Pages

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.
  
 

*http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/010903.pdf 
** Ibid.

Please see the following post for more information on "Absolute Laws."
http://aisforatheist5760.blogspot.ca/2011/08/on-question-of-virtues-vices-and.html

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. 

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Christian Gobblydegook--Theologians are Full of It


What is written below is an excerpt from a book written by a Dutch Theologian named Herman Bavinck, titled, “The Doctrine of God”:
"Mystery is the vital element of Dogmatics. It is true that the term "mystery" in Scripture does not indicate abstract-supernatural truth in Romish sense; nevertheless, the idea that the believer would be able to understand and comprehend intellectually the revealed mysteries is equally unscriptural. On the contrary, the truth which God has revealed concerning himself in nature and in Scripture far surpasses human conception and comprehension. In that sense Dogmatics is concerned with nothing but mystery, for it does not deal with finite creatures, but from beginning to end raises itself above every creature to the Eternal and Endless One himself." p. 13
What was written above is a prime example of illogical gobblydegook written by, and promoted by many so-called “respected theologians.” So, what does it REALLY mean? Let's look at it logically to find out.

P1. If a mystery is revealed, then it would be understood.
P2 According to Bavinck, God's mysteries are “revealed.”
C. Therefore, God's mysteries are understood.

But that is not what Bavinck said. He said that what has been “revealed” surpasses human conception and comprehension, i.e., they CANNOT be understood. This then begs the question as to how a Christian can know ANYTHING about any so-called “mysteries,” if these mysteries surpasses their conception and comprehension. Again, let's look at it logically.

P1 If something surpasses human conception and comprehension, then it cannot be revealed to humans.
P2. God's mysteries surpass human conception and comprehension.
P3. Therefore, God's mysteries cannot be revealed to humans.
P4. If God's “mysteries” cannot be revealed to humans, then humans have no method of verifying God's “mysteries” as being true.
P5. God's mysteries cannot be revealed to humans.
C. Therefore, Christians have no justification for saying God's “mysteries” are true.”

Furthermore, if God's mysteries cannot be revealed to humans, as they surpass our conception and comprehension, then we have no way of knowing anything about this god. We have no way of knowing if he is what Christians claim he is, i.e., whether or not he is an all-loving, all-knowing, all-good god, or whether he is a sadistic tyrant, because the Bible indicates that the Christian god is capable of being all of these things.

So much for "revealing" the "mysteries" of God.   Instead, what I have "revealed" is just another Christian theologian spreading illogical gobbledygook as his own version of "truth."

Friday, July 27, 2012

Why James Holmes' Rampage is the Result of the Teachings of Christianity - Part 2


This post is a follow up to my previous post,  Why James Holmes' Rampage is the Result of the Teachings of Christianity.  For clarification, I will restate my thesis from my previous post:

"One hypothesis was put forth by the Christian apologist, Rick Warren, in one of his latest tweets, when he said, "When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it." The implied hypothesis being, that it's the result of teaching science, and in particular, Darwinianism and materialism. I propose that there is a better explanation. My hypothesis, which is not new by the way, as I have pointed out numerous times, the great Christian philosopher Pelagius pointed out long ago, that if you promulgate the notion that people are born bad, and cannot help but to sin, but will still gain entrance into paradise as long as they "repent"-- they are more likely to sin, repent, sin, repent--and repeat when necessary. Pelagius was wise, and realized that this belief would lead to "moral laxity"--which is quite evident in our predominantly Christian society, and amongst Christians in particular. My hypothesis is that when Christians are taught they are "born sinners" and cannot help but to sin, as they are taught it is not possible for them to be perfect, and that they are nevertheless given the "free gift" of salvation, they will have more of a tendency to act immorally, or, when Christians are taught they live in a world that is dominated by Satan, that it leads to immorality. Either way, it leads to immorality and chaos, and Christianity provides believers with a basis for the belief that they are absolved from taking responsibility for their own bad behavior. Jesus does that for them."

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Why James Holmes' Rampage was the Result of the Teachings of Christianity

In times like this, when something horrendous happens, people tend to hypothesize as to the reasons why. As most everyone knows by now, the "nice Christian boy," James Holmes massacred 12 innocent people and wounded many more in his rampage in a Colorado movie theatre. One hypothesis was put forth by the Christian apologist, Rick Warren, in one of his latest tweets, when he said, "When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it."  The implied hypothesis being, that it's the result of teaching science, and in particular, Darwinianism and materialism.  I propose that there is a better explanation.  My hypothesis, which is not new by the way, as I have pointed out numerous times, the great Christian philosopher Pelagius pointed out long ago, that if you promulgate the notion that people are born bad, and cannot help but to sin, but will still gain entrance into paradise as long as they "repent"-- they are more likely to sin, repent, sin, repent--and repeat when necessary.  Pelagius was wise, and realized that this belief would lead to "moral laxity"--which is quite evident in our predominantly Christian society, and amongst Christians in particular.  My hypothesis is that when Christians are taught they are "born sinners" and cannot help but to sin, as they are taught it is not possible for them to be perfect, and that they are nevertheless given the "free gift" of salvation, they will have more of a tendency to act immorally, or, when Christians are taught they live in a world that is dominated by Satan, that it leads to immorality.  Either way, it leads to immorality and chaos, and Christianity provides believers with a basis for the belief that they are absolved from taking responsibility for their own bad behavior.  Jesus does that for them.

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Humpty Dumpty Meets Reductio ad Absurdum--How Christian Rabbits Morph into Mad Hatters

This post is a followup to my previous post, “What Happened When Humpty Dumpty Met the Sons of Gods.” 

When I wrote the post, I was setting up a snare to catch Christian rabbits, as they take the bait and travel further down the rabbit hole. In doing so, they are “hoisted by their own petard” as they try to explain away problematic Biblical passages—in this case, Genesis 6:1-4. The Christians claim that Jesus is the only son of god, but then Genesis 6:1-4 states there are “sons of gods” --meaning there are many gods, and many sons of gods! It also implies there are goddesses as well, and that gods and goddesses have sex. This is where Humpty Dumpty semantics comes in, as I want them to admit that the words don't mean what they say they mean—literally. In doing so, they get entangled in a Humpty Dumpty semantic snare, as their explanations can then be turned against them, because now they have provided weight to these explanations that can now be used against them in the case of the Trinity. It leads to an absurd position for the Trinity doctrine and the historic Christian faith as a whole.

Monday, July 16, 2012

Why Would Death be Pleasing to a God in that he Requires a Living Blood Sacrifice, When he is Said to Love “Living” Beings?

This is from a series of twenty questions at the back of the book I am almost finished (editing is taking longer than I thought)  The answers come from a rational as well as a Christian perspective, and are meant to be though provoking, as well as offering better rationalizations.