|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| I was just getting out of my bath the other day when I overheard little Maggie Smith telling one of her classmates that was grilling her about her fundamentalist beliefs that I was so big and so wonderful that I just couldn't be comprehended.
Granted, I'm pretty powerful, so I'll give Maggie that one. On the other hand, I think it's evident throughout the parts of the bible that are correct that I make mistakes just like everybody else...so, humility dictates that I must decline the "wonderful", Maggie. Sorry.
But it got me thinking about this whole using "mystery" as a cop-out when speaking about me. I
know that some of my followers find fish mysterious, especially their ability to breathe underwater.
It has something to do with water passing through their gills,
but beyond that it gets rather hazy.
Their finding fish mysterious
tells you nothing much about fish and nothing good about them. You will
conclude, rightly, that they have failed to look into the matter with any
dedication. You will not conclude, I trust, that fish are
intrinsically mysterious - that their ignorance is no such thing but,
rather, the proper appreciation of the mystery of fish. Yet, on
matters a little loftier than fish, this is often the moral drawn from
ignorance or incoherence. Consider, for example, the orthodox
Christian doctrine of the Unity of the Holy Trinity. The Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct entities - as suggested by
"Trinity." Yet each is God, a single entity - as suggested by
"Unity." The doctrine is not that each is part of God, in the way that
the FM tuner is part of your three-in-one home stereo. Each is wholly
God. And there's the problem. It takes only the most basic
arithmetic to see that three things cannot be one thing. The doctrine
of the Unity of the Trinity is inconsistent with the fact that three
does not equal one. It is also inconsistent with the fact that
identity is a transitive relation: that if A is identical with B, and
B is identical with C, then A is identical with C. If the Son is
identical with God, and God is identical with the Holy Ghost, then the
Son must be identical with the Holy Ghost. They are one and the same
thing. But those who assert the Unity of the Trinity deny this last
implication; they deny that Jesus is the Holy Ghost. The
Catholic Church - it's pope, cardinals, and priests - agree that three
does not equal one and that identity is a transitive relation. So they
have a problem. How can the doctrine of the Unity of the Trinity be
true when it is inconsistent with these obvious facts? Well, it's a mystery. That's how. Indeed, it's a strict mystery.
Strict mysteries are those that are of the very nature of the thing and
which it is both hopeless and sinful to attempt to resolve. This
response may satisfy the sheep in the congregation but it should
satisfy no one with his critical faculties, which I gave you, intact. For it simply
acknowledges the problem without solving it. The incantation of "it's
a mystery" does not wash away the intellectual sin of contradiction.
It remains impossible both that three does not equal one and that the
Trinity is a Unity. If you hold both beliefs, you contradict
yourself. One belief must be wrong, and because we know it is
necessarily true that three does not equal one, we know which it is.
Cry mystery all you like; it won't stop you from being wrong. Some
are greatly impressed by mystery. It gives them a thrilling fit of the
cosmic heebie-jeebies. But all mystery, whether local or universal,
whether the question is trivial or important, is a mere matter of
ignorance. Nothing is intrinsically mysterious. Finding something
mysterious displays no additional understanding of it, on a par with
discovering that it is green or weighs two grams. It displays only a
failure to understand. There is nothing noble in this failure, even if
there is nothing shameful in it either. The proper reaction is to keep
on studying, or perhaps to give up in defeat, but certainly not to
conslucde that, because the matter remains a mystery, you may believe
whatever you like.
Mystery can help the image. You must be
careful what you deem mysterious. The outer reaches of science, the
relationship between Me and My human creatures - that's the sort of
thing. You don't want to embarrass yourself by confessing to finding
it a mystery how hot-air balloons stay aloft or why the tides ebb and
flow with the lunar day. But keep to the right topics, and a little
mystery-mongering can give off a scent of profundity heady enough to
make the mind swim.
Still, you can do better. Rather than trying to obscure your
prejudice, boldly declare it a virtue. You have no reason to believe
what you do, no evidence, no argument. Of course not. This is a
matter of faith!
How scrumptious to be the faithful! But utterly irrelevant to whether
or not the opinion in question is true. Whatever the finger feelings
associated with faith, no matter how elevated those who indulge in it,
from the point of view of truth and evidence, faith is exactly the
same as prejudice. Declaring an opinion to be a matter of faith
provides it with no new evidential support, gives no new reason to
think it's true. It merely acknowledges that you have none.
When pressed, the faithful often claim that faith is required because
man is incapable of knowledge in this area. This is wonderfully
self-abasing: Oh God, you are so big, and I am so small, and all of
that. But this self-abasement is also self-defeating. To say that
knowledge is impossible is to say that, on this matter, all opinions
must be mere prejudice. It doesn't improve things to call your
prejudice faith.
Indeed, declarations of faith are generally self-defeating. Someone
will claim this status only for those opinions he cannot defend. No
one ever declares his shoe size a matter of faith, nor his mother's sex,
nor the atomic weight of gold. The moment someone declares some
opinion to be a matter of faith you know what to think of it.
As I've always said, I did not give you the ability to reason and solve problems so that you could let it collect dust.
| | |
| My ultimate goal
in this seam of posts is to prove my point that it is immoral for a
moral person to apply a moral relationship to an amoral entity. Also,
of course, that we are in a situation which no benevolent person should
take credit for that has the power to make it another way. It
is an argument to the better explanation, that a better situation is
easy to imagine and that even theists would be disgusted completely
with the exploits of Yahweh if they had a better available relationship
with a mature deity (such as “God, the Uncle”). Often Christians are disturbed by incidents in the Old Testament, but accommodate, and atheists are flat out repulsed.
Maltheism is not a new idea and has probably been around as long as the Old Testament was asserting the exploits of Yahweh. Thirdly,
the reason that Jewish monotheism takes the shape that it does is
because theism is desirable even to the point of flubbing over a
non-theistic world. Bridging the gap between a
non-theistic world and theistic idealism with underdeveloped ideas…is
going to be ugly…and there we have the Old Testament. Obviously
if the world is bad and God is good…you can’t blame God…and that’s why
the first 5 books of the Bible are rife with the blame game.
C.
S. Lewis credits Aslan in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe as being
good, but not being a tame lion…as though that makes up for amoral
behavior. While quaint, it really undersells the
point that God is not just a little more sovereign than we are…he’s not
just a lot more sovereign…he’s absolutely sovereign. Infinitely so. That’s not a wild lion…that’s a big apathetic allverse. One is shorting their definitions arbitrarily so. Literary ingenuity won’t save Christian theism from rightly coming to that conclusion when intellectual honesty reins supreme. With an infinity of love comes an infinity of hate. An infinity of care…an infinity of apathy. An infinity of passion and an infinity of dispassion. You
don’t know why God has those traits to begin with…and I contend you
don’t know why he shouldn’t have the opposite trait as well. And
if we take the blinders off of what we want God to be, all of God’s
traits balance out to be the meaningless chaos that we observe because
we can’t seem to tell that personal traits that stretch to infinity
breach the definition of personhood like an acute angle that is widened
to become a straight 180 degree line. It’s no longer an angle, by definition. It’s the complete opposite or lack of one.
So here we go. We’ll
start off with each basic point of contention with Judeo/Christian
theism that is unacceptable and speculate how an even more immature
deity could one up Yahweh with senseless cruelty. It
is meant to be humorous, but also to prove the point that though God,
the Stepfather is worse…God, the Father (Yahweh) is still bad. The
same ways we tiptoe around God, the Father’s sins of commission and
omission can be applied to God, the Stepfather just as easily, since
who are you to question a god?
-It is wrong to not give every individual the same chance as their ancestors Adam and Eve had. Everyone should have an equal opportunity.
-God,
the Stepfather did actually give everyone the same chance…but it turns
out it was opposite day and the most people that made a sensible
decision got cast out of paradise.
-It
is wrong to not provide suitable reality checks so people on earth have
less to kill each other for and less to go insane about.
-God,
the Stepfather not only doesn’t provide any proof of his existence, he
manufactures misleading evidence and expects people to take pride not
just in righteous intellectual dishonesty…but also in cognitive
dissonance.
-It
is wrong to allow for different religions to confuse people and make
their job of participating in salvation that much more confusing.
-God,
the Stepfather isn’t just negligent, but actually inspires and
maintains through providence contrary religions deliberately.
-It is wrong to not patiently answer questions like any good father figure would.
-God,
the Stepfather doesn’t just let silence feed delusion, he ups each
spell of delusion with more carefully timed and executed silence.
-It
is wrong to not provide a full account of what the extreme consequences
of actions would be such as taking of the forbidden fruit.
-God,
the Stepfather isn’t just a little vague when our futures are on the
line…he only told everyone that the forbidden fruit was high in vitamin
E (incidentally…for evil) to make them think maybe they would be gypped
out of good nutrition.
-It is wrong to not protect your creations from being lied to.
-God,
the Stepfather not only lets powerful beings bent on our destruction
into paradise to deceive us…he coaches them on just how to do it.
-It is probably wrong to even allow for the possibility of things getting all messed up.
-God, the Stepfather skips the grenade stage and jumps right to the explosion, just starts things out in hell. Why bother with a few moments of formality? He merely implanted fake memories of paradise in each person to make people think each of them personally chose to be there.
-It is wrong to not correct humanity in humane ways.
-God,
the Stepfather not only treats people inhumanely, he also performs
cosmetics experiments on them while they sleep to make angels prettier.
-It
is wrong to demand perfection after and during a long period of
emotionally abusive and harsh circumstances (edit: for instance after
400 years of slavery in Egypt, Yahweh is miffed that the Hebrew slaves
are a wee bit grumpy wandering the desert...and this pattern sets the
tone for the rest of the Old Testament).
God, the Stepfather not only has ridiculous expectations of human behavior…he has even more ridiculous expectations!
-It
is wrong to think that just because you are going to mystically take
care of sin 4,000 years later, that you have dealt with the problem
sufficiently…that experience in the meantime and afterwards doesn’t
matter.
God,
the Stepfather put his work of salvation off for so long, Judgment day
rolled around and it turned out everyone had to toil their whole life
to pay for their own sins through a perfect balance of works and
faith…and only a few were saved. It was tragic.
-It is wrong for a cultivator of saints to cultivate so few…like an incompetent farmer that could have any soil he wanted.
-
God, the Stepfather took the cut of the sinners that against all odds
made saints of themselves and made them try out for his professional
basketball team. Unfortunately none of them made that cut.
-It
is wrong to “pay for our sins” with only one act as though the entire
lives of billions of suffering people are not that important. Even the most gruesome execution…is only the tip of the ice berg.
-God, the Stepfather stapled his tongue one time for each of the seven deadly sins and called it quits.
-It is wrong to solicit faith without sufficient evidence as a matter of pride.
God, the Stepfather encourages you to believe in only that which you know is not true, which is very difficult to pull off.
-It is wrong to punish individuals eternally for finite sins.
-God, the Stepfather sends evil doers to hell for many consecutive eternities.
-It is wrong to encourage extremism and then skip out, rather like leaving two rabid cats in the same cage.
-God,
the Stepfather is not only careless about the consequences of his
intermittent action in history, when he’s done, he sits in heaven with
a soda and a bowl of popcorn and places bets with Satan on what the
suffering and death toll will be. He’s been accused by God, the Father often of being “too comfortable with his own actions.”
-If
historical inquiry is necessary for some reason (which it should never
be), it is wrong to not provide the best kind of historical data…and
not the worst.
-God, the Stepfather said that anyone who could guess the exact date of the writing of any of the gospels would be saved…
-It is wrong to not overtly participate lovingly in people’s every day lives.
-God, the Stepfather regularly likes to hide just barely “off camera” for fun.
Conclusion:
How exactly could we blame an infinitely sovereign deity for even God, the Stepfather’s sins? Just what is the clay to say to the potter? Any potter? Any clay? Good? Bad? Amoral? Is God, the Father allowed to be just a “little sinful?” The
reason you can get around God not being evil is because your escape
route actually necessitates God being amoral…which has the natural
consequence of not being a person…which has the natural consequence of
not being in a position to cause religions deliberately…which means if
you are right…you are wrong.
ARU: “I can tell directly that God, the Uncle is actually a good moral person…”
You: “All the time.”
Taken from here.
| | |
| So true.
As an imperfect being, I think I will use the words from this young man...he put it very eloquently:
Homosexuality is perfectly normal. It occurs in virtually every
other species on this planet, especially during periods of
overpopulation. Choosing to be ostracized in today's society via
homosexuality would be akin to choosing to be a jew in Nazi Germany, or choosing to be black in times of slavery.
All the same, it's completely irrelevent. The United States government cannot make any law with respect to any
religion. The idea of marriage is therefore a financial contract
between two people. Their sexual orientation should not forbid anybody
from entering into this contract, especially when recognized religions
in the United States will marry two members of the same gender. This
is religious discrimination and it is far more wrong than homosexuality
will ever be.
I owe these two a debt of gratitude for seeing the truth and logic that My own followers cannot. Bless you two.
Jesus
| | |
| If I was really the all-knowing deity that many of you believe Me to be...you'd think I could've come up with something better than this...
Hank
This morning
there was a knock at my door. When I answered
the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple.
The man spoke first: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would
I
want to kiss his ass?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, he'll give you a million dollars; and if
you don't, he'll kick the shit out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank
owns this town. He can do what ever he wants, and what he wants is to
give you
a million dollars, but he can't until you kiss his ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million
dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh, yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has he given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well, no, you don't actually get the money until you leave
town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the
money, and he kicks the shit out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the
million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year,
and
I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think he'll actually give you the money if
you've
never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll
get
a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a
twenty dollar
bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And
remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass he'll kick the shit of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to him, get the details straight
from
him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss his ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow him a kiss, and think of his ass. Other
times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing
Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank,
that
Hank wanted you to kiss his ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl's got a letter Hank sent him years ago explaining
the
whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."
John handed me a photocopy of a handwritten memo on From the desk of
Karl
letterhead.
There were eleven items listed:
Kiss Hank's ass and he'll give you a million dollars when you
leave town.
Use alcohol in moderation.
Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
Eat right.
Hank dictated this list himself.
The moon is made of green cheese.
Everything Hank says is right.
Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
Don't drink.
Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
Kiss Hank's ass or he'll kick the shit out of you.
Me: "This would appear to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's
handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago he would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said he was a philanthropist. What sort of
philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're
different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says, 'Everything Hanks says is right.' That's good
enough
for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says, 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides,
item 2 says, 'Use alcohol in moderation,' item 4 says, 'Eat right,' and
item 8
says, 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows
those
things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says, 'Don't Drink,' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and
6
says, 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As
far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for
sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of
rock...."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out
of
space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the moon
came
from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock
came
from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we
know
Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
list
is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it
because
the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying,
'Hank's
right because he says he's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
around
to Hank's way of thinking."
Me: "But.... oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary blushes.
John says: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything
else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary looks positively stricken.
John shouts: "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind
are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it
would
be out of the question?"
Mary sticks her fingers in her ears: "I am not listening to this. La la
la, la la, la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat
that...."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary faints.
John catches her: "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't
have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there,
counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you
bunless
cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped
off
| | |
| I thought this was funny....
Jesus
Are Your Cats Old Enough To Learn About Jesus?
By Marian Byers
February 28, 2006 | Issue 42•09
People often ask me when they should teach the Good News to their housecats. I have but one answer: "What are you waiting for?"
A pet is a beloved part of your family, and as a Christian, you
should do everything you can to guarantee that this valued member of
your family receives the glorious eternal reward for which Christ gave
His very life. Think of the alternative: your cat mired in darkness for
eternity because you put off a 10-minute conversation.
My own cats accepted Jesus into their hearts before they even opened
their eyes. The light of salvation has brightened their lives, but
perhaps the most noticeable change has been in me. I am filled with
warmth knowing their eternal souls have been saved.
Kittens' hearts, at birth, are filled with what theologians call
"original mischief." Mischief, if left to grow on its own, can sprout
into evil. That's why you must fill their hearts with Jesus instead. If
you wait, your cats might find seductive role models among the
back-alley strays and rough felines from the wrong side of town. You
could also end up with an unwanted pregnancy.
That's why it's so very, very important to tell your cats about the
life, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus as early as possible. The
Nicene Creed is a good place to start: Recite it to them when they are
about 10 weeks old.
Remember: If you give a cat a fish, it eats for a day. If you teach
a cat to fish, it eats for a lifetime. Perhaps that's not such a good
proverb to use in this case, since fishing is actually instinctual in
cats. But Jesus is not. Your kitties need to know early on that there
is a fisher of men and cats alike who can save their souls.
A lot of people say, "Oh, but Whiskers doesn't even answer to his
name yet." They raise a good point: Sometimes you have to teach your
cat at its own level. If you give your cat a rubber Jesus to play with,
it will sense that there's more to this toy. If you give it a
scratching cross, it will contemplate Christ's love and ultimate
sacrifice while it stretches and sharpens its claws. I myself have put
an image of Jesus at the bottom of my cats' food bowls. That way, when
they finish their food, the face of He who provided it is revealed unto
them.
Teaching your cats the Gospel of Christ isn't just important for
their eternal souls, it is also the only way to ensure that they know
an eternity of damnation awaits them if they scratch your favorite
chair. Before they cough up a hairball on the rug or leave a dead mouse
on the doorstep, they'll know—without being scolded—that they had
better watch it, as a Final Judgment awaits at the hands of the Lord.
Of course, once your cat has accepted the Lord in its heart, it's
ready to be baptized. The righteous cat is one that is born again in
the eyes of the Lord. People think that baptism is a rite that requires
a fancy baptismal font and a preacher, but that's simply not true. Just
fill your bathtub with water, say a little invocation over it, ask your
cat if it rejects Satan and all his evil, and then dunk it. Make sure
it is fully immersed, in accordance with Scripture.
So now, all you have to do is choose your cat's baptismal name. My
cats' birth names were Meowser, Fluff, and Mr. Boots, but their
baptismal names are Ezekiel, Caleb, and Mr. Paws.
Remember, a cat may have nine lives, but it only has one eternal
soul. We all must one day appear before the Holy Seat Of Judgment, and
although my Oliver and Lady Twinkles passed on long ago from this vale
of tears, I take solace in the knowledge that, when the time comes for
me to receive the ecstasies of Heaven, all of my housecats will be
waiting to spend eternity on my lap.
And don't get your cats vaccinated, either. The Lord will provide protection from feline leukemia. 
| | |
|
