Answer to Chasuk's "Zealotry Kills" by Merwin

"My close friend is not stupid"

Please read Hub listed above in order to understand my answer to it, it is actually a very good read. It was composed by my good friend, who is waaaaaaay smarter than a cold bowl of gravy. (haahahaa sorry Chas, I couldn't resist)

If anyone has a better method for linking Hubs... I am all eyes.

Okay... I sniped at Chasuk with a comment at the end of his Hub and believe me that is simply scratching the surface but it perfectly illustrates something that Chasuk has done in his current Hub, and to a greater extent in our other exchanges.

I shall show below, my comment that I made, but here I will embolden the part that I hope is illustrative. Here is my comment...

Very well put my friend... Yes it is I Chasuk's close friend who isn't stupid, (Thanks Chasuk, shucks, you're just being kind).

Isn't Chasuk unique?

Little wonder that he is as zealous for his own well rounded, level headed, broad minded, tolerant... ("...problem is the EXISTENCE of the true believer."), prophetically (truth speaking) secular perspective, as every other zealot is for theirs.

Well, what is it that sets him apart from all the other zealots he condemns well, darn it, it is after all his statistics that he compiled from a lot of reputable sources. It is, after all, the fact that no one else is saying the things that he is saying, and saying them sooooo eloquently I might add. It is this and much more that sets him apart from the atheistic sheeple that are mere rabble rousers, while he is a true visionary.

He has an awful lot for him to be zealous about... and he doesn't have to concern himself with minor details like... I dunno the inflammatory rhetoric like, "...problem is the EXISTENCE of the true believer." If that is thought of by some as inciting atheistic militancy and subsequently considered zealotry in any sense... well it must be forgiven (oooh wait, a faith term perhaps?), it must be over looked, for that was not his intention and we the believing sheeple simply took it the wrong way.

Q...Why is it that faith is considered the maniacal zealotry that needs to be eradicated (by the way smallpox is back from what I read)and not zealotry in general? A... Because it is never the brand of zealotry that "I" employ that is the problem it is always the "other guy".

Zealotry (any variety) and hatred, is being fed and nurtured by the same power brokers... death is what they want and they don't care who's death.


I love you my friend... but I am somewhat put out, you have commandeered a good portion of my day with this one for it cannot go unanswered.

I just need to get my "not stupid" brain to figure out how to link this Hub into mine while I am writing it.

end of comment.

Now the reason I emboldened the above is to showcase "a technique" that Chasuk has implemented to make a point for his Hub, and I did something similar in my comment. I built a rebuttal out of a partial sentence focusing on the tiny, and thereby reducing the preponderance, his overall message to the person reading my comment to that one phrase. Unfair right? Somewhat understandable in both applications his, and mine, but still unfair and inappropriate.

I took one part of a sentence out of many hundreds of sentences and focused on that, and like my misuse... his was understandable too.

His statement was blaring, a self-contradiction, hypocritical, and probably not his best choice for a phrase to make his point (or maybe it was?). I obliquely referenced a slightly larger portion of his context (to show balance), while I hacked away at his poor choice.

Here is my point... yes I did say...

"In the last one hundred years alone... in the extreme measurement of a single lifetime, there has been more genocide, more mass murdering of millions, more lives lost through two world wars, pestilence (more were killed by influenza following WWI than died in the war). More through countless conflicts, famine, floods (tsunamis and others), and earthquakes, than all the other thousands of years... multiplied five times over." (present emboldening mine)

And I did refer to Matt 24, I referenced this chapter in a couple of couple of my Hubs but not in the one he quoted. The one with the quoted "...multiplied five times over." is in this Hub...

...but I did not refer to specific chapter and verse, and I find it odd that he did not provide a link or at least the title of my Hub.

Yet these are minor issues.

One of the greater contentions is his tendency to lump motives, agendas, bigotry, of believers into the same grab bag of character assassination. He evidently thinks he has succeeded in labeling everyone who studies end times an Alex Jones adherent. He uses Coca Cola and Coke as an example that for me is erroneous. Alex Jones is more like Sam's Choice of Cola when it comes to conspiracy and eschatology and now Chasuk would like to rename Coke and Pepsi as Sam's Choice. Alex Jones (johnny come lately) might be popular enough with Chasuk for him to think that, but I disagree. I myself have been exposed to Alex's product four times, and found his website beyond my limited abilities to navigate.

This, admittedly does not matter to Chasuk. I guess he figures that if your not part of the Chasuk solution... then your are part of the Chasuk "dangerous" problem.

Chasuk readily points out...

"Why is It So Freaking Dangerous?!?

It's dangerous because a problem exists -- a serious problem -- and its misidentification magnifies that problem, making it more dangerous.

The misidentification of the problem may be the largest and most dangerous part of the problem as a whole.

That problem is the existence of the True Believer."

"That problem is the existence of the True Believer."

Let that sink in for a moment...

okay moment over. What are you advocating here Chasuk? What problematic hate talk are you suggesting with this rhetoric?

Please read my Hub...

This Hub titled "Bugs" is typical of my philosophies regarding tolerance. Nowhere in the body of my works that Chasuk has been exposed to (or anywhere else for that matter), can you find me suggesting that the hatred and violence is...

PECULIAR to any group or section of mankind.

On the contrary, I have repeatedly stated and will continue to state that the failing is common, and across the board.

Chasuk evidently says no, "true believers are the problem." the zealots... the other guy zealot, not the me zealot... isn't it is always the other guy, that has the problem.

Okay, Chasuk I am a zealot... I am a zealot in favor of God. I am zealous about pointing to what I understand to be the truth even if that is uncomfortable, please read...



These are samples of my work that further showcase the truth that I search for and that clearly states that Christians are knuckleheads... just like everybody else.

Now to move on... Chasuk's, "Zealotry Kills" accomplishes a lot of my works for me... thanks Chasuk.

Allow me to point them out...

(In Zealotry Kills Chasuk claims a conservative estimate vs. liberal estimate that favors the believer, thank you I accept your generosity)

Chasuk: "As undeniably large as the number 450 million is, it isn't five times larger than 180 million. It is exactly 2.5 times larger." (Chasuk pointing out my exaggeration, mine was 5 X's)

Then there are the "Omissions"..? Please, you list some of the omissions that favor you, and neglect to mention any, of the many omissions that do not, ref. the countless pseudo-political blood baths that have go on globally in the last fifty years.

Okay... so lets go with your generosity 2.5 times larger... AND, you happen to mention the population explosion of the last 200 years in your "The Density of the Problem" paragraphs, but more on that in a moment.

2.5 times larger..? Lets see... all of recorded history (sans omissions & the last hundred years) vs. the last hundred years... hmmmmn.

ALL OF HISTORY vs. The last hundred years?

Really..? Am I the only one getting this?

Then there are the rebuttals... * 'BUT... Look at the difference in the population. It is like shooting a scatter gun into one hundred sticks pounded into the ground as opposed to a thousand sticks pounded into the ground with a thousand your simply just gonna take out more sticks!' (I use apostrophes to indicate a supposed quote)

Okay I will buy that logic, but that is not at all what is being argued.

And the other rebuttal is 'Well the ability to record earthquakes and then report them is fifty thousand gazillion times better than what it used to be!' (what do you suppose the odds are that Chasuk focuses on that exaggeration too?)

You got me Chasuk, GRANTED dude... you da man! Again though, that is not what was being argued. And now your probably saying "Argued??? Argued where? What are you talking about... where?"

Well Chasuk, my friend you brought up in this (sort of) exchange... Matt 24.

'Well then that is what is being argued! Isn't it?'


I did not reference Matthew when I wrote the quoted paragraph, and when you look at the context for why I wrote that paragraph that was not my point. My point that you do not even touch on in your zealous work "Zealotry Kills" is that all mankind is murderous.

Another departure, would be that Matthew 24 never states there that "there will be" MORE WARS RUMORS OF WARS FLOODS FAMINE AND EARTHQUAKES. Jesus said...

Mat 24:6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all [these things] must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

Mat 24:7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places.

Mat 24:8 All these [are] the beginning of sorrows.

"And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars." And you will HEAR of wars and rumors of wars, and Jesus goes on to list all the things the people of that day will "hear" of, "famines, pestilences, and earthquakes".

Can anyone think of a better time in history when one may "hear" of things happening around the world? Maybe in the future? Which of course is not yet history, or, am I speaking exaggerations again?

Now to the population explosion... Chasuk adeptly points out the horrendous spike in population especially in the last 50 years...

"When I was born, there were approximately 3 billion people in the world. Today, there are approximately 6.8 billion. In 1804, there were 1 billion people."

Now let me get this straight... an increase from 1, to 3 billion in 150 years and then that more than doubles in 50, and very likely double again within twenty years?

Global energy reserves are past their peak?

And NOW, anybody would try to convince me that a murderous specie like Mankind would not do the math and determine that it would be much better to kill off 95 out of 100 people in the lifeboat? Especially when they are multiplying exponentially and the resources are nearly gone????


Are you really that naive Chasuk?"

The title of the Hub I wrote that included what Chasuk quoted, was... "The Supposed Ewey Gooey... Warm and Fuzzy Benevolence of Atheism." and was written to contend with the Atheist's claim that "...religion is responsible for so much murder!"

I never once said that it wasn't... as Chasuk mentioned so very kindly, "My close friend is not stupid". Of course religions are responsible for murder just as much as non religions are. Why? because either side, both sides, all sides, are populated with murderous mankind.

I will say though, if anyone... ANYONE, claims that this murderous juggernaut can be turned around they are either lying to themselves or they ARE stupid.

And in so much of what I write about I am simply saying that at this point in history like no other, it lines up with all the descriptions and touchstones and earmarks and benchmarks and PREPONDERANCE of evidences pointing to these, being our final seconds before the coming holocaust.

I am CoauthorU along with my lovely bride of 27 years and any guest writers that happen by, you may know my Hubs through the "by line" by Merwin.

Please read my material, rather than read what Chasuk is saying, that I am saying.


Comments 7 comments

Chasuk 6 years ago

The "technique" is called quotation. You didn't use it inappropriately, nor did I. If either of us had quoted selectively, for the purposes of misrepresenting the other's views, it would have been deceptive. But that's not what either of us did.

I quoted your "Warm-and-Fuzzy" hub because it succinctly summarized one of the central claims of premillennialism. I linked it in the section "Hubs with Opposite Viewpoints." You alluded to Matthew 24, which I pointed out for the benefit of those less familiar with the Bible.

To have engaged in character assassination would have required that I said something to impugn someone's character. This didn't happen. I referenced no one's character at all, but addressed only false beliefs.

I labeled no one an Alex Jones adherent. I made it quite clear that I used Jones as a metaphor for the huge array of conspiracy theory beliefs.

As for the problem of the True Believer, I advocated nothing. My hub was descriptive, not prescriptive.

I didn't claim that the problem of the True Believer was peculiar to any group or section of mankind. I took great pains to show just the opposite. If you missed that, then you barely skimmed my hub.

I did include pseudo-political death polls, and I even itemized them by nation. Again, if you missed that, then you weren't reading.

I noted the population increase -- not a spike, but inevitable growth -- to explain that the larger death tolls of the last 100 years weren't surprising in a denser population.

I have no idea what point you were trying to make regarding seismographs.

I quoted two of you hubs. Did you notice? I wasn't deconstructing either of them, but used them to summarize tenets of premillennialism.

The quote that you have been focusing on was from "There is Simply Too Much Evidence," not "Warm-and-Fuzzy."

I also linked "There is Simply Too Much Evidence " in the section "Hubs with Opposite Viewpoints."

You might believe that all mankind is murderous, but you believe that certain groups are especially murderous, as the actual quote from "Warm-and-Fuzzy" makes clear.

"While there has been more mass murders and starvation and torture done by atheistic, socialistic, totalitarian regimes than any other sector of society since history began and you somehow think that atheism is free from the voracious blood-lust ills that plague mankind? My atheist friend you are either extremely naive or a blatant hypocrite... or both."

I know that Matthew 24:7 doesn't state that there would be "more" wars. I included that verse in its entirety for anyone to read for themselves.

Are you really saying that as Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, or Napoleon ravaged their respective portions of the globe, that it caught everybody by surprise? No one heard news of the approaching carnage?

If someone had said a thousand years ago, "Everyone will SEE the error of my ways," is that evidence they were prophesying YouTube?

You ask, "And NOW, anybody would try to convince me that a murderous specie like Mankind would not do the math and determine that it would be much better to kill off 95 out of 100 people in the lifeboat? Especially when they are multiplying exponentially and the resources are nearly gone????"

So, if you can conceive of it happening, then it automatically does? It that the way that your logic works?

I conceive of cancer and the common cold being one day eradicated, so I hope you are right.

Or is it only guaranteed to happen if it is bad?

I've examined the descriptions and touchstones and earmarks and benchmarks and alleged PREPONDERANCE of evidence, and see only evidence convincing to those wrapped up in the masochistic wish-fulfillment of the endgame fanatic.

You are right. It is impossible to turn around the murderous juggernaut, if all of the zealots have already made that decision.

CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

You are absolutely right about a couple of things... I need to re-read this.

I was scrambling back and forth trying to find the Hub you got it from... more to come tomorrow or maybe later tonight.

Chasuk 6 years ago

@CoauthorU: You are always fair. Thank you for that.

CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author


First, you are absolutely right about a couple of things...

1) You did get your references of what I wrote from the same Hub, again... "I was scrambling back and forth trying to find the Hub you got it from", "haste makes waste".

2) You did link my stuff, (you say you did, and that is good enough for me... lol though I don't know where, and I don't know how that works, and I am too lazy to look for it hahaha)

3)And you did not involve yourself in character assassination. (although in my opinion it could and has been interpreted that way, by me.)

I believe our over all problem is one of mutual misinterpretation of phrases used to emphasize perspectives. This is a result, I think, of forceful and sometimes inflammatory rhetoric on both sides, employed for the sake of persuasion.

I really do not have a problem with that... I use rhetoric, you use rhetoric, it has always been used and it always will be.

I say some things that give me the label of Coca-Cola in your mind and you say things that, to me, that suggest you're a little more than Humanist Sheeple.

Both of us are fairly settled in our own minds for what we believe, including the misgivings and misinterpretations of where the other is at in the global market place of ideas.

I think the common, and well placed, consensus of (kindly meant) thought among unbelievers about Christians can be found in the saying "They are so heavenly minded they are of no earthly good."

And I think that it is equally correct to estimate that the Humanist (liberals?) description among believers can be best describe in the saying "They are so open minded that their brains fell out."

Both of these statements are born of bigotry and reinforced by peer reiteration.

I think you my friend and I continue to volley for certain concessions. I have no problem conceding that religions have fostered murderous plagues against their fellow man... I have stated the truth of this again and again and will continue to shout from the rooftops that "YES... MANKIND HAS MASS MURDERED IN THE NAME OF RELIGION!"

I have never refuted that.

I have simply and excessively pointed out that "most" unbelievers point to that as some kind of leverage and they usually follow up with stating things like, "...the sooner religions are done away with, the better".

The concession that I am attempting to draw from any unbeliever by pointing to Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, and the rest, is that it is Mankind "in general", that is murderous.

And if unbelieving Mankind was indeed able to remove the cancer from his midst that is, faith in any Higher Power, then he would still be murderous.

And to rid the world of faith in God or gods, that is exactly what the non-believer would have to do is murder the faith-full.

So I guess there is really more than one concession there. The biggest of these though, is the hypocrisy that most unbelievers express, that is, "If we could simply be free of religion mankind could live in peace and harmony."


Roger Crigger 6 years ago

While I dare not comment, This is VERY interesting banter, Much of this hub, (I've not read all of the other Hubs referenced in this one)serves as a thorough compass pointing to the zealotry on BOTH sides of the Faith/ non-Faith, God / No God endless debate. The only problem is... Now, I have to read ALL of the Hubs referenced! Thanks a lot A**holes! ;~)

Chasuk 6 years ago

@CoauthorU: I don't disagree with most of what you wrote above, but I do disagree with this:

"And to rid the world of faith in God or gods, that is exactly what the non-believer would have to do is murder the faith-full."

All beliefs evolve. The Christian faith is evolving -- finally -- into something to which Jesus would happily attach his name. The niches of Christianity which are devolving will one day be subsumed.

My understanding of Islam is sketchy and conflicted, which is why I am ignoring them in this comment. However, I am hopeful that Islam is likewise evolving.

The largest portion of humankind is emerging from superstition. At an atavistic level, it will probably always swaddle us, as a degree of religious belief seems hardwired.

Yes, zealotry will probably continue to inspire murder for the next several centuries. We might descend into darkness a few more times before our ancestors awake in a new dawn, but I believe the dawn is coming.

When that new dawn arrives, we won't have rid the world of faith, but faith will have transformed into a better, harmless -- maybe even helpful -- thing.

CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

I really doubt that murderous mankind has what he needs to be able to wait that out.

The global population thingy is beyond anyone's ability to curb. World population was one billion up until the industrial revolution, it tripled in less than one hundred fifty years, and that more than doubled in our lifetime... since you and I were born.

What, 6.5 - 6.8 billion now? And that is likely to double in the next 20 years.

I don't believe that mankind's history or nature points to any bloodless detours. The warm and fuzzy choices are impossible to implement and the murderous models have immediate results.

This, coupled with fossil fuel reserves that are past their peak, showcase levels of governance desperation that all but eliminate benign alternatives.

With "plenty of oil", at our present level of use efficiency it takes about 10 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of fuel. As oil becomes harder to find... Saudi Arabia has gone to off shore searches (indicating past peak) the ratio of caloric use to produce calories will become even more lop sided.

Oil is used for nearly everything pesticides, fertilizers, plastics... 4 gallons of oil in the average size car tire.

The population continues to explode and demand for more energy increases.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article