Na-ked [ney-kid]

1. plain; simple; unadorned: the naked realities of the matter.
2. not accompanied or supplemented by anything else: a naked outline of the facts.
3. exposed to view or plainly revealed
4. plain-spoken; blunt: the naked truth.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Hell's Best Kept Secret?

I'd ask if these guys are for real, but unfortunately I already know that they are. Scare tactics and guilt trips at their finest. I laughed out of shock throughout most of this video. What a team these 2 morons make. Frightening to think that people actually listen to them.

Wow. Just wow.


  1. What I love about this tactic is that it's 100% intimidation and scare tactics. I would love to know how many sacred laws Kirk and Ray break every day in regards to the rest of the world religions. I'd love to confront them on that front and see if they're willing to change their lifestyles in order to improve their odds of getting into heaven.

    These guys are joke. I agree with you Sarah that the scariest thing about all of this is that they have a following. There are people out there crazy enough to buy into what they do and how they do it.

  2. They are following God's word and not sugarcoating what the bible says. There is nothing wrong with that and they are entitled to believe what they believe and share it with others just as you do. You consider it intimidation because you don't want to hear it or believe it.

    Christians do not profess to be perfect, and I would guess that if you did confront them that they would say just that and be willing to strive to do whatever they could to change any behaviours that were not pleasing to God.

    They have a following and you are trying to gather a following why is it wrong for them to speak what they believe and not you?

  3. I am not trying to gather a following; that's the last thing I would want. I am merely sharing ideas, thoughts, opinions and facts. I am merely trying to get people talking about these topics. I have gathered a lot of information on many of these topics and feel well-versed enough to discuss them.

    I call Ray and Kirk’s tactics intimidation because that’s what it is. They batter that poor kid in the last clip. Everybody lies, everybody has stolen, everybody checks out members of the opposite sex, some check out members of the same sex, everybody fantasizes. So we are all sinners (by your book's standards) and bound for Hell. It almost seems like a design flaw on the part of an omnipotent being who loves His creation. From an evolutionary standpoint lying, stealing and lusting are easy to explain. Lying and stealing come from an instinct of self-preservation while lusting comes from our instinct to preserve our species.

    What if someone from another faith approached them and demonstrated that they have broken the holy laws of their faith? Should Ray and Kirk then convert to the new faith? What if the new deity promises something better than Heaven? What if they are just as convinced as Ray and Kirk that their beliefs are right? Ray and Kirk go out and speak to the wive’s of other men, they see women flaunting their bodies and do nothing about it. In the eyes of Allah, this is not permitted and they should be punished for their crimes.

    I would never go out and preach on the streets in order to deconvert people. That is a personal choice. I am merely trying to share factual information and encourage people to look beyond what they have been taught to believe.

  4. I finally had the chance to view this video when I had access to high-speed internet. I can't believe you actually refer to these men as 'morons' and a 'joke'. I strenuously disagree with your assessment of the video content, but I would never refer to either of you as 'morons' becauser you do not hold the same beliefs. Don't you think that is disrespectful? You referred to those who believe in Allah and while you don't hold with their beliefs either, you do not denegrate them, but rather, seem to respect their beliefs. Rob, I notice you now refer to those of us who believe in Christ, as 'xtians' which I find highly offensive. I do not see you referring to any other denomination that way. While you don't claim to believe in Buddha, I'm sure you call those who do, buddhists, not xists, right? We are simply people who believe in Christ, therefore the proper name for us in Christians, not xtians. Saying the word Christian should not offend you as it does not mean that you personally subscribe to a belief in Christ, you are simply referring to those of us who do when you use the term, Christian. You claim to respect the beliefs of others and say that you are simply providing a forum for the free exchange of ideas. Well, I must tell you that the term 'xtian' does not feel respectful.

  5. I will address the many points of this video that led me to the conclusion that I'm not very fond of this duo. I apologize for what I will assume is going to be a lengthy post.

    First, the $25,000 speeding fine. What lesson would the speeder be learning if he didn’t have to suffer the consequences of their actions? As a parent, would you step in and take a spanking or a grounding for your child when they have misbehaved? What would this teach them? I believe that if you're going to make an analogy, especially one that is meant to convince someone to convert to a particular should make sense from all angles. If Jesus is stepping in and taking the punishment for us...what lesson are we learning? That we can sin, because Jesus will take the punishment for us? I don't think this analogy really conveys the message that they were trying to get across.

    The story of the two men on the plane with parachutes really dumbs things down. It assumes that the first man putting on the parachute to improve his flight doesn’t know what a parachute is used for. He's told it will improve his flight, and he puts it on, no questions asked? I guess this does kind of sum up the church. Believe, but don't question. In the same manner, they assume that a sinner must be stupid and not understand that there is no miracle fix for life’s problems. The man who wears the parachute because he knows it's going to save him is assumed to have left the parachute on for the entire flight. If he was being ridiculed and was terribly uncomfortable while wearing it...who's to say that he doesn't take it off, and just keep it handy for when he needs it? He is already expecting the jump, and knows that he can quickly throw the parachute back on when he needs it. If Kirk and Ray are trying to make a solid argument, they are going about it the wrong way.

    Calling me a "backslider" is offensive. It makes the assumption that I just wasn’t strong enough to be a Christian, I just want an excuse to sin, I’ve somehow “fallen off the wagon”, or failed at life. The reality is that I've just found something better, something that gives me peace, and makes me a better, happier person. That something is truth and reason, and a greater understanding of the world around me.

    I agree with their assertion that using God’s undying love and mercy as bait for non-believers is a terrible way to go about spreading the Word. However, I don’t think that a guilt trip is the way to go either. It's still bait, no matter how you look at it. I agree with Rob that this is scare tactics. Atheists don't choose not to believe in God because they want to sin. We all sin anyways. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that I sin far less as an atheist, than I ever did as a Christian. So if someone approaches me and wants to point out all the mistakes I've made, and tell me that I'm going to hell for it...I don't think I'm going to respond very positively to that. I wonder how many people they approached with this tactic before getting the "desireable" reaction that we see in the kid at the end of the 4th video. I'm willing to bet that there were a lot of offended people that came before that.

    The stewardess with the hot coffee...again...this analogy makes these guys look like idiots. While the passenger who wore the parachute to save his life may not respond by saying “this stupid parachute”, I doubt that the first passenger who is wearing it to improve his flight, would assume that the parachute must have had something to do with the hot coffee being spilled on him. Again, the analogy uses the assumption that non-believers are stupid and irrational. I don't think they're winning anyone with half a brain over with this approach.

  6. John 3:18 "He that believes not is condemned already". Does that mean that someone who is born in a place where they are not exposed to Christianity are condemned and will go to hell? Why would a loving God condemn someone for where, or to whom they were born? I find it hard to believe that God would allow so many mistakes and inconsistencies in the Bible, making it hard for someone to believe and have faith...and then make the punishment for non-belief so harsh. If I asked my kids to do something, gave them unclear instructions on how to do it properly, and then punished them excessively for not doing it properly...that would be considered cruel, and unjustified. But when God does it, it's divinely good.

    In part 3, the sequence where they are asking random people to name the 10 commandments is so blatantly edited to make them look stupid. While they may not be able to name them all, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they edited out anyone who could name more than 3. And is it really neccessary to loop them saying “um” 10 times, and add crickets chirping? For all we know, some of these people said “um” because they were caught off guard by being approached with this question while shopping, and then proceeded to name several of the commandments. Also, I know plenty of Christians who can’t name them. Why center these people out? Ask these same people what sorts of things are illegal or wrong, though, and I’m sure you’d get a different reaction. I’m sure that most everyone knows that it’s wrong to kill, to steal, to sleep with someone who is married, to treat your parents badly, etc. And why follow this with naming beers? They could have asked them to name TV shows...colors...artists....bands. Why beer? They are trying to make non-believers look bad in order to make their point. That’s offensive.

    The analogy of the doctor with the cure for a disease is also ridiculous. While a person clearly wouldn’t be quick to accept a cure for a disease that they don’t believe they the same manner, I would hope that once they are convinced that they have the disease, they wouldn’t just grab hold of a cure without first asking the doctor to explain how it works. This again, assumes that we are weak, and stupid, and will believe pretty much anything we are told. If that same doctor couldn’t explain to me how exactly the cure works...I wouldn’t be likely to accept it. If his only means of making me take it is to tell me “If you don’t, you’ll die”, or “you wouldn’t understand because you’re not a doctor”...I would be very skeptical. In much the same manner, I am told to believe in God or I’ll die and go to hell, and have been told countless times that I “can’t know the mind of God”, in response to a particularly difficult question. For me to buy into the notion of a cure for my disease, I would first need to understand the disease itself, and I would want to know that this cure has been tested, researched, and that there is PROOF that it works. Of course, there are always experimental treatments. These are obviously important, because we would never advance in medical discovery without people to test new treatments. I’ve definitely been exposed to this type of approach in the church. They have no proof to back up their claims. They can’t provide me with the evidence that I’m seeking. But I’m told that it can’t hurt to try anyways...afterall, if I’m wrong, I’ll burn for eternity. Pascal’s Wager, for me, isn’t a strong argument for belief.

  7. I just get the overall feeling that this video teaches Christians how to manipulate non-believers through guilt, circular reasoning, and analogies made simple enough for a pre-schooler to understand (which results in the analogy not making a whole lot of sense).

    Perhaps my general opinion of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron is marred due to the numerous ridiculous videos I have seen from them. While this video does make them look pretty stupid on many occassions, such things as the Crocoduck and the Banana Theory just make them look like morons. I would absolutely say the same thing about an atheist, or buddhist, or muslim, who tried to make arguments that they really couldn't back up. Kirk Cameron especially, in this particular series of videos, appears to be reading from a script, and often doesn't seem to understand what he is saying. I'm thinking specifically of the part where he is reading the Bible verses from the blackboard. I don't think he really understands what he's reading, as he seems to have trouble paraphrasing the verses afterwards. If you're going to use these verses as your least get familiar with them.

    And finally, to address the issue of Christan vs. Xtian. I will admit that I have occassionally used the term xtian when chatting privately with other atheists and like-minded people. It was used in much the same way that some would use "r" instead of "are", or replacing "you" with "u". Sheer laziness and convenience. I have never, however, used it in a public forum, or in any of my dealings with other Christians. I absolutely resepct the beliefs of others, and do wish for this to be a forum for the exchange of ideas. I welcome all believers of all religions to read what I have to say. I would hope that the things I share would resonate in a person's mind, and inspire them to ask questions and think rationally, and with reason. I would hate to think that someone stopped reading simply because they felt offended by the way I referred to them. I agree that it makes no sense to single out Christians by calling them Xtians, when the same isn't done for Muslims, Buddhists, etc. While Rob and I are both atheists, and agree on many aspects of our non-belief, we often differ in our approach to making our voices heard. I've always tried to take the "catch more flies with honey" approach, while Rob has always been more the "I'll say what I want, when I want, how I want, and if you don't like it, too bad" type. I'll let you use your imagination to speculate how that plays out in a relationship setting. Hahaha.

  8. When Christ died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins, He was saving us from eternity in hell. That does not mean that we get off completely free from the earthly consequences of our sin. If, for example, a couple has sex outside the confines of marriage resulting in an unwanted pregnancy, and feeling truly repentant for the sin of fornication, ask for God's forgiveness, He will definitely forgive them. But, He does not erase the pregnancy like it never happened. Similarly, someone may commit a crime against society, be found guilty in a court of law and be sentenced to prison time. If they come to view their crimes as sin and ask for God's forgiveness, He will forgive, yet they still have to serve their prison term. God definitely allows us to live through the consequences of our sins every day, here on earth. "Whom He loveth, He also chaseneth." What He offers to save us from is eternal consequences.

  9. I want to assert that I, along with many other Christians do employ the powers of reason and rational thinking that God gave us. Sarah, while you may not refer to Christ believers as 'xtians', you do both refer to fellow Christians as 'idiots', 'morons' and the like, it's pretty hard not to take that personally. Rob, referring to me as an 'xtian' is refusing to acknowledge that I am a person who is a follower of Christ. I refer to you as an 'atheist' because that is what you say you are.
    I do not claim to be the most intelligent person who ever lived, nor do I profess to have all the theological answers, but I am also not a moron. You have both said that you respect the views of Christians and their right to believe what they do, yet you use derogatory terms to describe them. Do you refer to your Christian family members and friends as 'morons', or 'idiots' because they believe the gospel and put their faith in Christ? Are they 'ridiculous'? To me, respect means using respectful language and terminology. If this is truly an open forum that is said to welcome the exchange of ideas and a forum for discussion then respect is paramount or this blog site will simply erode into a bashing ground against anyone who does not agree with atheistic views. People with opposing views will stop participating and the only people exchanging ideas will be fellow atheists and then the point of this blog would be.........? Sorry if I sould angry, I guess I'm more hurt because the term 'Christian' is dear and sacred to me.

  10. I want to start off by setting the record straight Nancy. When I refer to Kirk and Ray as morons and idiots, it is reserved for them because of their actions alone. I do not lump all Christians in the same pile as these two individuals. They have earned the right to be called out for what they are.
    I can assert that Ray and Kirk are idiots. These men help propagate ignorance. I would encourage you to watch their banana video. They made grandiose claims that it was proof of Yahweh's existence without knowing that the banana we know is a result of hundreds of years of hybridization and cross-pollination. They also make ridiculous claims in regards to evolutionary development. The hybrid animals they tout clearly demonstrate their ignorance in this area. They have a track record of doing this repeatedly. If they put themselves out there without knowing what they are talking about over and over, this makes them idiots and morons. Worse, it makes them liars and according to this video, they will burn in Hell.
    Secondly, my usage of the abbreviation xtian is directly derived from the term Xmas. I use the term Xmas because it has become a commercial holiday. As such, it isn’t interchangeable with other belief systems like Buddhism. It is not meant to offend, hurt or upset anyone; it is merely an abbreviation. I have obviously hurt you and for that I do apologize. I will have a follow-up post regarding the content of the video as soon as time permits.

  11. "Sarah, while you may not refer to Christ believers as 'xtians', you do both refer to fellow Christians as 'idiots', 'morons' and the like"

    I don't reserve the term moron for Christians. I have called plenty of people by that name...including atheists. I think there is a tendency to take everything far more personally because we don't share the same beliefs. How is it an attack on YOU that I think Ray and Kirk are terribly poor speakers who can't make a proper argument?

    As far as punishment goes, you've merely clarified my point. The fact that your God DOES allow punishment, despite being forgiven, renders their analogy of the speeding fine useless. The way they explained the analogy goes against the teaching of the church. Hence my thinking that these guys are none too bright.

  12. And of course I wouldn't call my family morons...unless they ARE morons (every family has at least one).

  13. I, too, am sorry if I have offended either of you by my comments. I guess the only way I can explain the way some of the terminology and references made me feel is to use the analogy of a family. If someone called one of your parents or one of your siblings any of the terms we've been discussing, and you felt it was unjustified, you would feel offended on their behalf, would you not? Fellow believers are part of the family of God and as such are considered brothers and sisters in the faith, therefore we come to each other's defence.

    For me, this is about respect. We have to remember that these are men, with human limitations and imperfections. I imagine that some people may find some of our examples, analogies and methods of presentation less than perfect too, yet, we have the right to assert them, so long as they are presented in a respectful way.

    Like us, they are trying to find ways to present their beliefs and provoke thought and discussion. If I can't relate to one of your examples or analogies, it doesn't make me think you are a moron for using it, because it obviously makes sense to you. In fact, there are times I am impressed with the depth of thought.

  14. In your opinion there are mistakes and inconsistencies in the bible. I personally believe that the bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God and when He tells us that we are not to add or take away from it, I take Him at His Word. Are they parts of the bible that are hard to read and accept? Yes. Why? I believe that is because as human beings, with our human natures, we don't want to be faced with our sin, or the fact that on our own we cannot live up to God's standard. So many people want to believe that God is only a God of love, they will accept that God. What they do not want to accept is a God who also laid down the ten commandments and who expects obedience from his children. Much like our children who accept love from us but don't always want to obey parental rules or accept correction and punishment when they break them. And yet, we know we correct them because we love them.

    Rob, I accept your apology. Thank you for that. I'm afraid that I will always object to terms like 'xtian' and 'xmas' because they leave Christ out. I agree that Christmas has become very commercialized, but Christmas began because of the birth of Christ. If atheists deny the very existence of Christ, why do they observe Easter and Christmas holidays at all? I remember back in public school there were children in our class who refused to sit on any class where there was reference made to God, Christmas, Easter, etc because of their beliefs and their families did not observe the 'holidays' in any way. Yet, I find that many non-believers happily enter into those occasions, observing many of the time-honoured traditions. Isn't that a contradiction?

    We could go on debating forever, but I'm not sure to what end. We know where we all stand and that's not a bad thing. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on these matters. I'm sure we're all grateful that we live in a country where we can. No hard feelings, only love.

  15. Though I can appreciate your kinship with fellow worshippers, there are many who conduct themselves in a despicable fashion. I'm sure that if you looked at the Westboro Baptist Church, you would agree with me. As such, not all kin are worthy of your defence or worthy of being considered good Christians (I will refrain from using xtian when conversing with you out of respect). At 7:35 in part 1 Kirk quotes Romans 3:19 and comments that the whole world, not just the Jews, is guilty before God. That kind of anti-Semitic language bothers me. It isn't in the scripture; these are Kirk's words.
    I take issue with television ministries. As Kirk and Ray mention in their video Jesus says to sell worldly goods and follow him. (Mark 10:21) Revenues from TV ministries are enourmous. Some of it is used for humanitarian purposes and I respect that. In fact, the world needs more humanitarian effort. However, the monuments, the cathedrals, the opulence... these things contradict the bible and yet many followers believe that Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc. are great leaders. They have proven, by their own words and actions, to be greedy, corrupt hypocrites. During the Haitian relief efforts, planes loaded with bibles were landed before medicine, food, blankets, etc. As a humanitarian, I cannot condone this. These poor people need help, not books.
    Christmas actually has its roots in several cultures and was originally a pagan celebration. December 25th marks the apex of the Winter Solstice. This day has been observed since antiquity by several cultures and numerous deities have been ascribed this birth date. According to the Bible, Jesus was not born December 25th. Upon closer scrutiny, the bible reveals that he was born sometime in September. This is based on scripture from Luke 1 and the knowledge of 40 week preganancies. The change to December 25th happened around 320 AD under the rule of the first so called Christian Roman emperor, Constantine. It was done to compete directly with all other “false gods”. We all celebrate Christmas because it is a cultural holiday and always has been. Christians simply labelled something that was already celebrated world-wide long before the founding of their Church.

  16. I’d like to respond to the following Nancy:
    “In your opinion there are mistakes and inconsistencies in the bible. I personally believe that the bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God and when He tells us that we are not to add or take away from it, I take Him at His Word.”

    I’ve read the Bible as both a believer and an atheist. During the later, I have cross-referenced information from the book against historical evidence and scientific fact; It’s quite an eye opener. That being said, this post will only deal with your statement that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God. I’d like to begin by identifying a few contradictions found within the Bible.

    Was Abraham justified by his works?
    Romans 4:2 No, James 2:21 Yes

    How should adulterers be punished?
    Leviticus 20:10 Stoned to death, John 8:3-8 He without sin cast the first stone

    Is it wrong to have sex outside of marriage?
    Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 5:18, Yes
    Hosea 1:2, Hosea 3:1 No

    Does God want some to go to hell?
    1 Timothy 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9 No
    Romans 9:18, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 Yes

    From what were the animals created?
    Genesis 1:20, Water
    Genesis 2:19, Ground

    In whose name is baptism to be performed?
    Matthew 28:19, The Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
    Acts 2:38, Jesus Christ

    Who was to blame for original sin?
    1 Timothy 2:14, Eve
    Romans 5:12, Adam

    Who makes people deaf and blind?
    John 9:1-3, God
    Mark 9:17, 25, Foul spirits

    Can God do anything?
    Luke 1:37, Yes
    Judges 1:19, Mark 6:5, There are things he can’t do

    Is God the author of confusion?
    1 Corinthians 1:27, Yes
    1 Corinthians 14:33, No

    There are hundreds more that I could cite and I just don’t understand how something can be infallible when it is riddled with contradictions. Could you explain to me how you've come to terms with these discrepancies?

    I agree with you that "we are not to add or take away from [the Bible]". If it is the inerrant Word of Yahweh, then it must be followed...all of it. The Bible contains several passages that are morally outrageous. Would one not have to obey the following passages or at the very least adhere to the principles laid out within His Word?

    1 Timothy 2:15, says only women who have children will be saved
    1 Corinthians 11:9, man was not created for the woman; woman was created for the man
    1 Timothy 2:11-12, women should learn in silence and not teach

    Deuteronomy 21:18-21, stone disobedient children
    Judges 21:10-24, Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead
    Isaiah 14:21, murder sons for the sins of their fathers

    Leviticus 25:44, tells the Jews to enslave surrounding heathens
    Luke 12:47-48, Exodus 21:20-21, slavery is permitted

    Luke 14:26, "If a man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also he cannot be my disciple"
    Proverbs 23:20-21, over-eaters will be punished

    Deuteronomy 22:28-29, you must marry your rapist

    Romans 1:24-32, infidels and homosexuals should die

    These verses encourage violence, discrimination and horrific acts. If one is expected to follow His Word, one must also commit acts that we know to be wrong in order to fulfil it.

    Despite this, I recognize that the Bible also contains many universal moral teachings that have been echoed across numerous civilizations over millennia. I’m not saying that it is all bad. There is also much good to be learned from its pages.


Please leave your comments.