Live Skype Debate next week. Topic: Is it right to lie for Jesus?

Kingdom Treasures Castle

We need three Christians and three atheists who can use Skype. Send your Skype name to me thatjim (at) or add me using the Skype username thatjim

This is in response to the outrageous stitch-up by @JuanitaBerguson on her phone-in “debate” this week, following a dubious introduction the week before.

Over the past week, myself and Juanita have exchanged numerous emails in which it was agreed by both of us that we were looking forward to debating the fundamentals of belief and morality and the way in which Christians so often behave contrary to their creed. When I attempted to remind her of this on-air, this week, she cut my mic, accused me of “struggling with the format” and generally acted exactly the same way she had agreed not to behave again after she originally did this the first time around.

If you are one of the many Christians who contacted me last week to say you were embarrassed at the way she behaved on your behalf, please put your name forward as being interested in taking part in next week’s open discussion. All you need is a microphone, some headphones and a reliable internet connection. The talk will be recorded and aired UNEDITED AND UNCENSORED immediately afterwards.

If that’s how she wants to play it, let the games begin.

EDIT: It has been suggested on Juanita’s forum (from which I am now banned for posting links to Paul’s comments below) that I was the one who behaved badly during tonight’s talk. Can I please just remind everyone that the whole point of having these debates was agreed between myself and Juanita in another thread of this very blog, linked below. You can read for yourself what we agreed to discuss and what we agreed the debate would be about.

I did NOT agree to be part of a Christian VERSUS atheist anything. I agreed to be part of a conversation, to which Juanita and her business partners clearly aren’t interested in having.


27 comments on “Live Skype Debate next week. Topic: Is it right to lie for Jesus?

  1. I have not contacted you but I think the BlogTalk discussion was just a set up. It is definitely swayed and I cringe to listen. There is definitely a better way to do it but I don’t really think that is what they are interested in. I will think about joining next week or at least being a fill-in…but I don’t believe alot of stuff the “typical” Christian does so not sure how that will work.


  2. you are the most oppressive person on the show mr jim gardner..your problem with christians is that they “folllow a book of fiction”..translation…your problem with christians…how they can get along with little beasties like you..invective little hate mongers, bigots like you, is to STOP being christian…good luck with that fascist

  3. jim gardner talks about fairness, poor broken victim that he is..but titles his show….Is it ok to lie for jesus?..join us next week for…is it ok to be going to hell by not believing in God (this is a joke..I would never title a show that..especially when i was trying for honest, open dialogue and not pathetic character assassinations and flat out bigotry such as we get from the calm-spoken, but nevertheless bilious jim gardner)

  4. I have deduced that if jim gardner were in a world devoid of christians, he would be bored out of his skull..nothing to say…no reason to live…he would live off rama noodles and reside in a small room over a tavern, hoping not to be noticed by the shadows….a world based on hate ultimately causes the most damage to the one perpetuating it, jim gardner..if i were running the show, ida never invited a bigot in the first place

  5. As a further sign of how interested in honest debate these people actually are, after being accused of breaking the terms, because I posted a link to Paul’s above comments on Juanita’s forum, I have been banned from Juanita’s forum. So, apparently, it is OK to lie for Jesus.

  6. I listened to the “debate” as a result of hearing some of Angie’s tweets late, so I wanted to see how much of a train wreck things could be to have someone get *muted* while they were speaking.

    And indeed, there was much of a trainwreck throughout. Pretty unprofessional.

    I don’t really know what happened in the first podcast (I guess this has been going on since last week or so?), but just from hearing this podcast, I honestly was very disappointed in your performance, Jim. I probably wouldn’t have cut you off in the middle of what you were saying, but you most CERTAINLY did not seem blameless. Congrats to @heidiraff, Billy, and Angie for making the podcast something more than a total loss.

  7. I’m sorry you feel that way Andrew, but as I say, I didn’t agree to take part in the kind of “debate” this turned out to be. I have been offering a direct one on one discussion to Juanita now for months and months, but she appears to have only been interested in doing this on the level where she was in control of when I was allowed to speak and when I wasn’t.

    We can disagree on the subject matter ’till we’re blue in the face, but you must surely agree with me that it simply isn’t honest to arrange something with someone privately, only to discover when it’s too late that you’ve been set-up?

    Anyway, I hope you can tune in next week—and see that I am genuinely interested in giving equal time to all views. Some very kind Christians and atheists alike have already offered to take part and I look forward to making this happen.

  8. Yeah, Jim, as I said, I have no idea what happened behind the scenes (or even on-the-scenes last week), so I can’t say for certain (and I was not impressed at all with Juanita’s hosting), but nevertheless…I guess I just feel that, even if you are truly set up, you should take that issue offline, not participate in future events, make your thoughts known elsewhere instead of *on the scene*.

    I’ll probably listen in next week though.

  9. Right, but the whole point is I made my views known off-air already and that’s why, when Juanita agreed we need to counter the bias of last week’s debate, I agreed to take part in a second talk. But none of what we agreed in our private emails was adhered to. I really didn’t ask for anything other than what we agreed. You can disagree with my views all you want, but it’s just not fair to knowingly set someone up like that twice in a row.

  10. Hi Jim. I’m a Christian and would be interested in taking part in your Skype event if the time is right. Hook me up with the details.

  11. Thanks to everyone who has contacted me so far. What’s looking likely is that I’ll be leaving Skype open all day Sunday the 25th of April 2010 so anyone who wants to drop in can do so at their leisure.

    Had a great response from Christians on this! Thanks!

  12. Pingback: Not all Christians are lunatics: Joe Cienkowski wants to squirt juice on your hot ass « How good is that?

  13. It’s astounding how so many Xtian hoodoo-spewers engage in the psychological technique of “projection,” accusing other people of doing what THEY do. i.e. “You atheists preach hatred” when it’s the batty skyspirit shouters who are guilty of that. They recognize that radiating hate is nasty, and people should not do it, so they denounce it. Yet their blind spot to their own behaviour is SO big, and their horror of seeing how their own actions are revolting to their own beliefs is SO strong, they have to protect themselves psychically by saying “YOU are the one who’s doing that.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s