Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Rebuttal to Scott M. Sullivan's Claim that Atheist Don't Think Christians Should Evangelize (Objection #4)

Scott M. Sullivan claims in how to answer a Jesus Critic that atheists :
“ ...don’t care what Christians believe, they just don’t think they should try to evangelize others.”

As an Ignostic Atheist, I have no objection to evangelizing, as this is how I too, 'spread the word' of logical reasoning and knowledge.  I understand the Bible, so for example, when Jehovah's Witness's knock on my door, I invite them in and then illustrate to them just how nonsensical their beliefs are using logic and reasoning.  I find it very entertaining to hear them stutter over their words,  but I am sure 'Dr.' Sullivan probably would object to my form of 'evangelizing'. I use the same tactics when I see evangelists on the streets. It's very entertaining to watch them squirm when they cannot come up with a logical answer.

 'Dr.' Sullivan tells us that Christians believe that it is very important to help others come to know Christ and follow his teachings. I would argue it is very important to teach people knowledge, facts, science, philosophy, etc, and to present arguments for any hypothesis you may have.  In this manner, we are able to eliminate hypotheses which do not follow the H-D (scientific) method of reasoning. (Christianity as a whole fails this method)  Christians on the other hand, have argued against knowledge since the dawn of its origin. In fact, this is why the Dark Ages took place and the library of Alexandria was burned.  During that time, learning out of the scope of religious teachings was frowned upon. Gullible sheep are much more inclined to believe nonsense than those that have been taught logic, philosophy, science and the art of deductive reasoning, which Dr. Sullivan admits himself as he tells us 60-90 % of Christians who enter university, lose their faith.  Universities teach logic and how to apply the H-D method--which may be one of the main reasons why Christians lose their faith in droves while attending school. Why, it even states in the Bible that Yahweh would 'destroy wisdom'--a clear indication that wisdom is a threat to their belief system.

"For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." 1Cor. 1:19

'Dr.' Sullivan goes on to say that:

"If Christianity is true, then surely there is nothing wrong with helping others come to know this truth. If Christianity is true, then helping others to see this fact is the most loving thing one can do for them. So the issue is not really about evangelism, but whether or not Christianity is true."

Let's replace Christianity with science, and see how it reads:

"If science is true, then surely there is nothing wrong with helping others come to know this truth. If science is true, then helping others to see this fact is the most loving thing one can do for them. So the issue is not really about evangelism, but whether or not  science is true."

Scientific hypotheses have been shown to be true, as they follow the H-D method of deduction, however, Christianity has NOT been shown to be true using the H-D method.

Logic (I hope 'Dr.' Sullivan can grasp this.)

If scientific hypotheses have been shown to be true using the H-D method of deduction, then these scientific hypotheses are true.
Scientific hypotheses have been proven to be true using the H-D method of deduction.
Therefore these scientific hypotheses are true via the H-D method.

If Christianity has been shown to be true using the H-D method of deduction, then Christianity is true.
Christianity has not been proven to be true using the H-D method of deduction.
Therefore, Christianity has not been proven to be true via the H-D method.

See how simple that is. Christianity is faith based--not knowledge based.  Knowledge is power. Faith just creates sheeple who will follow the herd and do as their masters command without thinking, and to believe without question. My advice however, is to question EVERYTHING. That is the only way you will be able to catch a glimpse of the world for what it truly is. Evangelize TRUTH--not superstition.

Monday, July 13, 2015

A Christian Dared ask These Questions on Gay Marriage--so I Answered Them

Recently, I came upon this web page that asks Christians to ask themselves the hard questions (excuse the bad pun) concerning homosexual marriage, so I thought I would answer them from the viewpoint of someone that doesn't share their belief system. 

1. How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?
All unions between consenting loving adults should be celebrated. What loving, consenting adults do in private is none of my business.
2. What Bible verses led you to change your mind?

The fulfillment passages of Matthew 5:17-20 states that all the laws must be obeyed until heaven and earth pass away. Nowhere does Jesus differentiate between dietary, moral, or legal laws, and he makes it clear that his followers are to follow ALL  of these laws if they want to see heaven. Christians twisted his words using Humpty Dumpty semantics to get out of that responsibility, but Jesus was clear. Jesus said ALL of them were to be obeyed by his followers until heaven and earth pass away, and if believers 'relax' on even the least of these laws--they are out of luck.  Therefore, Christians need to follow all of the laws, or abandon their religion altogether, because according to Jesus, a Christian won't likely go to heaven anyway if they eat shrimp or wear clothing made of various fibres, or lie with a man, etc,--interesting that it says nothing about women lying together in the OT. Note that Jesus said, "not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished".  This doesn't mean only some of laws --it means ALL of them.  According to the Bible, Christians can't pick and choose which laws to obey and which no long apply because their god told them ALL of them apply--even the least of them.

 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.  tTherefore whoever relaxes uone of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least vin the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great vin the kingdom of heaven.(Matt 5-18-19)
3. How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?
Jesus did not condemn homosexuality, even when confronted by a Roman who asked him to heal his 'pais' (male slave). This is significant because pederasty was still practiced at that time, and men kept boys and spread their 'knowledge' via male on male sex. If he found anything wrong with this practice, I am sure he would have spoken against it. Perhaps, Jesus himself was a homosexual as passages of the Bible seem to indicate.  Polygamy was also practiced in Biblical times and long after. The 'rules' we practice today, came much later when church wanted to wrest more control over its flock. Before that, marriage was more of a civil union. See this post for details.
4. What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?
Luke 6:31 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'
According to the Bible, Jesus doesn't differentiate between hetero and homosexual love. Any kind of love is good. Love is love.
5. Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship?
Jesus said nothing against homosexual love, and I won't put words in his mouth. In fact, he may have been homosexual or bisexual himself as the Bible itself alludes to. Biblical references to Jesus being in the company of "naked boys"  appear in the scriptures of Mark when he is in the Garden of Gethsemane. It is in this Garden that Jesus is arrested by the Romans after supposedly being betrayed by Judas, and it is in this Garden that we also find a young, naked, unnamed boy. This boy was "a young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment," and “was following Jesus." When the Romans seized Jesus, the young boy "fled naked, leaving his garment behind" (Mark 14:51). Apologists attempt to claim that this boy was Mark himself, and elaborate on the shame he must have felt at abandoning his Lord, but this cannot be the case as Mark was not written by the apostle Mark. Mark's author is unknown. A better explanation via Ockham's razor, would be that Jesus could have been indulging in the practice of pederasty, and the unknown Greek who actually wrote the gospel thought nothing of it because pederasty was considered normal, so he included it in his narrative.
6. If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?
There was no mention of 'marriage' in the Garden of Eden. There is only a union joined by God, and if God is everywhere as Christians tell us, then he is with the gay couples that are being married as well. Marriage, after all, had always been a civil agreement, and not a religious one until about the 13th century. In fact, within the entire Old Testament polygamy was a normal practice all the way from Kings (said to be the oldest book of the Bible) to the New Testament and beyond. Marriage as an entity isn't spoken of very often in the Bible, and many times it is spoken of disparagingly (As when Paul mentions you should only get married if you can't control your own lust) In the New Testament (Matthew 19:1-12 ) Jesus was approached with a question concerning divorce, but these questions were in reference to the Old Testament, in which  polygamy was allowed. He did not condemn the practice of polygamy, just like he did not condemn the practice of homosexuality.

7. As you think about the long history of the church and the near universal disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, what do you think you understand about the Bible that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther failed to grasp?
I think about the long history of persecution where homosexuals were tortured, killed, and their properties confiscated by the church. This is what was promulgated from the doctrines of Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin and Luther. This is also how the church became so extremely wealthy. This is not love. I don't think Jesus would approve.
8. What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned?
I would argue that the changing doctrines of the Bible itself have been 'culturally conditioned' as the Biblical laws have been changed by  Christians over the centuries. Until only recently, women couldn't become pastors, or even vote because of how the Bible views women. Women of course, changed all of that, and at long last, we are now making changes that gives everyone equal rights under the law to be married regardless of their sexual orientation.  Christians claim they no longer have to follow the laws, as Jesus redeemed them from laws of the OT --which isn't true as stated above in the passages of Matthew 5:17-20.  According to these Christians however, all you need is love, and if two people love each other, that is all that matters. If they think otherwise, they would be hypocrites.
9. Should your brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with homosexual practice be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, retribution, or coercion?
It's a free country. Christians have the right of free speech to voice their opinion and practice their religion--without fear of persecution and without persecuting others who do not share their beliefs. Other people who do not have those same beliefs should also have the right to exercise their beliefs without fear of persecution and without persecuting others. What Christians do NOT have however, is the right to tell two consenting adults how to live their life according to THEIR beliefs. As mentioned above, marriage was a civil arrangement until the church became involved in about the 13th century or so. Since there are thousands of different religions, and different customs associated with these religions-- legal marriage is a CIVIL practice. After all, church and state are SEPARATE entities--let's keep it that way.
10. Will you speak up for your fellow Christians when their jobs, their accreditation, their reputation, and their freedoms are threatened because of this issue?
As an Ignostic Atheist, I would speak up for anyone that is being persecuted for what they believe in--Christian, homosexuals, women, Muslims, etc. Everyone has a right to believe whatever they want to believe, but if those beliefs are shown to be contradictory, and causes harm, then believers would be wise to accept the valid arguments against them and change their beliefs. I see no harm in a loving homosexual marriage. 

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

On the Question of Whether or Not Christians are Hypocrites -- - A Response to Scott M Sullivan

In my previous post, I began with Sullivan's second counter to nonbelievers 'objections' to his religious beliefs. Now, I will start at the beginning of his little book titled "How to Answer a Jesus Critic" with the first objection that, "Christians are a bunch of hypocrites."

Definition of 'hypocrite - a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

 The key word here is 'pretend' because that is what Christians MUST do if they claim to be virtuous and have morals, because their religion teaches them that all of humanity are BORN SINNERS. i.e., they are taught they can't help themselves from doing bad things.  They are going to do bad things  no matter what, because according to their teachings, their human nature is INNATELY BAD.  This means they are taught they have NO CHOICE-- i.e,. They have no free will to choose to do the right thing every time. Yes, I mean every single time. I'm happy to say I don't believe that philosophy, so I do choose to do what is right every time, but if I make a mistake, I own it. I do not consciously rape, murder, steal etc. and use the excuse that "I'm only human."  This is the domain of the Christians.  Their religion expects them to be bad so they will continue to come to the church seeking absolution. It's a vicious circle of sin, repent, sin, repent, repeat when necessary, which results in women being beaten to death, children being raped, and a host of other 'sins' being repeated over and over again--and churches lining their pockets with the guilt of these so-called 'sinners.'

That being said, these same Christians who profess to be virtuous, and moral while doing heinous acts are Christians because they believe Jesus supposedly took the blame for all their misdeeds on his shoulders. If this was true, this would be the most immoral action ever, as it absolves perpetrators of their crimes. No responsibility. 'Christians' do commit heinous acts--and are expected to. 

He goes on to say that, "A religion should be judged on what it professes, not on the failings of those who do not live in accord with its teachings."

My response to him is that I DO judge on what Christianity professes which results in heinous actions based on those teachings. I object to this philosophy as it promotes the notion of humanity being born innately flawed-- but it's ok, because Christians somehow don't have to take responsibility for their actions based on those flaws--unless, of course, the secular courts have anything to say about it.  I'm actually judging Christianity ON its teachings and the consequences of those teachings. As the ancient Christian saint and philosopher Pelagius said long ago, this philosophy leads to 'moral laxity.'  It teaches its followers to 'keep trying' to be good, but they are also taught the will continue to fail because, well, they're  'born sinners. As long as they say 'sorry to Jesus,' however, everything will be fine for them. Unfortunately, there is no compensation for the child that was raped, or the mother that was murdered by these same Christians. 

For this reason, in a world dominated with people who are Christian, we are subjected to a planet inundated with rapists, murderers, thieves,wife beaters, etc., who believe they can't help themselves from being rapists, murderers, thieves, wife beaters, etc.

Christians must believe that they ARE virtuous and at the same that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be virtuous which goes against the law of non-contradiction.  This means Christians can conclude ANYTHING from the teachings of the Bible. They are hypocrites and they are not hypocrites at the same time. More to follow on this subject at a later time.

Monday, July 6, 2015

Christians - Oblivious to their own Contradictions

Scot M Sullivan refuted
How to Answer a Jesus Critic
I recently read something that I found quite amusing that I would like to share. I downloaded this little gem titled "How to Answer a Jesus Critic" by Scott Sullivan PhD.  for free, so I took a glance, and in no time at all I found a blatant contraction in BOLD lettering--in his second argument no less!!

 The so-called 'scholars' are attempting to 'shock and awe' the gullible into believing their propaganda, but it doesn't take long for anyone with a basic understanding of logic to see through their BS, which is quite evident these days. (Thank God for that!!)   Christians you see, are becoming anxious in the United States as their numbers are dwindling quite rapidly. Even they admit that once so-called 'Christians' enter college, 60-90% of them become unbelievers. Why, this is exactly what happened to me as well a long time ago, and I am quite pleased that the trend continues.

Despite that fact, the die hard Christian believers still think they can prove their god with logic, when they have no grasp of it themselves. Even the PhD's. How sad...:(  For them--not me. I find it quite amusing actually.

Here's an example of what I am talking about.

Below was cut and pasted directly from this book. See if you can spot the contradiction:

 “God doesn’t care which religion you believe.”
   Response: First of all, how do you know what God cares about? Has he told you? He didn’t
tell me. Where did you get this idea?
Secondly: it is impossible that all religions can be true, since they make contradictory
       So if one religion is true, then it follows that any other religion which contradicts the true one 
       must be false.        
       God being all-wise and loving, prefers that you believe truth over error.
   So if there is a true religion, clearly that is the one that God wants you to believe.
Finally, the God of the Bible certainly cares about which religion you believe.
     In the Old Testament the Jewish people were constantly warned not to worship
the gods of the pagans. Moreover, Jesus thinks it matters what religion you believe
     and said so on numerous occasions. For example, in Mark 16:15-16 Jesus said,
“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
    Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be    
    condemned.  ”So Jesus certainly thinks it matters what you believe. 

 If you haven't spotted it yet, let me help you out.  In the first line of his response he tells us, how do you know what God cares about? Has he told you? He didn't me. Where did you get this idea?  To which I say, EXACTLY.  But that's not the point. The point I am making here is about what he says next.  Go down a few more lines and he tells us that:


So I would ask this so-called 'Christian scholar' exactly how he knows the god of the Bible cares about which religion I believe. How do you know what God cares about? Has he told you? He didn't tell me. Where did you get this idea?

It's bad enough that he is begging the question (a fallacy) when he concludes his religion is the one true religion without evidence and therefore argues that since his is the one true religion, all the others must be false--but to put such a blatant contradiction on the same page and expect no one to notice.--priceless.

I forgot just how much fun this is...  See you soon. I think I might just go over the entire book and give my 'review'. I can't stop laughing......

Addendum: I've taken a photo of that page with the link address and downloaded the book in case Mr. Sullivan realizes his errors and just eliminates the document and tries to pretend it never existed--which would be my advice...:).  And please, please DO NOT order the so-called 'logic' courses this non-expert is offering, as if this little book is any indication of the type of 'logic' he has to offer, you will be wasting your hard earned money.

Saturday, July 4, 2015

Happy Independence Day (What a Farce)

This weekend, I like to watch movies, and some of my favorites are 'V for Vendetta' and the Matrix series. I love the Matrix because it succinctly illustrates the FACT that life is basically an illusion--but of whose design?  This is something I have been contemplating for a long time now.

Society as it is structured likes to 'pigeonhole' everyone as if somehow someone or something else has the right to tell us what kind of people we are. i.e., if I am black that must mean i am lazy and a gangster; if I am white, I must be an intelligent business person; if I'm a woman, I'm just not as smart as a man, etc., etc. All of this conveniently alienates humanity from each other and is an illusion created by...who exactly?  The media? Your neighbors? The government? The church??  Try all of the above.

I have fought against Christianity for reasons that have NOTHING to do with worshiping a god. I really don't care if you worship one god, two gods, or multiple gods--all I care about is the CONSEQUENCES of those beliefs. I have fought against Christianity for many reasons, most which stem from what I mentioned in the second paragraph. Christianity alienates people from each other by pointing out that if you are not with them, you are against them. (Check out the history--you'll understand this to be true. Multiple wars, and even slavery were sanctioned through the church, and now it's Christianity against Islam, etc. etc.) Furthermore, misogyny was also sanctioned by the church by their 'belief' that men are to rule the household, and women are to 'be quiet in church.' Women were also deemed less valuable according to the bible as they were not counted in the census Moses took in Numbers, and as slaves were not considered as valuable as men. Hmm...

That being said, the trend to pigeonhole people and alienate them from one another continues as war rages on in the Middle East, and the police state in the United States rages against its own citizens. How is this allowed to continue??  I'll tell you why. The church tells its followers to obey government because, according to the Bible, all governments are put in place by God.  Again, hmmm...  Pretty convenient I'd say. It's a great way to keep the sheeple in their place.

So, all governments that sanction wars that result in the murder of civilians due to 'collateral damage' the rape of women and children by soldiers obeying the government as they destroy the 'enemy'--are sanctioned by this god.  Hmm...

Then we come to the United States itself whose citizens are being terrorized by police who, according to recent developments, can run you over and kill you, rape you, steal your money, and invade your home--WITHOUT  CONSEQUENCE. This happens more often than you think.  But here's the thing. THIS IS EXACTLY THE DOCTRINE CHRISTIANITY TEACHES.  According to Christianity, Christians can rape you, kill you, steal your money and your home, and still go heaven--WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE. All they have to do is say sorry to Jesus. Pretty sweet from a Christian's perspective, I am sure, but for society, it is HELL ON EARTH. Christians will tell us that 'real Christians' don't do that, and at the same time they tell us that we are all 'born sinners.' See the contradiction??  Born sinners, are the ones raping, stealing, killing, etc. etc. makes me sick. I, on the other hand believe that I am perfect, and any bad thing I might do is nothing but a CHOICE made by ME. If I was innately bad as Christians claim, that would mean I have NO FREE WILL to do the right thing. Again, see the contradiction?  Ridiculous...

Unfortunately, this pervasive Christian mentality that promotes evil without consequences has been the downfall of our civilization, and I'm not sure if there is any way to reverse the process before it's too late--but we have to try. It's time for everyone to climb out of their boxes and recognize humanity for what we are--HUMANS.  We MUST work towards a system that is to the benefit of ALL--and not just the 1%. We, the 99%ers MUST reclaim our true roles on this planet if it is to survive. You can count on that. The only way we'll every be truly independent is if we become critical thinkers and are free of the shackles governments and churches have us tethered to.  Only THEN could we be truly independent--because NOTHING is more powerful than our humanity working together to make this planet heaven on earth for us all.  Churches and governments want none of that, as it takes power away from them and puts it in OUR hands where it belongs. Think about that as you enjoy that chemical laden hot dog, produced by factory farms that lobby the government to allow them add known carcinogens to their products and feed their animals GMO laden feed that includes discarded animal parts... i.e.-them cows/pigs are cannibals.  Yeah, God Bless America! What a farce...

Sunday, May 12, 2013

How Jesus' Views on Marriage Proves Yahweh's Laws are NOT Absolute OR Jesus is Mistaken

Marriage is still viewed as a sacred institution in our society.  Christians view it as a "gift from god," or a"spiritual representation" of their relationship with God.   Truth be told however, the institution of marriage came about for economic reasons, and not out of love for a god, or the love for a potential mate.

Marriage has been defined differently by different cultures four thousands of years, and not solely in the realm of Christian societies. In many cases, arrangements were made, dowries were paid, children were born, and people worked together to provide the necessities of life.  Marriage was a contract.  Marriages have also not always been monogamous.  In fact, approximately one in six of the 1,195 societies surveyed in the largest anthropological dataset have been defined as being monogamous,* making monogamy something of an enigma.

Biblically, marriage was also a form of contract that had little or nothing to do with love, and in many cases, if not most, these marriages were polygamous.  Historically, the wealthier one was, the more wives one tended to have. (Consider King Solomon and his 700 wives and his 300 concubines.)  Polygamy was most certainly a permitted practice. Although the Romans and Greeks are said to have practiced monogamy--which some say influenced Western Societies to adopt this practice--their version of monogamy was something of a sham.  Roman men who were married could and did have relations with their wives and their slaves, and this was not considered adultery, as slaves were possessions--not people.   Furthermore, the practice of pederasty (in which a man "passed his knowledge" to a young male protege via homosexual sex) was also considered normal in Roman society, and was not a form of adultery.  The normalcy of this practice is made mention of in the Bible, although not directly.  In Matthew 8:5-13, Jesus was asked by a Roman centurion to heal his "pais" (male slave), and made no mention of any sins being committed.  Logically speaking, if pederasty itself was considered sinful, then it would make sense that he would have denigrated a practice that was widely practiced in the Hellenized world that he lived in--but he did not.  But I digress.  Not only did Jesus not speak out against pederasty, niether he nor Paul spoke much on the subject of marriage.  What Jesus did say however, was in reference to a question of divorce.  When Jesus told his disciples man could only divorce when adultery was committed, they decided maybe it was better not to marry.  Jesus concurred by saying some men became eunuchs to avoid marriage, and the "sins" of the flesh.  Note also that Jesus contradicted himself when he said "Therefore, what God has joined together, let NO ONE separate," but then goes on say that well, it is ok to separate if one has committed adultery:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason? Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”  Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom  of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”  Matt. 19:3-12

Neither Jesus nor Paul put much stock in the institution of marriage. Paul  made it known that marriage is for those that "can't help themselves" and it would be better if they did not marry (1 Cor. 7:8-9) as they would be better able to "serve the Lord" without the distraction of "lust."  (Although, this tactic hasn't worked out too well for the priesthood.)  Furthermore, as late as 393 CE, the Roman state forbade Jews to ‘enter into several matrimonies at the same time’ (Justinian Code1.9.7)** which illustrates that polygamy was routinely practiced by the Jews who worship the same god the so-called monogamous Christians do.  Therefore, we can say that marriage is not well defined by the Abrahamic god and his "writings."  More importantly, this illustrates that the "absolute" laws of Yahweh, are not so absolute at all, when Moses said it IS possible to divorce, and Jesus said it was not (i.e., let NO ONE separate {a universal term})--and then when he was challenged on this mistake by the Pharisees, Jesus added the ad hoc exception to the rule--making him less than perfect.  Jesus seems to imply that Yahweh created his laws based on  how people feel at that given time.  (They were "hard hearted" at the time of Moses.) The implication of Jesus' statement is that the laws are NOT absolute, and they change based on social conditions.

That being said, even in Christian societies the rules and regulations concerning marriage has changed significantly. Governance of marriage proceedings only became an institution of the church in approximately the 13th century.  Before that time, those speaking for their God pretty much kept their noses out of the business of marriage.  Since then however, the church has felt the need to tell people what defines marriage and who they can and cannot marry--when they themselves have no consistent Biblical doctrines which uphold their views. (The more the church infiltrated the lives of their flocks after all, the more power they had over them.) Church fathers did, and continue to this day to instill their OWN bigoted views on homosexuality and gay marriage, interracial marriages, and interfaith marriages on their flocks, to the detriment of the happiness of those involved.  Again--due strictly to their own bigoted views.  How shameful.  If Jesus did exist in the person most Christians describe--I know he would not be pleased.

** Ibid.

Please see the following post for more information on "Absolute Laws."

Thursday, May 9, 2013

It IS Possible to be Perfect!! - Jehovah's Witnesses Proved it Today

After a difficult year, we have decided to continue our efforts in promoting critical thought and exposing Christianity as a bane to civilization.  Walking the dog in this case couldn't have come at a better time.  As we walked the dog today, we happened upon a group of lively Jehovah's Witnesses, and we couldn't resist stopping to chat with them, which inspired us to create this post.  The conversation was very one-sided however, as all they could do was repeat their mantra "We are all born sinners!"

Let me explain how this came about, as what we pointed out to them is one of the BEST arguments against Christianity.  When we first happened upon them, they offered us a tract, as Jehovah's Witnesses so often do, and Tony took this as an opportunity to ask these lovely ladies whether or not it was possible to be perfect.  Now, most Christians (and others who are not Christian, but have been brainwashed by the Christian system into believing we, as humans are somehow born "imperfect") would say that no, it is NOT possible to be perfect.  But here's the trick.  Tony did not ask if it was possible to be perfect from the day we are born, he asked if it was possible to be perfect!  Note the difference.

What we mean by this, is that Christians believe it is not possible to be perfect--even just for a moment!  This means Christians believe they sin 24-7.  But is this the case?  We asked the lovely ladies if they had done anything, or thought anything "sinful" during the time we spoke with them, and they were reluctant to say anything, so Tony asked them if they were thinking "dirty thoughts" or had done anything evil in the few minutes we had been speaking with them, and they said "no."  So of course, Tony told them, that they proved it IS possible to be perfect, as they had been "perfect" and had committed no "sin" during their conversation with us!  This is when they began repeating their mantra, "We are all born sinners."  But of course, we had just proven them wrong, so we took their tract, and continued our walk--with smiles on our faces.

We glanced through the tract when we arrived home, and I had to laugh when I came across and interview with a retired environmental consultant who happened to be a Jehovah's Witness who was "convinced that life was designed by god."  Think about this for a moment, as this would mean God "designed" the lives of children who were molested, tortured, and starved to death--making him a sadist of epic proportions.  Surely--not a god worthy of worship, but a god worthy of contempt.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Why Jesus (if he existed) Ain't Comin' Back -The Bible Version.

Most Christians believe that Jesus will return one day to save them from us godless heathens and "take them up into the clouds"--but if they actually read their bibles they would realize that it ain't gonna happen.  Nope, never.  See the following excerpt from our book which explains why:

"Although Christianity was practiced shortly after the supposed “death” of Jesus Christ, in the Roman Empire it only became a driving force via the influence of the Roman Emperor, Constantine I (272-337 CE), and those that came after him. Before Constantine in the first century CE, there is little written record of those who practiced Christianity. The reasons why probably stem from the fact that the few followers of Christ at that time believed that Jesus would return "within their lifetimes," as Jesus said he would:
When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” Matthew 10:23
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Matthew 16:27-28
I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” Matthew 24:34
If the followers of Jesus believed he would return within their lifetimes and they would soon be entering the Kingdom of Heaven, then they had no reason to record anything, or paint pretty pictures. Most likely it is for this reason that the first century CE gives us almost no evidence of Christian art, history, or literature. This was a 30-40 year gap in time where virtually nothing was recorded until the gospel of Mark, and this makes sense if believers in Jesus believed his return was imminent. Instead of writing and painting pretty pictures, believers probably spent their time getting themselves ready for Jesus' supposed imminent return.
Christian Apologists attempt to explain the above passages from Matthew by claiming that Jesus was explaining events that "had not yet happened." This is true of course, but the scriptures make it clear that these events that "had not yet happened" were supposed to have happened within the lifetimes of the apostles. Apologist explanations fail, as their claims that events "not happened yet" could happen at any time, and "no one knows the day or the hour" (Matt 25:36), do not take into consideration that Jesus is speaking only in the context of "THEM," i.e., his disciples. Jesus also says in the text to, "Watch out that no one deceives YOU." (Matt 24:4), which is ironic, as Jesus fails to include all future generations in this warning. Why? Because there was no need to do so, as Jesus believed he would return within the generation of his disciples. As Matthew 24 continues, Jesus made this clear in a way most won't recognize, when he stated that when he returned:
"Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left." Matt 24:41
In these passages, Jesus was speaking directly to his apostles and in the context of his society, which is very important to recognize if one considers the above passage to be a prophetic message--which many do. The above passage speaks of primitive hand mills which are not used in the modern world except perhaps in remote areas of Africa, which leads us, via Ockham's Razor, to the best conclusion concerning this narrative. Considering his language, and to whom he was speaking, and the prophetic signs he made of his return, it is clear that Jesus expected to return within the generation of his disciples as he said he would, but he did not know exactly what time that would be. (Although, since he is claimed to be one with God, which means he would have been all-knowing, his time of return SHOULD have been known to him.) In the Bible, as in the dictionary, a generation is a generation after all--not 2000 or more years. Therefore, the time for the supposed return of Jesus Christ has long passed, and is a "failed prophecy."
So there you go--Biblical proof that Jesus ain't comin' back. 

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

The Real Meaning of Christmas--It's a Capitalist Trick

Forgive our absence, we have had to deal with a loss that has taken a toll on us, but we are now making our way back into "the fold" so to speak, and this seems to be a good time to do so.

Christmas--what is it?  What does it mean?  When I wander the malls, all I see is stress in the eyes of shoppers who somehow believe that getting that perfect gift is all that matters.  Or maybe it's cooking that perfect Christmas dinner, or hosting that perfect Christmas party......   Interestingly, until a few years ago, I used to be one of those people that was always looking for the perfect gifts, and hoping to cook that perfect dinner, and host that perfect party.  That is, until I boycotted Christmas.

Sadly, Christmas for me had nothing to do with being jolly or happy.  It was, in fact, an exhausting time of year where I was responsible for all the cooking, cleaning, decorating, shopping, etc. etc.--which put me under a lot of stress.  So why did I do it?  Most would say I did it for my family--but when I think about it, that isn't completely true.  Certainly, I bought those gifts and cooked those meals for the people I cared about, but what prompted those actions in the first place?  Was it religion? Yes, but it's not that simple.  Christianity is part of  the capitalist matrix that promotes the excessiveness of the Christmas season--which I have boycotted.  Christianity within the matrix created the perversion that "Christmas" has become.

Now, most would believe that when anyone says that Christmas has become a perversion, this would mean that we have taken "Jesus" out of the equation, and turned it into a quest for more material goods.  But no, Christmas has ALWAYS been a perversion, and I will explain why.  Although I disagree with the excessive materialism which has become part of the "Christmas season", people should also realize that Christmas never really was about Jesus at all until the emperor Constantine made it so a long time ago.  Christmas in essence, is a pagan celebration--not a Christian one.  

To be honest, since I know the history, I shake my head when I see the pagan symbols intertwined with the Christian ones--knowing very few people understand how this came to be.  (Easter is very similar, but that is for another post some other time.)  Christmas is not really about Jesus, as no one knows IF he was ever born, and if he was, no one knows exactly when that might have taken place.  Most likely, if he had been a real person, it would have been in the spring as Luke 2:8 states that when Jesus was supposedly born:

 “... there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.” 

As winters in Judea were cold and wet, sheep at that time would be placed in corrals and would not be in the fields.  Shepherds were not in the fields in the winter time.  In spring however, shepherds would stay with their flocks night and day, tending new births.  They are in the fields early in March until early October. This would place Jesus' birth in the spring or early fall.

Furthermore, the Bible tells us that Mary and Joseph were on their way to pay taxes when Jesus was supposedly born, but Palestine is very cold in December, and it was much too cold to ask everyone to travel to the city of their fathers to register for taxes. Shepherds were not in the fields in the winter time. They are in the fields early in March until early October. This would place Jesus' birth in the spring or early fall. 

So if Christmas isn't really about Jesus, what is it about then? Originally it was a pagan celebration based on "Saturnalia," which has nothing to do with Jesus at all.  The Roman Emperor Constantine created the Christian celebration known as Christmas during Saturnalia in order to make it easier to convert the pagans to this new religion. The first official "Christmas" celebration on December 25th was held in 336AD, and a few years later, Pope Julius I officially declared that the birth of Jesus would be celebrated on the 25th December.  Funny how a pope can decide when a so-called "god" was born--lol.  Really, I find that highly amusing. Constantine also paid people to be baptized into Christianity in order to gain new converts, which explained its growing popularity.  The gift giving, feasting, etc., which are integral to the "Christmas season" however, all have pagan origins, some based on Saturnalia. As wikipedia states:
Saturnalia was an ancient Roman festival in honour of the deity Saturn held on December 17 of the Julian calendar and later expanded with festivities through December 23. The holiday was celebrated with a sacrifice at the Temple of Saturn in the Roman Forum and a public banquet, followed by private gift-giving, continual partying, and a carnival atmosphere that overturned Roman social norms: gambling was permitted, and masters provided table service for their slaves.[1] The poet Catullus called it "the best of days."[2]
In Roman mythology, Saturn was an agricultural deity who reigned over the world in the Golden Age, when humans enjoyed the spontaneous bounty of the earth without labor in a state of social egalitarianism. The revelries of Saturnalia were supposed to reflect the conditions of the lost mythical age, not all of them desirable. The Greek equivalent was the Kronia.[3]
Although probably the best-known Roman holiday, Saturnalia as a whole is not described from beginning to end in any single ancient source. Modern understanding of the festival is pieced together from several accounts dealing with various aspects.[4] The Saturnalia was the dramatic setting of the multivolume work of that name by Macrobius, a Latin writer from late antiquity who is the major source for the holiday. In one of the interpretations in Macrobius's work, Saturnalia is a festival of light leading to the winter solstice, with the abundant presence of candles symbolizing the quest for knowledge and truth.[5] The renewal of light and the coming of the new year was celebrated in the later Roman Empire at the Dies Natalis of Sol Invictus, the "Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun," on December 25.[6]
The popularity of Saturnalia continued into the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, and as the Roman Empire came under Christian rule, some of its customs may have influenced the seasonal celebrations surrounding Christmas and the New Year.[7]
 Saturnalia--a solstice celebration, in honor of the coming of the new "sun." (son?)  Sound familiar?  It should. The birth of many other "sun/son" gods such as Mithra were also worshiped at this time.  The notion that Jesus too was supposedly born at this time as the "son" of God has, for our world today, created a perversion on top of a perversion.  That is, a so-called god, who is said to come for all, is instead celebrated by some via gluttony and exorbitance, while millions of "believers" and others starve to death without proper clothing or shelter.  But remember, these so-called "Christians" who indulge in these "Christmas celebrations" are not honoring their god, but the pagan gods, Saturn, Mithra, etc. In fact, Christmas does not honor Jesus at all, and Jesus, according to the Bible, would NOT be pleased with all the excess that has become a part of the "Christmas season".  The Bible quotes him saying as such to a rich man looking for a way into heaven:
Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Mark 10:21
In other words, what so-called "Christians" celebrate as "Christmas" today are nothing but perversions, on top of perversions, on top of perversions, and they are all promoted via the Capitalist matrix we all live in.......which brings me to the tree.

Many times, I have seen Christmas trees in churches. Why, my mother used to take me to what is known as "The Singing Christmas Tree" which was a concert held in a Pentacostal church.  There, the carolers were tiered up to look like an actual tree!  It was quite beautiful, but it had nothing to do with their so-called Jesus, and really, should be considered "sacrilegious"--lol.  I can't help but to laugh when I think about that tree now. In fact, the Christmas tree has pagan origins. According to Encyclopedia Brittanica:
"The use of evergreen trees, wreaths, and garlands to symbolize eternal life was a custom of the ancient Egyptians, Chinese, and Hebrews. Tree worship was common among the pagan Europeans and survived their conversion to Christianity in the Scandinavian customs of decorating the house and barn with evergreens at the New Year to scare away the devil and of setting up a tree for the birds during Christmastime."
So no, I do not set up a tree (when I used to have a real tree, a nativity scene {how bizarre!!} lights, and everything else) and I do not exchange gifts. I do not participate in a "celebration" co-opted by Christians in order to promote their own agenda.  I do not participate in a "celebration" which is promoted by the system in order to generate a larger cash flow for the capitalists.  Instead, I give money to certain charities, and have a nice relaxing dinner with a good bottle of wine, because, as Tony's grandmother once wisely said, "Every day should be like Christmas day."  In other words, we should treat our fellow human beings every day with the same love and respect many show only at Christmas time.    For us, Christmas means the love of family and friends, no headaches, no hangovers, and no excessive bills to pay.  That is the BEST Christmas of all....:) Cheers!!

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Separation of Church and State?

Louisiana Voucher ProgramOne of my old professors, (and now my friend) sent this article my way--which, when I read, disappointed me immensely.  It seems some state governments in the United States are ignoring their own constitutions by offering poor students "vouchers" for private, mostly Bible based, schools.  This means, that some states (in this case, Louisiana) are using tax payer's money to fund schools that teach that dinosaurs roamed the earth with humans 6000 years ago--among other things.

We all should be appalled--in fact, we should be outraged that this is happening.  It sets the precedent that there are no standards for education, and that as long as you have enough money to back you, you can teach students that Leprechauns really do have a pot of gold, and at this school, we will teach you how to find it!!

No.  Instead, we should be focusing on teaching students critical thinking skills, so they can identify this type of hokum when they see it. But this is not what the government wants.  You see, if you teach people how to think, then they are more apt to see what is really going on.  Can you see it?  Can you see what is really going on?  Governments LOVE religion, because it keeps people in the "sheeple state"--they believe what they hear without thinking about why.  What governments fear are those that question why--and demand real answers.  This is what critical thinking skills gives us, and this is what governments want to avoid.  So now can you see why governments support creationist nonsense?  Ah yes---to keep the critical thinkers at bay. So those of us that can think, we need to do what we can to stop this nonsense in its tracks.