jesus.com now datejesus.com

[thatguywhojuggles]

Sorry if this is old news, but it is new to me. Does anyone know why Jesus.com changed to datejesus.com?

I know there were people wanting to buy the domain from him, but he was holding out for 10 million dollars. Did someone actually come up with the money?

[shemp]

What need does Jesus have of money?

[c4ts]

Jesus.com was bawt bah Saytin's folliwers, the Cherch of Ho-mow-sexuality! Saytn is rich ayand Gawd is pore, so give all yer money teh Gawd! Hallelujah!

[Denise]

I want to know what he sold it for! Maybe, he gave it up because of all the hate mail.

[Baker]

Has anyone tried e-mailing him?

[Denise]

A quote from the FAQ on his website.

19. What do you think about agnostics and atheists?

Agnostics are typically people who approach life theoretically and justify their behavior. As those adept in social sciences are aware, using a foundation of justification is a Judeo-Christian trait, which is also to say it is an error. An agnostic dwells in maybes and "what if" but doesn't commit to possibilities of any sort or take any practical action. Thoughts that do not conclude with action and consist wholly in negating popular belief systems rather than creating new systems are both an intellectual and practical dead end. The agnostic flogs a dead horse and dwells in the stench of decay with defensive self-satisfaction instead of climbing mountains and building a new future in the open landscape of possibility.

Atheists dabble in negating the hanging fruits of modern theology but create nothing new. This is ineffective in the modern era where illogical feelings and desires are considered legitimate and sacrosanct. The correct approach they should take when dealing with Judeo-Christianity is to show the historical reasons for its creation and explain its effects, rather than attempting to critique its claims in a purely logical way. Judeo-Christianity anticipated being proved wrong, so it evades all logic by making claims about a supernatural world, invisible forces, an omniscient and omnipotent cosmic entity, and a variety of effects and spiritual outcomes that are indemonstrable. The failures of this logical approach to negating theism is perhaps best understood by attempting to tell a young child that there are no monsters under his bed.

Argument is a flawed approach because most people invest too much ego to admit to errors in measurement or judgment. It is better to explicate the intricacies of a deeper interpretation rather than to address the superficial aspects of any particular claim. When dealing with Judeo-Christianity, it is necessary to explain first what it inherited and is working against, how the foundation of its mass psychology appealed to the slave class, how the sociological roots allowed its propagation, and how ancient knowledge of physical reality (e.g. parasites in pork) led to the prohibitions that formed the key values that are later attributed to God without a coherent explanation. Knowledge of social sciences fully explains Judeo-Christianity which is better than any atheist who so far has only attempted to logically refute theological claims.

In their social acceptance of guilt, shame, and mercy, the agnostic and atheist are both basically identical to a Judeo-Christian in their behavior and orientation towards society. Though they abstain from prayer, they otherwise behave in complete accordance to the Judeo-Christian world view, particularly in their disregard for diversity in function and capability within an ecosystem. Though often claiming a scientific foundation, they attempt to negate nature and replace it with a secularized mix of Judeo-Christian idealism and a desire for "good feelings" focused on making outcomes illusory rather than fostering structural integrity. As such, agnostics and atheists are not enlightened people but instead are reactive in predictable ways without positing new beginnings and new paths that could evolve independent of past errors. Their attraction to martyrdom, whether conscious or subconscious, is incongruously combined with a desire to demonstrate "goodness" in the Judeo-Christian sense, thus falling victim to humanism which is the secularized form of Judeo-Christianity's greatest error in treating the potential of the individual.

[Samus]

Agnostics are typically people who approach life theoretically and justify their behavior. As those adept in social sciences are aware, using a foundation of justification is a Judeo-Christian trait, which is also to say it is an error. An agnostic dwells in maybes and "what if" but doesn't commit to possibilities of any sort or take any practical action. Thoughts that do not conclude with action and consist wholly in negating popular belief systems rather than creating new systems are both an intellectual and practical dead end. The agnostic flogs a dead horse and dwells in the stench of decay with defensive self-satisfaction instead of climbing mountains and building a new future in the open landscape of possibility. Sheesh, that almost sounds like a horoscope.

I don't think I dwell in maybes, and in fact, I am quite good at taking practical action. I think my status as an agnostic makes me especially good at operating in the "open landscape of possibility," because I don't close my mind to the absolute belief that God does or does not exist. I remain wary of things I don't have thorough knowledge in or evidence of, I don't see how that gives me a "defensive self-satisfaction."

As for that "stench of decay," my girlfriend seems to like it and I don't think it's too potent! :)