is truth, then God cannot be all powerful because truth is constrained to itself. It might be the case that 1+1=2 or 1+1=3, as absurd as that might seem. But it certainly cannot be the case that both 1+1=2 and 1+1=3. But this would have to be possible if God is all powerful.

It may be that it is possible to violate truth in ways humans are incapable of parsing. But this leads you back to the same answer. If God is all powerful then humans cannot know anything about him, because knowing relies on truth.

It's a bit meaningless to say you know something for a fact, but that has no implication about the truth of what you know:)

This isn't an argument about God's nature, or any limitation on God if he exists, but about human capacity to know anything at all about an omnipotent being. And we have no capacity at all.

Nothing we say about an omnipotent being can have any truth or falseness because an omnipotent being must not be bound by truth, and we are.

I'm far less concerned about the existence of God or not, than I am about the human propensity toward faith, which literally reduces humans to the level of beasts when they replace reason with faith. Reason, the innate responsibility to judge truth, is what makes us different than animals.

I could be convinced there is a God. But I can never be convinced that God would expect us to think faith is a virtue. If God is real and that is what God wants then I think God is not the right word. There are words beginning with L or S or D that would be more appropriate.


There is no constraint placed on God by our knowledge which he revealed to us. That is ridiculous. God claims to be unchanging and immutable. So any knowledge he gives would simply be consistent with Him, I do not claim an exhaustive or complete knowledge of God, but many things he has revealed that are specifically against his will and quite clear and in that sense objective. Many truths he has not revealed or are mysterious, but many are clear. This gives an objective framework, because he is unchanging, therefore ethics don't change, whether or not I fully understand them, they exist objectively outside my knowledge perhaps but continually existent.

You claim natural law a foundation and it is not. Natural law as Locke observed is only true so far as it is in line with the overarching moral law of God. Without that foundation, there is no reason or ought for any human to follow any law, in fact even following the law that there is no law would be untrue and meaningless, all would be utter chaos and meaninglessness, of course no unbeliever lives this way, because it is unlivable.

You just said I said the

You just said I said the exact opposite of what I explicilty said.

I didn't say there was any constraint on God. That's not the point. I was
making a point about we can possibly know about God.

If we can know anything about God, God is powerless to do things which contradict our knowledge. If God is not so limited, nothing we know about him is, or can ever be, true.

I'll try to make this succinct so you might learn something.

God can do what he wants. But we are constrained by truth and reality.

We can only know thing which are true. I assume you agree. If someone says he knows something which turns out to be false, we understand his assertion of knowledge was wrong. We can only know things which are true, or we can be wrong.

God, if all powerful, cannot be constrained by truth. If he is constrained by truth, then we can know something about him. Our limited ability to understand, which can only understand true things, or else be mistaken, limits what God is, can be, and can do, if we can know him.

If he is beyond all limits, truely an epistemelogical sovereign, and not limited by truth then we can know nothing about him.

We can know something about God if he's of the breed of god like Zeus or Thor, bigger, taller, and with magic powers but ultimately constrained by the universe. That is not, I assume the sort of God you wish to be subservient to and it is not the sort of God I wish to be subservient to. That's just like a telepathic alien to humans or white men with guns to red men with simple bows. That sort of God is just a slave master, and we'll eventually kill him for being such.

The real sort of God is the full monty. Not limited by anything, and certainly not limited by anything as puny as truth. Truth will never Hulk out on God, God will Hulk out on truth. Puny Truth!

The problem with that though, again we can only know true things. So if I say, "God says 1+1=2" now I have either lied or, if I speak truth, then now 1+1=2. You can say well God can now say "1+1=3", and it be true. Yes, if he's omnipotent, but then anything we've said about God prior was not true. Another property of truth is that it must persist over time.

God can change the nature of truth, but humans can only know one truth. If it's 'true' that God can change 1+1=2 into 1+1=3 the next second, then what do we know about anything much less God?

If you're still with me, you might say, well God can define truth so that we know it. This solves the problem of truth being true in a temporal universe. Once God says it, it is true forever and eternal.

This ends us up in the same boat, what this implies is that when God speaks he has foerver limited himself. Having spake it, it must be true eternally. Thus humans can know what God says. But now God is effectively no longer all powerful. His choices and thus, assuming omnipotency, so must realities parameters, this be limited.

If we can know anything about God, God is powerless to do things which contradict our knowledge. If God is not so limited, nothing we know about him is, or can ever be, true.


I agree with what you say about truth, but your arrogance makes it difficult to speak peaceably with you. However I do not accept your naked assertions about God, nor did I when Immanuel Kant spoke them. You're a brilliant guy, but it's simply true I believe that truth is unchanging and therefore, God is constrained by truth, as are all beings.

My arrogance is overrated, heck I'm barely smarter than Kant:D

I really really do not intend to challenge Christians here. Liberty owes a lot to Christians. I appreciate this. Christians set up America.

But Christians also destroyed it. It was Christians that pushed for socialized education. There was no secular push for it. But they will now die by the Satan they embraced.

My problem is, so will I.

I love Christians, but you guys really need to get your fcuking act together. There is a satan state, and it will never and can never be used for your God.

If God wanted to force us to conform and love him it is not beyond his fcucking power to do so.

So whatever God's game is, that is not it, but we know who loves to use the lust for power of men against other men.

I have said this before. I have no evidence of God.

I have abundant evidence of the other.

I can tell who people serve tho.

When they disagree with me, and they show up with a gun they serve the other guy.

When they disagree with me, and they show up with a flier, or better yet with a beer? I know who they serve.


What are you even talking about now man? Do you think any real Christians want to force people to believe in God?? Have a theocracy?? I have no desire to do that. Nor do any Christians I know. Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world, else would my servants fight." He declared quite publicly that we were to be a peaceful group of brothers and sisters doing good to bring glory to him. I know what you're complaining about and I hate it when people use Christianity as an excuse for their own avarice. But that only proves what the Bible talks about in regard to man's nature, having a natural predilection toward evil.

I of course believe there is plenty of evidence of God. Scientifically, historically and ethically. But you can disagree. I'm really interested in reading a new book called, "the case against accident". I'm glad that you want liberty and that we both fight for it and I honestly will pray for you, that you have peace in life and death. God bless.


Christians are called to love, not hate. The only true weapon against evil is unconditional love. Therefore any 'Christian' who lives their life in hate is not a true Christian. EVERY SINGLE Christian I have spoken to is against the war in Syria. Ron Paul is a Christian, as well. Let's stop with the anti-Christian propaganda, its absurd and divisive. If we stopped viewing people in groups all the time, whether it be race, religion, gender, ect, maybe we could finally unite as one and defeat the globalists. But as long as this vile garbage continues, we will continue to be divided and weak.

The Passion of the Christ

The film, however, was a major commercial hit, grossing in excess of $600 million during its theatrical release,[13] becoming the highest grossing R-rated film in United States and highest grossing Non-English language film of all time.[14]


This movie tells a lot about the mindset of Christians, I was unable to watch the entire movie because of the violence but it seems many so called nice people got off on it.

Christians dont

"get off on it"

That is what we believe Christ did to pay the price for our sins. How horrible must sin be that the cross is the price for it? We are grateful.

What sins? Original sin? The

What sins? Original sin? The sin of being born?

I reject the idea that anyone should be tortured for me.

our sins

your sin, my sin, my pastors sin, adams sin, all sin.

If you reject the gift of God dont expect to go to Gods home.

Keith Green

Would have been ashamed. He was a very religious man, very Christian and a great humanitarian. He would never sale his music, he would give them away and would except what ever people could afford, even if it was only a penny. He did an album with Bob Dylan, who was his close friend and who played some instruments on Green's album, and one song in particular Keith wrote about the church. He would be angry if he was still alive today.


He would be angry at the behavior of these folks

and sorrowful for them, hopeful that they would repent and see who Jesus really was. (BTW, he was Jewish, and some saw him as a legalist).

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15


I haven't noticed that Obama, Hillary, McCain, Pelosi, Graham, Kerry, Biden, Boehner, Cantor, Petraeus, all the MSM talking heads, Hollywood icons, or AIPAC were Christian fanatics. They don't even mention the word Jesus.
78.4 percent of the Us claim to be Christian....yet 80 percent of the US are not backing Obama. None of the Christians that I know are supporting military action in Syria.
Where are you getting your info?

first of all

the post is by Thomas Delorenzo from the lew rockwell blog.
here is the article he linked to.

2nd of all nobody said anything about the other pro war creeps you mentioned. that's a given.

finally. so none who you know are? well, that settles it then.

First, I don't care who wrote the linked post

YOU found it important enough to post it yourself - so I am replying to YOU.

Second, the other named "pro war creeps" ARE the ones pushing war so where's the names of all those so called Christians who are equally in powerful cahoots with the other creeps? If it's a "given" - then why are you looking elsewhere for someone else to blame?

Third - I am a Christian - I know a lot of Christians - and at least I can name real people to whom I am referring...
How many of these so called warmongering Christians can YOU name personally...I'd like their names please.

yes, i thought it would be

good for discussion and it has proven to be.

YOU seriously want me to supply names of all the screwball christians who are war mongers because i shared a post by thomas delorenzo on an article that said: Some see biblical visions of doom in Syria trouble.

SOME get it?

i just saw that drudge has now picked it up. should drudge now come up with names for YOU?

YOU sound like you're suffering from a severe case of denial.

some more reading for you:

Quite a difference

between discussing some people seeing biblical doom in Syria (many non-Christians have concerns of some type of impending doom,) and YOUR words... "Bloodthirsty, Frothing-at-the-Mouth Religious Fanatics".
It is YOUR words which I find offensive and it is YOUR words to which I have responded.
Sounds to me like you are suffering from a severe case of hate.

No, I don't want you to supply "all" the names of the Christians as I did not supply all the names of the other warmongers - but a few notable and/or influential ones would provide some validation on your part to back up YOUR ugly description (not Drudge's). However, as you are apparently unable to do so, forget it.

FYI - I'm not in denial of anything. I am well aware of the Christian, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, and Satanist (etc.) roles being played in today's world of politics, education, economics, and social issues. Don't need to read your links, but thank you anyway.

try and grasp the fact that

those are thomas delorenzo's words and i'm sure he chose them with a certain breed in mind. that you find them so offensive is telling. no, they're not matt drudge's words either. he didn't use thomas's quote. something tells me you have a problem paying attention to detail. no, you don't need to read the articles written by another of lew rockwell's team who i would take any day over bdunn's. you would find them too challenging i'm sure, although you'd find the names you seek.

everybody is in denial of something, or has been if they are human, but you evidently have some ego driven superiority in all such matters.

if you must cling to your one track way of thinking that i am consumed with hate, then forgive me. it's the christian thing to do.