Was Jim Jones a Christian?

While perusing different articles today, I came across this one by Daniel J. Flynn which examines that very issue...

“Nobody’s gonna come out of the sky!” Jim Jones informed his flock. “There’s no heaven up there. We’ll have to have heaven down here!” The reverend threw the Bible to the floor in his Peoples Temple and openly stated his disbelief in God. Before Jim Jones orchestrated the deaths of more than 900 people at his South American jungle commune, Willie Brown, Angela Davis, Harvey Milk​, and other leading leftists lauded him as a hero. After the carnage at Jonestown, the Left conveniently dismissed him as just another crazed Christian fundamentalist"

I decided to look further into the belief system of this madman and I think he was quite possibly an atheist or at best, an agnostic. The sources quoted in his Wikipedia entry make reference to his claimed atheism. And then there is this quote offered up by his wife, Marceline...

"By the spring of 1976, Jones began openly admitting even to outsiders that he was an atheist. Despite the Temple's fear that the IRS was investigating its religious tax exemption, by 1977 Marceline Jones admitted to the New York Times that, as early as age 18 when he watched his then idol Mao Zedong overthrow the Chinese government, Jim Jones realized that the way to achieve social change through Marxism in the United States was to mobilize people through religion. She stated that "Jim used religion to try to get some people out of the opiate of religion," and had slammed the Bible on the table yelling "I've got to destroy this paper idol!" In one sermon, Jones said that, "You're gonna help yourself, or you'll get no help! There's only one hope of glory; that's within you! Nobody's gonna come out of the sky! There's no heaven up there! We'll have to make heaven down here!"

This doesn't sound like anything remotely like any orthodox Christian theology. One of the references cited in the Wikipedia article is from the Jonestown Institute whose web page features a transcript of a recorded interview with Jim Jones who stated the following (All instances of emphasis appear in the transcript)..

"I’m uh, you know, an agnostic. We have a— some emphasis on the terms of paranormal, because uh, it brings results, uh, there is something to therapeutic healing, all medical science has proven, but we don’t link that with any kind of causative factor of a loving God. Off the record, I don’t believe in any loving God. Our people, I would say, are ninety percent atheist. Uh, we— we think Jesus Christ was a swinger. He taught some pretty damn good things at feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, uh, maybe a little paternalistic, but it’s still uh— all the emphasis of the judgment of character— the only time he ever mentioned judgment at all was in Matthew 25, and it had to do totally with what you were doing for other people, so we— we emphasize the teachings of Christ, but um, we’re a— we are as um— we’re the most unusual church I’ve ever run into.."

So when all of the evidence is examined, I think the answer is 'no'. Jim Jones was a crazed charlatan who utilized a patina of religion in his socialist side-show masquerading as a church but ultimately he was only out for himself.

The Bizarre Form of Tourette's Syndrome of the Left

“I always use the word ‘extreme,’ that’s what the caucus instructed me to do the other week,” Sen. Chuck (you) Schumer (D-NY) 3/29/11

Although by and large, I consider most democrat members of congress (and a few republicans) to be complete moonbats, you have to admire the consistancy of the Left in keeping up their attacks against conservative members of congress. Let's count the ways they demonize the opposition as "extreme", yet are so admirably choreographed to all stay on the same page...

Nancy Pelosi: Republican legislation 'Extreme' 2/11/2011

Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL): Republicans Becoming More Extreme 7/27/11

"The extremism of these people; they're not satisfied with a vote on it, they want a guarantee that it pass before they'll allow an extension of the debt limit. I mean, how bizarre can anyone be?" Senate Majority Leader (Dingy) Harry Reid (D-NV) in debt negotiations with republicans Link, 7/29/2011

"We should not let these extremists dictate direction of debate" Harry Reid again, referring to republicans, 7/25/2011 Link

Harry Reid again, ‘Extremists Have Locked Down This Congress’ 7/29/11

"There are 100 people in the House who don’t care if we default, who are extreme and ideological" The aforementioned Sen. Chuck (You) Schumer (D-NY) re: debt negotiations with republicans 7/25/2011

Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE): Sharon Angle. Christine O'Donnell 'Extreme'

You got that Lemming? Republican=Extreme. No free thought allowed here. We'll tell you what to believe and we merely have to make the accusation, not back it up. You do not have the ability to do your own research on the matter and thus form your own thoughts based on the pertinant information.

On a related note, who here would ever like to be "held hostage"? It's nothing that would particularly interest me, but apparently this is another part of the democrat meme of marginalizing republicans as has been recently well documented...

"STENY HOYER: (rotunda noise) The Republicans are holding hostage the credit of the United States of America.

DEBBIE "BLABBERMOUTH" SCHULTZ: ...our Republican colleagues to hold our economy hostage.

DINGY HARRY: The Republican Party is holding our economy hostage.

CHUCK-U SCHUMER: (rotunda noise) It didn't say, "Hold America hostage."

LOUISE SLAUGHTER: ...hold the debt ceiling hostage.

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: One party is holding the country hostage.

JOHN OLVER: The debt limit has never before been held hostage.

BARBARA LEE: Republicans are holding our economy hostage.

EARL BLUMENAUER: ...willing to take hostage the debt ceiling.

JASON ALTMIRE: Stop holding America's credit rating hostage.

ROSA DeLAURO: The Republican majority continues to hold the American economy hostage.

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Let's not hold the entire American economy hostage.

JOHN LARSON: ...ideological HOSTAGE situation...

LLOYD DOGGETT: The only belt they're really tightening is right around the neck of those hostages.

JAMES CLYBURN: Holding the American economy hostage.

JESSE JACKSON, JR.: This President is being treated differently!

SPEAKER PRO-TEM: (gavel banging)

JACKSON: No other President has been stuck up, shook down, or held hostage"

And on and on it goes. Is it too much to ask that members of congress try to work together without characterizing the opposition as some sort of parody? Apparently so and don't even get me started on Tea Party generalizations

Next we come to the obligatory Taliban references..

Republican Taliban declare Jihad on Obama


Jim Moran (D-VA): GOP is the 'Taliban ticket'


DNC: GOP Has Thrown In With 'Terrorists -- Taliban and Hamas'


Representative Alan Grayson “compared Republicans to the Taliban” in his campaign

Are you getting the entire picture yet? Republicans are the ideological equals to extremist, 9th century throwbacks who utilize improvised explosive devices to implement their agenda through terrorism and who sincerely want to take you hostage.

Such hate-filled hyperbole is so verfiably predominant on the Left, it would be laughable if it were not so counterproductive.

Hemingway Exposing Left-Wing Myths About 'Right-Wing, Extremist Christians'

We have recently discussed on this blog the rapid speed in which the MSM jumped on the "Right-Wing Christian Extremist" bandwagon while the shots were still echoing in Norway following the horrific killing spree of Anders Behring Breivik. Mark Hemingway over at The Weekly Standard is obliterating the worn out templates regularly used by Leftists who will not own up to their own kindred spirits being responsible for some of the most devastating attacks in recent memory. First, Hemingway delves into the mindset of convicted bomber Eric Rudolph (above) who stated, according to USA Today...

"Many good people continue to send me money and books," .. "Most of them have, of course, an agenda; mostly born-again Christians looking to save my soul. I suppose the assumption is made that because I'm in here I must be a 'sinner' in need of salvation, and they would be glad to sell me a ticket to heaven, hawking this salvation like peanuts at a ballgame. I do appreciate their charity, but I could really do without the condescension. They have been so nice I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible."

I don't know about you, but I've yet to attend a church in which a reading from the Book of Zarathustra segues neatly into that week's sermon.

Next, Hemingway examines the case of (alleged) Anthrax killer, Bruce Ivins...

"As for alleged Anthrax mailer Bruce Ivins being supposedly motivated by his pro-life, Catholic views -- well, that's a pretty unfounded assertion based on a lot of tenuous and anonymous sources. Further, from what we know about his religious views -- to say nothing of considerable evidence that he was mentally ill -- he wanted the Catholic church to liberalize on the issue of female and married clergy. Not exactly what one thinks of when we discuss extremist religious views."

The article goes on to point out the Leftist leanings of Andrew Joseph Stack who flew his plane into IRS offices in 2010 and holocaust memorial shooter James von Brunn . Next time a tragic event unfolds and the finger is immediately pointed at the Right or Christians, just wait for all of the facts to come in. Bill O'Reilly (who I often disagree with) summed it up rather accurately as to why the Left-wing media so readily pounces on such gross mischaracterizations.

"Two reasons. First, some on the left want to make an equivalency argument between Muslim terrorism and other kinds of violent acts. The Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh, was often branded "a right-wing terrorist" in the media*. Terrorism is terrorism the analysis goes. It's not fair to constantly emphasize Muslim terrorism without acknowledging the others. Besides, bad men like George W. Bush hype the Muslim threat and use it to do evil things such as invade Iraq.

The second reason is purely political. The left well understands that Christian opposition to things like abortion, gay marriage and drug legalization makes those liberal causes more difficult to achieve. Thus, anything that diminishes Christianity is fair game to be promoted. Every newsworthy sin committed by a Christian is highlighted with a sneering reference to hypocrisy. Any whiff of Christian intolerance is celebrated in the press.

Breivik did not kill in the name of Jesus. He was not a member of a Christian-based al-Qaida-like group. He was not funded by Iran or enabled by Pakistan. It seems he is simply a murderer, a man devoid of any spiritual conscience, a direct descendant of Cain."

* (And positively, NEVER mentioning the fact that McVeigh would often state that "Science is my Religion")

EDIT: Reuters Labels Norway Terror Suspect as ‘Right-Wing’ 25 Times IN ONE ARTICLE

Rauser: 'Why are Atheists so Obsessed with Zeus?'

We've all seen it before if one has been visiting various chat rooms and discussion forums over the last decade or so since the internet began to gain in usage. I've encountered such nonsense personally and now Randal Rauser is wondering why this is....

"It's true. Spend some time as a theist talking to an atheist and pretty soon they'll introduce Zeus to the conversation...

..If it's not the Flying Spaghetti Monster then it's Zeus. The trend is so common that I even named my forthcoming book on apologetics From Angels to Zeus: Apologetics in One Long Conversation. But what is going on here?

I'm sorry to break it to Zeus, but I don't think this revival of interest has much to do with him in particular. Rather, I think this is a mere rhetorical move designed to marginalize current concepts of God by associating them with now defunct concepts, and Zeus is ideal in this regard because he is widely known in popular culture and yet obviously not widely believed in."

Although old Zeus is not believed in, this does not deter the intellectually flacid atheist from lumping all belief systems together as if they are of equal weight and castings such aspersions. They never get around to explaining why it's such a valid comparison and yet they don't actually know anyone who goes around spouting off about their belief in Zeus.

Why is Estonia Beating us in Oil Shale Development?

As to why Estonia is beating the United states in Oil Shale Production, I think the answer comes down to political will to get the job done. Lincoln Brown lays out for us how advanced their process is...

"A company in Estonia is mining a 9 foot high seam of oil shale. From that seam the company has created a plant that is producing something on the order 25 thousand barrels of oil per day. And while environmentalists would tell you that it uses up that most precious of resources: water, water is not used at all in the extraction process. In fact the drier the shale the better. So much for the myth of water going down the proverbial dry hole. Additionally, the Estonian plant meets the exacting air quality requirements of the European Union, which is no small feat in this day and age.

But is it useable? Well, unless the laws of physics in Estonia vary wildly from those in the United States, the Magic Eight Ball seems to say YES. The country of Estonia has a total of eight power plants running off of oil shale. Six of those are in operation and two are in the process of being refurbished. Construction is underway on a new power plant that will generate 600 megawatts of electricity when it goes online.

Impressive numbers? Yes. But a drop in the bucket when you consider that the seam of oil shale in my part of the world is not nine feet high but 70 feet. Consider the possibilities."

Perhaps we could learn something from the Estonians in so far as extracting energy from this abundant resource. There comes a time when, even if energy prices gradually lower over time, that we have to develope our own resources due to instability in the parts of the world where OPEC extracts their oil.

Norway Killer - Darwinist, not Christian

It seemed like the template was already set to roll by the time the smoke cleared in Norway and Anders Behring Breivik (above) was taken into custody. A 'right-wing Christian fundamentalist' we were told by the left-wing media. However, new evidence is beginning to emerge and the explanation offered earlier might not be that simple...

"A review of Anders Behring Breivik's 1,500-page manifesto shows the media's quick characterization of the Norwegian terrorist as a "Christian" may be as incorrect as it was to call Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh one.

Breivik was arrested over the weekend, charged with a pair of brutal attacks in and near Oslo, Norway, including a bombing in the capital city that killed 7 and a shooting spree at a youth political retreat on the island of Utoya that killed more than 80 victims.

Piecing together Breivik's various posts on the Internet, many media reports have characterized the terrorist – who says he was upset over the multiculturalist policies stemming from Norway's Labour Party – as a "right-wing, Christian fundamentalist."

Yet, while McVeigh rejected God altogether, Breivik writes in his manifesto that he is not religious, has doubts about God's existence, does not pray, but does assert the primacy of Europe's "Christian culture" as well as his own pagan Nordic culture.

Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible, and affirms: "As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."

The terrorist also candidly admits he finds no support within either the Catholic or Protestant churches for his violent ideas."

Lets monitor this situation closely in order to see if ABCBS/NBCNN even bother to mention this at all.

Reading the Bible Promotes Science

It's from a study done by baylor University so it HAS to be Science!

"What daily practice may help American Christians become more concerned about issues of poverty, conservation and civil liberties?

Reading the Bible.

The answer may come as a surprise to those locked into viewing religious practices in ideological boxes. However, a new study by Baylor University researcher Aaron Franzen found frequent Bible reading predicted greater support for issues ranging from the compatibility of science and religion to more humane treatment of criminals.

The study, one of the first to examine the social consequences of reading Scripture, reveals the effects of Bible reading appear to transcend conservative-liberal boundaries.

Thus, even as opposition to same-sex marriage and legalized abortion tends to increase with more time spent with the Bible, so does the number of people who say it is important to actively seek social and economic justice, Franzen found."

There goes the entire "Bible reading is for mindless lemmings" mischaracterization. Can we now expect atheists to pick up the Good Book in order to reinforce their fetish for science? I'm not holding my breath people.