Reading and Critically Reviewing the Bible in 365 Days

365: The Bible: In Review

2010-09-05T14:40:00.000-04:00

Revelation 20-22

"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." - Revelation 21:8

John sees an angel coming down from heaven. This angel also has the key to the abyss (along with the "star" from earlier chapters). The angel grabs the dragon (who is now being called Satan) and tosses him into the abyss. The dragon is locked away for 1000 years. John says that, after this 1000 years, the dragon will have to be set free again for a short time.

For these 1000 years, those who had not received the mark of the beast were resurrected and "reigned with Christ". I wonder if those people who died before the tribulation started were resurrected.

After the 1000 years are over, Satan is released (why?). He again goes out to the "four corners" of the earth and starts deceiving people.The army Satan gathered encircles the cities of Godly people. However, God finally intervenes and kills all the people who were deceived, and throws Satan into the lake of burning sulfur.

John then sees a great white throne, with an undescribed someone sitting on it. He also sees the dead, "great and small", gathered around the throne. The person on the throne (presumably God) starts reading names out of the book of life. John says that even death and Hades gave God their dead. What? Who are death and Hades? They are obviously not Satan, because after they give up their dead, God throws them into the lake of burning sulfur (Satan is already there). Anyone who's name is not in the book of life is also thrown into the lake of fire.

Next, John sees a "new heaven" and a "new earth" descending from the sky. God explains that he is making everything new (why?). God's conditions for getting into this new earth are quite strict though. He says that anyone who is cowardly, unbelieving, vile, murderous, sexually immoral, a magician, an idolater, or a liar will not be allowed onto this new earth, but they will be cast into the lake of fire. What happened to Jesus? I thought Jesus saved us from our sins. Now if we lie, or if we're even cowardly we're going to be tortured forever?

John goes on to describe this new earth, and the new Jerusalem upon it (he's taken "in the spirit" again). I'll spare you the boring details, but the city is basically made out of precious stones and metals. The twelve gates to the city are each made out of their own pearl. Either those are really tiny gates, or there are giant monster clams in this new earth. John says that this new city does not need a sun, because God's radiance will light it. Of course, no one is actually going to live in this city, because everyone (the bible says) has sinned.

John is then shown a clear river. On the sides of this river grows the tree of life. Jesus then says that he is on his way soon, and blessed are those who keep the words of prophecy in this book.

An angel also tells him not to "seal up" the words of prophecy in the book, because the end times are near. Then it's back to Jesus (the "Alpha and the Omega") who says again that he's coming soon. We get it! The end times are near. Except for not really, because this book was written 2000 years ago.

The book ends with Jesus(?) warning that if anyone adds or removes anything from this book they will suffer the wrath of God. The bible says that "he who says these things" (Jesus) says "Yes, I am coming soon!".

The end.

Revelation: In Review

Well I think Revelation is officially the craziest book in the bible. My biggest question is, where do people get the tribulation story? People have made this incoherent blathering into a rather interesting story.

First of all, the "beast" and the "prophet" are never formally introduced (besides the beast being described as having seven heads). And certainly neither one is introduced as the "antichrist". You could make these people (the beast and the false prophet) be whoever you want them to be. And indeed people have, from Ronald Reagan to Obama.

Second, the rapture is never mentioned in the book of Revelation. The only thing that vaguely resembles people's vision of the rapture are found in the book of Matthew and (some claim) 1 Thessalonians. And neither of these references mention people being taken up, leaving their clothes behind, which seems to be people's modern vision of the rapture.

People seem to have taken what looks a lot like incoherent rambling and made it into something way more than it actually is. Most of these visions aren't even said to be metaphors. The locusts with human faces and woman's hair is the first example that comes to mind. There is no indication that a true bible believer shouldn't be expecting grasshopper-people to invade the world at some point.

*News*

This letter to the editor is short today. But it's relevant:

A recent letter to the editor with a closing statement saying, "the Bible was written by men -- not God," is by someone who is totally misinformed. Let me attempt to clarify a very basic teaching of Christianity.

Yes, the Bible was written by men. but to say "not by God" tells me this person has never read the Bible from cover to cover.

And what exactly is reading the bible from cover to cover supposed to do for you? It's like reading the crazy for yourself is supposed to give you some magical revelation that God exists. Are you sure you've read the bible from cover to cover?

The Bible was written by men who were inspired by God. Have you never heard the Bible referred to as "God's word"? Perhaps that is why the Bible is known as the "Holy Bible."

You cannot pick and choose what you will believe about the Bible. Accept it as God's word, because, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

Keep digging that hole. The bible is God's word because people say the bible is "God's word"? Or because it's referred to as the "Holy Bible"? That's really your argument?

"You can't pick and choose what you believe about the Bible." Therefore you believe in seven headed dragons, grasshopper-people, and eyeball-covered angel-monsters? The fear of a petty, man-made God that can never be proven is the end of wisdom, not the beginning.

(via The Augusta Chronicle)

The Bible: In Review

I've divided the bible into several subjects that I find relevant. This will also count as the "New Testament: In Review".

God/Jesus: The New Testament doesn't seem to have changed God's basic nature, as a petty and unjust being. God sends his son (or himself, depending on what you think about Jesus) to suffer a finite torment for the "salvation" of all of our sins. All we have to do now is believe in this being and we will be saved. Jesus also claims you have to do many other things to be saved, including eating his flesh and giving away all your money. But we'll ignore these for now and just include that with "believing in Jesus".

This is (as I said) both petty and unjust. Petty because Jesus's death was unnecessary. If God wanted to break the rules and forgive people, he could (and should) have just done it. Unjust, because people who have an affinity (for whatever reason) to believe in Jesus are not punished, irrespective of their crimes/sins. While people who (for whatever reason) are unwilling or unable (based on lack of evidence of his holiness) to believe in Jesus are punished.

To add insult to injury, the bible says in several instances that God chooses who he will allow to hear the message of Jesus. The universal salvation of Jesus is not so universal. It seems that God has merely made a loophole in his own rules so he can allow arbitrarily decided people into heaven. This is really no different from the Old Testament. Is this what we would expect from an all powerful - all just super being?

Satan: Based on at least the New Testament, Satan is a "bad guy". In that he will take every opportunity he can to kill people. Unfortunately, it seems like Satan only operates under the express consent of God.

First of all, we know that Satan can be defeated completely whenever God wants him to be. In Revelation he is cast into a lake of fire, never to bother humanity again. Why isn't this happening now? Why does God let Satan persevere?

Second, and along the same lines of logic, why does God let Satan go out and deceive people (causing their eternal doom)? The first example that comes to mind is God/Jesus letting Satan out of the abyss after 1000 years to roam the earth for awhile. Why doesn't he immediately cast him into the lake of fire? God ends up having to kill the people that Satan deceived.

In short, why does God let people be eternally damned if he has the power to prevent it by killing Satan? Is this what we would expect from an all powerful - all just super being?

Heaven/Hell: These concepts are still only vaguely described. And their short descriptions don't seem to match what people think of Heaven and Hell.

When we die, the bible seems to say that we stay dead until the end times. It's only after people are "resurrected" that they eventually go to heaven/the lake of fire. This is in direct contrast to what everyone (or everyone I know) thinks today. For example, when people say their dead relatives are "watching over them from heaven", they're not (in my opinion) making a biblically accurate statement.

"You just haven't read the bible": I look forward to immediately shooting down this ridiculous argument everywhere I hear it. If anything, after reading the bible I found Christianity to be less legitimate. Some portions of the bible are followed to the letter, while others are dismissed as being "only for a certain time in history", or said to be a metaphor.

This causes the bible to be 100% up for interpretation. Both the "God loves everyone" and "God hates fags" theology can be legitimized with the bible.

Conversion: It's probably obvious at this point, but I've not been converted. As I mentioned before, I think reading the bible has convinced me once and for all that it doesn't accurately describe the universe, the divine, or anything else for that matter.

What now?: At this point I don't plan to stop writing this blog. Obviously, I have no more bible to read, but I plan to continue doing the occasional news story (albeit not every day). Also, if I feel I have not done a particular verse/chapter justice, I may (in the future) go back over it to do a more in-depth study. If this seems at all interesting don't unsubscribe!

That being said, I may take a week or so off to relish in the fact that I don't have to write this blog every day :P. There will also probably be some big changes to the layout and/or title of the blog.

Credits:

E-Word Today: For dividing the bible into 365 sections.

Bible Gateway: This is where I looked up all my bible references.

Commenters: Thanks to everyone that has commented on any of my posts. Special thanks to gmal and Brent Aucoin for commenting every day for months at a time.

Friends/Family/Co-workers: Or anyone else that had to put up with me making time to write this blog. You know who you are ;).

If you have any other questions/comments, or feel like I should include something in this blog that I've forgotten about, let me know in the comments!

364: King of Kings and Lord of Lords

2010-09-04T20:00:00.000-04:00

Revelation 17-19

"Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. 'He will rule them with an iron scepter.' He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: King of Kings and Lord of Lords." - Revelation 19:15-16

One of the angels that just tossed the bowls of God's wrath on humanity tells John he wants to show him the punishment of the "great prostitute". The angel then carries John away "in the spirit". So he's having a hallucination.

When they get to this woman, she's riding on the beast from yesterday (the seven-headed ten-horned bear-leopard). She holds a golden cup full of of "abominable things and the filth of her adulteries". On her forehead he has written "Mystery, Babylon the Great, The Mother of Prostitutes, and of the Abominations of the Earth".

This is the first obvious metaphor of Revelation. The woman is referred to as "the great city that rules over the kings of the earth". This is a strange kind of metaphor, though, in that John can actually see this woman. Like the other "metaphors", they seem to be physically acted out before John's eyes. Unless he's just making up the rather detailed physical description of these beasts.

The angel tells John that the beast is going to devour the woman and burn her with fire. It still isn't clear whether the beast is supposed to be a metaphor or not (people clearly interpret it as a metaphor). Nobody ever said the beast was actually a person. In fact, the word "antichrist" hasn't even made it into the book of Revelation.

John then hears many voices telling people to get out of Babylon, or they will share "her" torture. What did Babylon do that was so much worse than the rest of the cities of the world? Why are two full chapters of Revelation devoted to it?

After John hears these voices, the angel grabs a large millstone and throws it into the ocean. He says that with equal violence Babylon will be thrown down. Did he really need to throw a millstone into the ocean to illustrate his point?

After this, they are somehow back in heaven with the twenty-four elders and the eyeball covered monsters. They again fall down and worship God, saying "hallelujah". John tries to worship the angel that's been leading him around, but the angel tells him to worship God instead.

John then sees "heaven standing open". Isn't he already in heaven? Out of heaven comes a man riding a white horse. His eyes are blazing like fire, and he is wearing many crowns on his head. He is dressed in a robe that's been dipped in blood. This must be Jesus, because out of his mouth comes a large sword to "strike down nations". Why is the relatively peaceful Jesus now riding in on a white horse, covered in blood, personifying the wrath of God? Isn't Jesus's entire purpose to quell the wrath of God?

The army of the beast then gathers to try to kill Jesus. The beast and the "false prophet" are captured and thrown into a fiery lake of burning sulfur. Their army is killed with the sword that came out of Jesus's mouth. The bodies of the beast's army are devoured by birds (who somehow survived the multitude of plagues).

*News*

Apparently the Discovery Channel hostage taker was an atheist:

Another atheist extremist went on a rampage last week, taking hostages at the Discovery Channel building and demanding the network do more to proselytize evolution and fear about environmental Armageddon. Before he harmed anyone, police shot the terrorist dead.

The violence and the response of atheist evangelists, such as American shock-scientist PZ Myers, illustrate how organized atheism increasingly resembles religion.

Another? How many atheist extremists have gone on rampages recently? More importantly, do any of these people go on rampages in the name of atheism, or do they just happen to be atheists? I would contend that you have to already be completely insane to go on a rampage in the name of atheism. "I don't believe in something, therefore I must kill you", makes far less sense than "God tells me that I must kill you. I've devoted my life to God. Therefore I must kill you".

First of all, from reading this guy's writings, he's obviously insane. He wanted the Discovery Channel to start airing programs at least once a week telling people to stop having babies, and to sterilize themselves. This somehow had something to do with Darwinism(?).

The vast majority of atheists lead peaceful, moral and humble lives. They love their children and help their neighbors. A small fraction proselytize with confrontation, just as a small percentage of religious faithful proselytize and demonize others. Of the few atheist proselytizers, a tiny fraction kills people and blows things up for the cause.

It just so happens that all of that tiny percent of atheists are completely insane. Indeed, mental health experts are saying that James Lee suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. Why is it that none of the 9/11 hijackers have been diagnosed with a mental disorder? Oh, that's right, they weren't insane. They had a firm belief, based on their religion, that God was calling them to kill people. Ok, maybe that is insane, but that means that all other religion is equally insane. Some religions just call for good things instead of bad things.

(via The Gazette)

363: The Number of the Beast

2010-09-03T21:50:00.000-04:00

Revelation 13-16

"This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666." - Revelation 13:18

I would call this section completely insane, but I feel like I'm getting a little redundant. For brevity's sake, just pretend that after every paragraph I write today, I say, "What the fuck? How can anyone possibly believe this heaping pile of bullshit?". Even if this craziness is a metaphor, you'd have to be a little insane to come up with seven headed dragons and grasshoppers with human faces and long hair.

This section begins with yet another seven headed, ten horned beast. This time, instead of having crowns on his head, he has crowns on his horns. On each of this beast's heads is written a "blasphemous name". John goes on to further describe this beast as looking like a leopard, but having bear feet and a lion's mouth.

The dragon from yesterday comes and gives this new beast all of his powers, his throne, and his "great authority". John says that one of the heads of the beast "appears to have a fatal wound" but it's been healed (this appears to have no relevance to the narrative). The beast then starts wandering around the world, and people start worshiping him.

Then John sees yet another beast. This time coming out of the earth. This beast is described as having horns like a goat, but "speaking like a dragon". The new beast goes around the earth, performing miraculous signs, including causing fire to fall from the sky. He also (somehow) receives the power to kill anyone that doesn't obey him, and gives people a "mark" on their hands or foreheads such that they can't buy or sell without it. This mark is either the name, or the number of the beast, which is "666". I'm sure it's a complete coincidence (not), but the Roman Emperor Nero's name just so happens to add up to 666.

Where has God gone off to? Why is he letting (presumably) Satan kill people who are just trying to worship God? In short, why is any of this necessary?

Next, the seven-eyed seven-horned lamb-Jesus is back! He is standing on Mount Zion with the 144,000 saved people standing around him. That means if the apocalypse happened today, a whopping 0.0021% of the population would be saved. That's a 1 in 47,000+ chance, for those keeping track.

Then three angels fly around the world, shouting in every language that the judgement has come. They say that anyone who has the mark of the beast is going to drink wine out of the cup of God's wrath. These people will also be tortured with fire and sulfur in the presence of angels and of Jesus. This torment will go on "for ever and ever".

After this, angels start coming out of heaven with sharp sickles. A voice from heaven tells them to go down and "harvest the earth". They go down, harvest the "grapes" of the earth, and toss them into the wine press of God's wrath. When they crush these "grapes" blood comes out. Either these are special grapes with blood inside them, or the grapes are people.

There is then yet another set of seven angels. These seven angels have come to deliver the final seven plagues of God. Isn't everyone dead yet? I think we're up to about four thirds of humanity killed. Humanity has been crushed in a wine press, hailed upon, all the stars have fallen out of the heavens a couple of times.

Before these plagues begin, John sees all the people that resisted the beast on the edge of a sea of melted glass and fire. They are all playing harps (given to them by God, of course), and singing songs of Moses. I couldn't make this shit up if I tried. Aren't all these righteous people supposed to be dead? Wasn't the beast just given the power to kill anyone who didn't believe in him?

John then looks into heaven and sees the "Temple". Out of this temple come the seven angels with the seven final plagues. One of the eyeball covered six-winged creatures hands the seven angels seven golden bowls of God's wrath. I think my brain is melting. Bowls full of wrath? What does that even mean?

A loud voice from the temple (God) tells the seven angels to pour out the seven bowls of wrath onto humanity. I'll go through these seven plagues quickly. First is the plague of painful sores. The second plague turns all the oceans to blood, killing every sea creature. The third turns the rivers and springs to blood. The fourth makes the sun terribly hot and burns those who are alive. The fifth plunges the kingdom into darkness, and men gnaw their tongues in agony. The sixth dries up the river Euphrates, and frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, the beast, and the "false prophet" (who I don't think we've actually been introduced to). All the kings are gathered together for battle at a place named "Armageddon". The final plague causes a massive earthquake, breaking up all the cities of the earth.

Today's section ends with 100 pound hailstones coming out of the sky, crushing people. Wonderful.

*News*

I'm sure most of you have heard about Stephen Hawking's assertion that there is no God. Or at least that God wasn't needed to start the universe. The Christian News Wire is on the case. They've decided that Stephen Hawking doesn't know what he's talking about because... wait for it... Ray Comfort says so:

An extract of Hawking's latest book, The Grand Design, was published in Eureka magazine in The Times, in which the professor said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist." Comfort, said, "It is embarrassingly unscientific to speak of anything creating itself from nothing. Common sense says that if something possessed the ability to create itself from nothing, then that something wasn't nothing, it was something -- a very intelligent creative power of some sort."

Wait, what? Here's Comfort's logic as I understand it: "If nothing can make itself into something, then the nothing isn't nothing, it's actually a super intelligent being". First of all, let me give you the disclaimer that I'm extremely skeptical of anyone that thinks they can say anything about the beginning of the universe. I obviously haven't read Hawking's book yet (it's not out) so I'll reserve judgement.

However, I'm at a loss as to how God suddenly coming into existence makes more sense than a homogeneous singularity suddenly coming into existence. As usual, the reaction from the fundies is "this is not what I believe, therefore it's wrong". It's hard to immediately reject just about any argument (unless it's seven headed dragons) without first reading the whole story (i.e. what was Hawking's line of thinking?).

Needless to say, the book should be an interesting read.

(via Christian News Wire)

362: The Bible, Now with Dragons

2010-09-02T22:10:00.000-04:00

Revelation 9-12

"Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads." - Revelation 12:3

As you'll recall from yesterday, the seven angels are blowing their trumpets. This section picks up with the fifth angel blowing his trumpet. This causes yet another star to fall out of the sky. But this isn't a normal star. This "star" is referred to as "he" and "he" is given a key to an abyss.

"The abyss" is described as a giant furnace. I can only assume that this supposed to be hell. When the star opens up the abyss, a swarm of locusts come out. These locusts are given the powers of scorpions, in that they have stingers. These locusts are not actually given the power to kill people, but only to sting and torture them mercilessly.

That's not the only think peculiar about these locusts. They are described as looking like "horses prepared for battle". On their heads they are wearing crowns of gold, and they all have human faces. They also have long, womanlike hair, and breastplates made out of iron. What. The. Fuck. I don't think I actually have anything intelligent to say about this. Anybody who claims John wasn't on drugs when he wrote this needs to rethink their lives.

Next, the sixth angel sounds his trumpet. This causes the four angels who were bound up near the Euphrates to be released, killing one third of humanity. What four angels bound up near the Euphrates? Why is none of this ever mentioned in the other gospels, if this is legit? With these angels come horses with lion heads, that breathe sulfer-fire breath. I guess that seems pretty reasonable at this point.

We now take an almost two chapter long break from blowing trumpets (I suppose they're building the suspense for the final trumpet). In the meantime John sees an angel come out of the heavens. This angel is robed in a cloud with a rainbow over his head, with a face like the sun and fiery legs. So there is a naked, flaming angel coming out of the sky with a big rainbow over his head. I believe this holds the record for the gayest angel of all time.

This angel is holding a "little scroll". The angel plants his feet, one in the ocean and one on the land. He then shouts, and the voices of "seven thunders" speak. John says that he was about to write down what they said, but then an angel told him not to.

The angel voice then tells John to take the little scroll from the angel and eat it. No, that's not a typo. He's supposed to eat the scroll. This has actually happened already in Ezekiel, so I'm not sure why I'm surprised. After John eats the scroll, his stomach turns sour. No shit, eating an entire scroll will probably make you sick. Thanks for the insight, John.

The next story is about a creature from the abyss coming up to earth and killing a bunch of people. Their bodies lay in the streets for three and a half days, until God breathes life back into them. These newly formed zombies then go around terrifying people. They all then go up to heaven. Wait, why do they get to go to heaven? And why do I want to go to heaven if there are zombies up there?

Finally, the seventh trumpet is sounded. This causes the twenty-four elders to start worshiping God with even more vigor. Then heaven opens up, and the ark of the covenant is revealed. The ark of the covenant? I guess God just carries it around for shits and giggles now.

This is where it really gets crazy. I know what you're thinking, "how can it get crazier". That's easy: an enormous dragon!

Yes, along with a woman "clothed with the sun" with a crown of stars on her head, comes an enormous red dragon. This dragon has seven heads, all with crowns, and ten horns. The woman is about to give birth, so he waits near her to devour her child as soon as he comes out. Why doesn't he just eat the woman?

When the woman does eventually give birth, God snatches the child away. The woman then flees into the desert where she is taken care of for 1,260 days. At the same time, the dragon invades heaven, where he has an epic battle with the angel Michael, ending in the dragon (now called Satan) being cast out of heaven. Why did God allow this battle to happen? Why didn't he just snap the dragon out of existence?

The dragon, finding that he's back on earth, decides to go chasing after the woman again. God gives the woman great wings so she can fly away from the dragon. She then flies to a place in the desert where she will be taken care of for "a time, times a half a time". Wait, a time times a half a time (1 * 0.5) is just a half a time. Not that this gives us any clue as to how long she was actually protected for.

Finally, the dragon spews water out of his mouth to try to drown the woman. The earth (yes, the earth) seeing the woman is in trouble, swallows the water coming from the dragon. The dragon, frustrated, decides to go try to kill the woman's offspring. And that marks the end of today's giant clusterfuck of crazy.

*News*

What should Christians think about MMA (Mixed martial arts)? They should hate it because it's too violent:

Psalm 11:5 says, "The LORD examines the righteous and the wicked. He hates the lover of violence." This is a hard verse for at least two reasons. First, it does not say that God simply hates violence, but rather, that God hates those who love violence. Second, it confronts our culture's lust for violence, a lust which many Christians indulge rather than reject.

Really? You're really going to try to convince me that God hates violence? The bible is chocked full of instances of God not only committing, but condoning violence from the Israelites. That's not to even mention his orchestration of Jesus's crucifixion. For someone that hates violence, he certainly seems to be the perpetrator of a lot of it.

UFC and MMA amounts to violence porn, a term which has been applied to movies with wanton violence such as "SAW," where violence is not part of the plot, it is the attraction. Violence for violence's sake, as opposed to instrumental or redeeming violence, desensitizes the viewer to the graphic horror of watching two people pummel each other for the sake of entertainment. UFC and MMA offer exactly the kind of violence condemned in Psalm 11:5. Ezekiel 7:23 decries, "the city is full of violence." Why are Christians supporting violence in the city?

Desensitizes people? What the hell does the bible do then? What's killing a few hundred people in the name of defeating terrorism, if God has commanded that thousands be killed. That is being desensitized. In fact, I have witnessed Christians talking, bemusedly, about how much it must have "sucked" to be one of those worshipers of Baal in the Old Testament.

No, it doesn't just "suck", it is genocide. It is an atrocity. That's like laughing about how much it would have sucked to be a Jew in the holocaust. The other major difference is that Hitler, who killed millions, is hated. While God, who has also killed millions (if you believe the bible), is loved.

(via Baptist Press)

361: Down the Rabbit Hole

2010-09-01T22:15:00.000-04:00

Revelation 4-8

"In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle. Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.' " - Revelation 4:6-8

This vision goes from moderately unreasonable (in biblical terms) to simply crazy. I realize that most people think this is "metaphor", but the bible gives no indication that that's how we're supposed to interpret it.

Jesus finishes dictating the letters, and John sees an open door to heaven. He hears a voice that says "come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this". Immediately John is swept up into heaven. When he arrives, he sees a man that looks like "jasper and carnelian" sitting on a throne with an emerald colored rainbow (what?) encircling him.

Around this throne are twenty-four other thrones. On these thrones are twenty-four "elders". In front of the main throne are seven blazing lamps, holding the seven "spirits of God". God is kept in seven pieces in lamps now?

Also around the main throne are four creatures, covered in eyes. Each of these creatures has six wings. One has the face of a man, one of an ox, one of a lion, and one of an eagle. These creatures seem like a weird amalgamation of Isaiah's seraphs (who have six wings) and Ezekiel's wheels filled with fire (covered in eyeballs). These creatures' only job is to sit around all day chanting "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come".

John then sees at the right hand of the person (thing?) on the main throne, a scroll. This scroll is sealed with seven seals. An angel asks if anyone can break the seals on the scroll, but nobody responds. John starts crying because nobody can break the seals. What does he care?

The angel tells him not to fear because the lamb of God has come to open the seals. John then sees a lamb, "looking like it's been slain". I'm going to presume this is Jesus, even though the bible says that it actually looked like a lamb. Is Jesus a shape shifter now?

We haven't gotten to the weird part yet (seriously). John describes this "lamb" (Jesus?) as having "seven horns and seven eyes". Even if this isn't Jesus, it's still the weirdest shit ever. Anyway, this seven-horned seven-eyed lamb-Jesus takes the scroll from the right hand of the jasper-man. After lamb-Jesus takes the scroll the entire cast of characters (eye-covered angels, elders, and jasper-man) bows down and sings songs about how awesome lamb-Jesus is (they just call him "the Lamb", capital L).

Lamb-Jesus then starts opening the seals. When he breaks the first seal the eye-covered angels yell "Come!" and a man rides in on a white horse carrying a bow. The bible refers to him as the "conquerer".

Jesus then breaks the second seal and the angels again yell "Come!". This time a man rides in on a red horse. This horseman is given the power to bring peace, or make people kill each other. He is also given a large sword.

The next seal is broken, and this time a black horse rides in carrying scales. One of the angel-creatures says "A quart of wheat for a day's wages, and three quarts of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!". What the hell does that mean? I don't think this is the right time to set the minimum wage.

The fourth seal is broken and the final horse rides in. This horse is pale, and it's rider is none other than Death himself. Followed closely behind this horse is "Hades". Hades? Is this someone different than Satan? I was under the impression that Hades was only followed in Greek mythology. Death and Hades are given a fourth of the earth to kill by the sword, plague, famine, or with wild animals.

When the fifth seal is broken, John sees, "under the altar", the souls of those who have been slain because of the word of God. They seem eager to have others suffer their fate, and ask God when the rest of humanity will be judged. They are all given white robes, and someone (God?) tells them to wait a little longer. Again we see indications that the end of the world is supposed to be only a little further in the future.

When the sixth seal is opened, there is an earthquake, the sun turns black, and the moon turns red. The bible also says that the "stars in the sky fell to the earth". Excuse me? How can the stars fall to the earth? Someone obviously doesn't understand that stars are thousands, if not millions of times larger than earth. Then the sky recedes like a scroll, and all the mountains and islands are removed from their place.

Lamb-Jesus then takes a break on the seal breaking. John says he sees four angels standing at the four "corners" of the earth. Right, because the earth is flat and has corners. These four angels are holding back the "four winds". Whatever that means. An angel then comes out of the east with the official "seal" of God. He then goes around putting God's seal on people's foreheads (144,000 in all). These 144,000 seals are distributed among the 12 tribes of Israel (12,000 each).

John then sees a hoard of people wearing white robes. John describes the number of people as too many to count. One of the elders asks John who all these people are. What? Aren't people in heaven supposed to have the knowledge of the universe, or something? John, who somehow knows, tells the elder that these people have come out of the great tribulation.

Lamb-Jesus then breaks the seventh seal. There is then silence in heaven for a half hour. Well that was massively anticlimactic. Then the "seven angels who stand before God" are given seven trumpets. Yes, we have yet another group of characters.

Yet another angel takes a golden censer and fills it up with fire from the altar. He then takes the fire and throws it onto the earth. What an ass hole.

The seven angels then sound their trumpets one by one. The first trumpet brings a hail of fire mixed with blood upon the earth. A third of everything on the earth is burned up with this fire-blood. The next trumpet brings a huge mountain that is thrown into the sea. A third of the sea is turned to blood, and a third of the sea creatures die.

The third trumpet brings down the star named Wormwood (I thought all the stars had already fallen). This "star" turns the water bitter and kills many people from drinking it. Right, because all the people aren't already dead from the mountain being thrown into the ocean or global fire-hail.

The fourth trumpet blocks a third of the sun. Wait, I thought the sun was already blotted out by the breaking of the seals. A third of the stars are also "struck". The stars have now fallen out of the sky from the breaking of the seals and been blotted out.

The cherry on top of this pile of bullshit is a magic talking eagle flying by. This eagle says "Woe! Woe! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth, because of the trumpet blasts about to be sounded by the other three angels". That's the most articulate eagle I've ever heard. The chapter ends there, you'll have to come back tomorrow to see the atrocities the other three trumpets bring.

tl;dr A seven-eyed, seven-horned lamb-Jesus broke seven seals, while six-winged animal-headed eyeball-covered creatures shouted "come" to four horses with magical powers. Sounds legit to me.

*News*
It just had to be today when someone tried to argue how wonderful the bible is:

I wonder why it is that Christianity and its tenets are so troublesome.

Is it because the Bible, above all other books, holds us more accountable for our actions and to a single God? Is it because we become threatened by the truth of our own lives when measured by such guidelines as “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or “love your neighbor as yourself”?

No, it's because the Bible, above all other books, is unadulterated bullshit. Seven eyed goats? You really believe this shit? Anyway, *pissed off mode, deactivated*. Some people judge their lives on "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" without the bible. That's not even an original Christian idea (a quick wiki search of "The Golden Rule" is revealing).

The writer seems to forget that there are other Christian tenants besides the golden rule. Namely, the oppression of women and the acceptance of slavery. If all of Christianity was the golden rule, I don't see myself having a problem with it.

As a nation, we need to come back to what was fought for in 1776, and that was freedom.

Our forefathers fought for our right to express our beliefs without condemnation from others.

Our country was founded on Christian principles that should not be pushed aside just because another culture protests. Keeping America on its Christian foundations will let freedom reign.

Sorry, incorrect answer. The forefathers did not fight for the right to express beliefs without condemnation. In fact, the first amendment guarantees the right to express your condemnation of any religion you'd like. What is protected is your right to express your beliefs without government prohibition or endorsement.

Keeping America on it's foundation of creating a "wall of separation between church and state" (as Thomas Jefferson put it) is the only way of truly letting freedom reign.

(via Kennebec Journal)

360: The Alpha and the Omega

2010-08-31T08:10:00.000-04:00

Revelation 1-3

" 'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.' " - Revelation 1:8

Chapter 1 starts with the bible telling us that this is a revelation from Jesus to John. It says that "blessed is the one" who reads this text. It must be good.

John then greets himself and goes right into his story of how he received this revelation. John says that on the "Lord's day" he was "in the spirit" (aka high on drugs?) and he heard a loud voice behind him. When he turned around, he saw seven gold lampstands. Walking among these lampstands was a man with white hair, eyes that glow like fire, and feet that glow like bronze in a furnace. In his right hand he is holding seven "stars", and there is a double edged sword coming out of his mouth. There seems to be a slight misunderstanding of what a "star" is.

When John sees him, he falls on the ground and plays dead until Jesus tells him not to be afraid. I say this is Jesus, because he describes himself as being dead and alive again. I'm not quite sure how Jesus is speaking when there is a sword coming out of his mouth. Jesus goes on to say that he wants John to write a letter to the angels of the seven churches of Asia. The rest of today's section is Jesus dictating those letters to John.

First to the angel the church of Ephesus. Jesus first introduces himself as the one who "holds seven stars" and walks among the lampstands. Jesus goes on to say that he's proud of what they've done (or, I should say what the angel has done), but he'd like them to repent anyway. Wait, the angel has to repent? Who is he talking to? He says that if they do not repent, he will come take away their lampstand. I'm not sure what that means, I didn't even know they had a lampstand.

Next to the angel of the church of Smyrna. Jesus says that they should not be afraid of what they are going to have to suffer. He says that the devil is going to put them in prison for ten days. But if they are faithful Jesus will give them the "crown of life". I'm not sure why these are addressed to the angel of these churches. Jesus seems to be talking directly to the people. He even refers to them as plural (e.g. "some of you will suffer").

Third, to the church of Pergamum. Jesus refers to Pergamum as the place where "Satan has his throne". Doesn't Satan live in hell? Jesus also tells these people (or the angel?) to repent.

Next is the church of Tyatira. Jesus seems to be very upset that this church tolerates a woman named Jezebel. She apparently leads many of Jesus's servants into sexual immorality, and leads them to eat food sacrificed to idols. Jesus says that if adulterers don't repent, he is going to cast them onto a bed of suffering.

The fifth letter is to the church of Sardis. This time Jesus introduces himself as the one who holds the seven spirits of God. That seems like a very arbitrary number of spirits. Jesus says that those who have not "soiled their clothes" will not be blotted out of the book of life. Jesus really doesn't like it when you take a dump in your clothes hamper. Oh wait, was that a metaphor? I can never tell.

The sixth letter is to the church of Philadelphia. Jesus says that he has placed before them a door that can never be shut. He also says that since the people of Philadelphia have endured so patiently that they will be exempt from the hour of judgement. He ends the letter by saying that he is on his way "soon". Jesus has a pretty ridiculous definition of "soon".

The final letter is to the church of Laodicea. This time, Jesus introduces himself as "the Amen". Whatever that means. In this letter, Jesus berates the Laodicians for being neither hot nor cold, but lukewarm. Jesus, a famous hater of lukewarm food, says that he is going to spit the Laodicians out (why were they in his metaphorical mouth?). He ends with, of course, telling them to repent.

Does anyone actually take this book seriously?

*News*

One church has decided it's never too early to start bible lessons:

One Salt Lake area church believes babies are not too young to learn Bible stories.

The idea behind Bible study for babies at New Pilgrim Baptist Church is that hearing stories, touching objects, and seeing pictures will help children build a strong religious foundation.

Yes, you have to get in there and crush free thought before there's even the slightest chance of it's existence. The simple fact is that if you began indoctrinating someone when they were a baby, you could convince them to blindly worship a rock. If your religion is so perfect and true, why not teach them about Jesus when they're teenagers? Surely God has made a loophole for those younger than 10, who surely have no chance of fully understanding who/what Jesus is.

Reggy admits that some babies don't understand some of the activities all the time but what they manage to learn will have a lasting impact, especially if they stray from the fold for a while.

"Now we live in such a pluralistic society, they have a lot of choices out there," says Reggy. "We're praying that when they get to that age, that will be at least one of the options that will be available to them."

Reggy says more often than not, she sees kids in her congregation who have grown up learning the tenets of their Christian faith and those kids have grown into adults who live by those beliefs.

The youngest child in this year's class was 9 months old.

Isn't having to begin indoctrination at 9 months old to keep people in the pews a bit of a warning sign that your ideas might seem like bullshit to unbiased observers? You shouldn't be teaching your children your religion any more than you should be teaching them what political party they should belong to.

Of course, if we let them think for themselves, they might come to a conclusion that's not insane. And we can't have that.

(via KSL.com)

359: Three Books in One

2010-08-30T20:00:00.001-04:00

2 John 1

"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work." - 2 John 1:10-11

This is the shortest book of the bible by verse and word count in the NIV. If my googling is correct, 3 John has the honor of being the lowest word count in the KJV.

That being said, I don't have a whole lot to say about his one. John says (to whoever he's writing to) that he's overjoyed at her children's finding Jesus. He then tells her to love everyone and follow "his [God's?] commands". Again, I'm not sure what he means by "commands". Old Testament commands? Commands of Jesus?

John goes on to say that if anyone comes to them and does not bring the teaching of Jesus that they should not let them into their house. This person is doing "wicked work".

John ends this letter by saying that he's saving the majority of his teachings for when he visits this woman in person. Hopefully we didn't miss any life changing revelations on account of John's brevity.

3 John 1

"Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God." - 3 John 1:11

As if it weren't bad enough that 2 and 3 John are competing for the title of shortest book of the bible, they are also almost exactly the same.

John again starts out by saying that he is grateful that the children are "walking in the truth" with Jesus. And he again ends by saying that he's got a lot more to say in person.

John complains to whoever he's writing to that he wrote to the church, but the leader will have nothing to do with him. He says that this church leader will not even accept the brothers into the church.

John ends by telling his friend to imitate what is good, not what is evil. He also says that anyone who does evil has not seen God. Wait a minute. Just yesterday he said that no one had "seen" God.

Jude 1

"But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, 'The Lord rebuke you!' " - Jude 1:9

Jude starts out by saying that he was originally going to write about shared salvation, but decided it was more important to write about all the false teachers among them. These people, Jude says, are like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. And he says they serve as an example of the people that will "suffer the punishment of eternal fire".

Jude says that these people even slander celestial beings (angels). To show how bad this is, Jude tells the people about the time when the archangel Michael was arguing with the devil about the body of Moses. You know, that time. Oh, right, the bible has never actually mentioned that incident before. Way to make that one up Jude.

Anyway, the moral of the story is that even the archangel didn't slander the devil. Therefore it's unfathomable that a mere human would slander a celestial being.

Jude ends by telling the people to persevere through all these false teachers.

Onward to Revelations!

*News*

You know you're crazy when an organization calling themselves a "Christian militia" says "whoa, that's over the line":

An armed Christian organization which had pledged to protect a Florida church as it holds "International Burn a Quran Day" withdrew its support from the event Wednesday, saying it "does not glorify God," according to a posting on its website.

It gets better:

Right Wing Extreme founder Shannon Carson told CNN. "We don't want to be a part of inciting violence and racism anymore."

Is this the twilight zone? Is it possible that they could have empathy for Muslims?

Maybe they just realized that "International Burn a Quran Day" is the dumbest idea ever. What is this event accomplishing? First of all, how about reading the Quran instead of burning it. I'd venture to say the vast majority of Christians (including the ones who plan on burning Qurans) have never read a word out of the Quran. Shouldn't you at least fix your ignorance before you show the world your idiocy?

Second, I can't even begin to imagine the repercussions if someone created "International Burn a Bible Day". More than just insulting the religion, it seems like a militant act.

In the end it's only going to piss people off. I'm not saying we should be stepping on eggshells so that we don't upset the Islamic world. But blatant provocation is probably a bad idea too.

(via CNN)

358: The Antichrist

2010-08-29T22:45:00.000-04:00

1 John 1-5

"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour." - 1 John 2:18

We have yet another mysteriously written letter. It's written in the first person, but the writer never identifies himself or the people he's writing to. I'll call the writer "John" for convenience.

The first chapter (which is very short) is devoted to saying that God is light. John says that we must not "walk in the darkness" if we want fellowship with God. The chapter ends with John saying if anyone claims to not be a sinner, they are liars.

Chapter 2 begins by John saying that he is writing this letter so that the recipients will not sin. Wait, didn't he just say that sinning was inevitable? Indeed, he said that anyone who says they don't sin is a liar. John now says that if we happen to sin, that Jesus is there to give us salvation. John goes on to say that we must all love our brothers.

Midway through chapter 2, John tells us that we must not love the world, or anything in the world. In fact, if anyone loves the world, the "love of the Father is not in him". What? I know a lot of Christians that "love the world". John says that we shouldn't love the world because of all the sinful things that come out of it. Why can't we love the world for the good things that come out of it? By the way, John just told us to love our brothers. Aren't our brothers "in the world".

The rest of the chapter is about the "antichrist". John is another gospel writer that thinks the world is going to end any minute (any minute 2000 years ago). He says that the antichrist is coming, and many have already come. This clearly indicates, says John, that they are in the last hour. John goes on to give a very ambiguous description of the antichrist. He says that the antichrist is "the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ". Right, that narrows it down to about 4 billion people.

Chapter 3 begins with John going on and on about how great the love of God is. And how wonderful it was for him to send his son. However, he goes on to say that "no one who continues to sin has either seen [Jesus] or known him", and "No one who is born of God will continue to sin". So if you're a Christian you are no longer allowed to sin? In fact, if you do sin, you weren't even a Christian in the first place.

The rest of the chapter is about loving you "brother". The term "brother" seems rather ambiguous, but I'm assuming he means a fellow Christian. Which - of course - is nobody, based on John's definition of "Christian" being people who no longer sin. Anyway, John says that we should lay down our lives, like Jesus, for our Christian brothers.

John says that if we see someone in material need, and do nothing, we do not have the "love of God" in us. I find it hard to believe that this concept couldn't be applied to welfare, or universal healthcare. Why is the Christian right so opposed to giving their tax money to others?

Chapter 4 starts with John telling us to "test" spirits to see if they are from God. If these "spirits", whatever they are, tell us that Jesus was from God, then the spirits are trustworthy. If, however, the spirit does not acknowledge this, the spirit is from the antichrist. If you're having this much of an in depth conversation with a spirit you should probably be consulting the nearest mental health facility.

The rest of chapter 4 is about loving people. This time John says you should love your neighbor, not just your brother. He says that, though "no one has ever seen God", if we love each other then God will be in us. No one has ever seen God? If this isn't a biblical contradiction I don't know what is. Practically every character in the bible has "seen God" if you believe the bible's account of the story.

Near the end of the chapter John says "God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him". Does this mean we get to skip Jesus? I've been told numerous times we can't have a personal relationship with God without Jesus, but John seems to think that you just have to "live in love". The chapter ends with the command "Whoever loves God must also love his brother."

Chapter 5 is all about carrying out the commands of God. Wait, what are the commands of God? Old Testament law? I thought we weren't bound by that anymore. John then says, absurdly, that the commandments of God "aren't burdensome".

John then slips into some incoherent ranting. He says that there are "three who testify", the Spirit, the water, and the blood. Testify what? Is this the trinity? John also throws in this gem of stupidity: "We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God". My testimony is great, because my testimony is great. It makes perfect sense.

The chapter ends with John alluding to the unforgivable sin. John says that if a brother commits a sin that does not "lead to [his] death", then we should pray for him. However, John says, "there is a sin that leads to death". If a brother commits this sin we should not pray for him. I can only assume that this solitary sin is the unforgivable blasphemy.

*News*

Just in case you missed it, here's Glenn Beck from yesterday:

This wasn't at all what I was expecting, in that this was a sermon. My favorite part was when the "descendant of the people on the Mayflower" Pastor talked about how America has been forgiven for stealing the Indian's land in front of the descendant of one of those Indians. If anything, shouldn't he turn around and ask that guy for forgiveness?

It's interesting that a large crowd of (presumably) Christians, is perfectly ok receiving a religious lecture from a Mormon. Glenn Beck's delivery style seems to work out much better than the normal M.O.:

(via Constitution Club)

357: 2 Peter

2010-08-28T01:45:00.000-04:00

2 Peter 1-3

"They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—a beast without speech—who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness." - 2 Peter 2:15-16

This is yet another rather short letter from Peter. The letter starts with the standard praise for God/Jesus. He also tells the people he's writing to, to remember to be godly.

The rest of chapter 1 is Peter's first hand account of Jesus. Interestingly, he doesn't bother to mention any of the miracles Jesus was supposed to have performed. He doesn't mention Jesus raising people from the dead, feeding 5000, or healing people of their paralysis. The only verification he does mention is when he heard God say "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased".

The entirety of chapter 2 is about false teachers. He says that these false teachers, like sinning angels, will be sent to hell. Peter goes on to give examples from the Old Testament where God punished the people, and saved people from destruction (e.g. Noah). He tells us that this means God knows how to punish ungodly people and save godly people.

Peter goes on to say that these false teachers are so bold and arrogant that they even slander angels. Was slandering angels ever forbidden? I don't think God has ever spoken directly about angels. He just sends them down to slaughter people.

Finally, Peter retells the story of Balaam and his talking donkey. He says that this talking donkey "restrained the prophets madness". He was prevented from going mad by a magical talking donkey? That sounds like a sign of his madness.

In the last chapter, Peter talks about the end of days. For once, he doesn't seem to think that the end of days is particularly imminent. Saying that one day seems like 1000 years to God. However, he backtracks a little, saying that the people he's writing to should strive to stay blameless so that when Jesus returns they will be saved. Shouldn't Peter know (through the Holy Spirit) that Jesus won't be coming for at least another 2000 years?

*News*

Should the bible be taken seriously? The bible says yes!

Is the Bible nothing more than an old superstitious book, with some fancy fairytales? Maybe you think it can't be taken seriously and has been basically disproved. It may contain some helpful truths…but you'll have to decide for yourself what's true and what's not. Here's what God says: All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). Prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth (John 17:17). Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength (1 Corinthians 1:20-25).

You can't show that the bible is legit by saying that God says so in the bible. You've circled right back around to the very thing you were trying to disprove. Namely: "you'll have to decide for yourself what's true and what's not".

After giving us this airtight proof of the bible's validity, the writer goes on to answer several questions about the nature of God. With this elegant prose of illogic we can also prove that Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, or any other religion with holy text is completely legit. At least make an attempt to prove the bible is legitimate from non-biblical sources.

He wrote a message for us. He's trying to get your attention today. He's speaking to you through his word…the Bible. He's teaching some powerful truths. He's telling you that he loves you, despite your best efforts to fight him out of your life, despite your sins and failings. By all rights he could have and should have given up on you for good…but He loved you enough to give up his life for you...literally. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the world. His sacrifice has taken away your sin and makes you right with God. Trust that truth. Keep learning and growing in that Word of God.

Despite my best efforts to fight him off? Fighting someone off would require that they be present, and be - in some way - effecting my life. I'm not "fighting off" Zeus, or Thor, or Odin in my every day life, in the same way I'm not fighting off Jesus. Now, if Zeus were following me around every day, in bodily form, then you could accuse me of fighting him off if I didn't believe.

(via Morning Sun)

356: 1 Peter

2010-08-27T17:50:00.000-04:00

1 Peter 1-5

"Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed." - 1 Peter 4:12-13

This is another pretty standard (read boring) biblical letter. Chapter 1 starts with praise for God/Jesus. Peter also says that suffering and grief serve only to prove your faith genuine. Who are you proving your faith to? Doesn't God already know how faithful you are (or if you would fail a test of faith for that matter).

Chapter 2 compares Jesus to a "living stone". I don't suppose this is terribly surprising, his dad is constantly called a "rock". Peter then, like Paul, tells us that we must obey earthly authority, because our leaders have been appointed by God. In fact, he says that our leaders have been sent to "punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right". I wonder what God's rationale was with Hitler.

Peter next tells slaves to be obedient, even if they have a master that beats them for doing good things. Taking a beating is "commendable" to God. I guess getting beaten by your master is just another "test of faith" anyway.

Chapter 3 repeats the idea that women should be obedient to their husbands. Peter claims that if husbands see how obedient their wives are, they will be convinced of the power of God.The bible does mention that husbands should respect their wives, but only as the "weaker" partner.

The rest of chapter 3 and all of chapter 4 is about suffering. Peter says that, as a Christian, you should expect to suffer. And that's a good thing because it will bring you closer to Jesus. This sentiment is echoed in the words of Mother Teresa, "The suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering". Needless to say, if all Christians followed this doctrine they'd be rather disinclined to actually help people.

Chapter 4 also mentions that "the end of all things is near". Why does every writer of New Testament gospel seem wholly convinced that the end of the world will happen in their generation? A better question: Why do people still think the biblical apocalypse is on it's way?

Chapter 5 talks about the young being submissive to the old. Peter also tells the old to be shepherds and teachers of the gospel.

*News*

Billy Graham wouldn't want us to join a cult:

[Question] Some people came to our door recently and offered to explain the Bible to us, which we let them do since we’d never thought much about God. But how do I know if they are a cult? I don’t want to get sucked into a cult, but they’re friendly and have interesting ideas.

I guess it depends on what you think the word "cult" means. The word cult can be defined as "formal religious veneration". Of course, that would apply to Christianity too, and Billy Graham can't have that:

Cults often claim that the Bible isn’t sufficient, and they add other books to it (usually written by their founder). Cults also claim that they, and they alone, know the way of salvation, and you must be a member of their group to be saved.

It's convenient that this definition seems to fit perfectly with Mormonism (they add books to the bible written by their founder). I didn't realize that it was so common with cults to add books to the bible. Billy lets slip a little that cults "claim that they, and they alone, know the way of salvation". Does Christianity not claim to know the only way to salvation?

The most serious disagreement between Christianity and cults, however, concerns Jesus Christ. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus was God’s unique son — fully human and fully divine — sent from heaven to save us from our sins by his death on the cross. As the Bible says, “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). Cults, however, deny this.

I was under the impression that Mormons did believe Jesus was divine. I guess by Billy Graham's definition, you could be a fanatical everyone-commit-suicide group, but as long as you agree that Jesus is fully human and fully divine (whatever that means) you probably don't have any serious disagreement with Christianity. He may as well just say what he means, "if you're not a Christian group, you're a cult".

(via Kansas City)

355: James

2010-08-26T22:40:00.000-04:00

James 1-5

"You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord's coming is near. Don't grumble against each other, brothers, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!" - James 5:8-9

James starts by telling us that we should be thankful when we run into hardship, because it's merely our faith being "tested". Presumably this "test" is being performed by God. However, James says that when we are tempted, we should not blame God because God doesn't tempt people to sin. Jesus didn't seem to be aware of this when he gave the disciples the Lord's prayer ("And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.").

Chapter 1 ends with James telling us to follow the words of the "law". It's unclear if James means the law of Jesus or the law of the Old Testament.

The letter continues with James forbidding favoritism, with respect to wealth. This is because the poor are "rich in faith". This is probably the first passage that's actually true to Jesus's teachings since we started reading Paul. James goes on to say that if you break one of the commandments of the law (he's clearly talking about Old Testament law now), that you are guilty of breaking all the laws. But wait, I thought we weren't under the law any more (according to Paul). There seems to be something fundamentally wrong about lying being just as bad as murdering in the eyes of God.

The latter half of chapter 2 is about doing good deeds, not just having faith. In fact, James goes so far as to say, "faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead". I know a lot of Christians that only ever go to church on Sunday, or give money to the church. The example James gives as action is "feeding the hungry". I don't think "feed the pastor with church donations" counts as feeding the hungry. I guess faith is dead.

Almost the entirety of chapter 3 is about not cursing. James goes on to give us several metaphors about how cursing can lead you astray. He compares your tongue to a rudder on a ship, and a spark that starts a forest fire. He also says that our mouths are like a spring, in that salt water (cursing) and fresh water (praising God) cannot come out of the same place.

Chapter 4 echoes some of the sentiments of Paul that we heard over and over again. Namely, don't quarrel among each other. James says that we should submit ourselves to God rather than quarreling among each other.

Chapter 5 is probably the most interesting chapter of James's letter. He implores the people he's writing to (whoever that is), to be patient for the coming of Jesus. He promises them that the coming of Jesus is near. What could he possibly mean aside from promising Jesus will be coming within his generation (which is what Jesus has said all along)?

James ends the chapter by saying if someone is sick in the church, they should ask the church elders to pray over them. This is surely where the idea that you don't need modern medicine came from. The children that have died of treatable illnesses as a result of "faith healing" should attest to the falseness of this claim.

*News*

This is just too stupid for words:

Why has President Barack Obama on at least two occasions told specifically Muslim audiences that America is a nation of -- among other things -- "non-believers"?

Yeah, why does Barack Obama pretend that there are some people that aren't religious in America? And why, for Jesus's sake, is he telling the Muslims?

The Pledge of Allegiance says America is one nation under God, our national motto says in God we trust, the Declaration of Independence says we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights and since the time of George Washington our presidents have placed their left hands on the Bible as they raise their right hands and swear to defend our Constitution.

"Under God" was added in the 1950's, our national motto was originally "E Pluribus Unum" ("One From Many"), and the founders probably meant "creator" in a decidedly more deistic sense than what this article is implying. [Way more info] Even if all these things were not the case, nobody is implying (or nobody should be implying) that the founders of the United States weren't violent defenders of freedom of religion.

The Census Bureau's official Statistical Abstract of the United States says a miniscule 0.7 percent of American adults -- or 1,621,000 out of 228,182,000 -- are atheists.

The smallness of the U.S. population number betrays just how old the study he's quoting is. Not to mention that "atheist" is not the only measure of non-belief. There are also agnostics, and people who simply say "none".

Here are the current statistics: First of all, the US population is estimated at a little over 310 million (not 228 million); according to a Pew research poll (done in 2008) 16.1% of the US population define themselves as "none", 1.6% and 2.4% refer to themselves as atheist and agnostic (respectively). Using 310 million, and combining atheist and agnostic (the groups that generally don't believe in God), the number comes out to a little over 12 million atheists and agnostics (as opposed to the writer's estimate of 1.6 million).

If you do this same combination of atheists and agnostics (4%), they out number the Jewish (1.7%) and Muslim (0.6%) populations combined. The question then becomes, if the president acknowledges Muslims and Jews (he does), why wouldn't he acknowledge non-believers?

The writer of the article spends several paragraphs giving instances where Obama spoke of religious diversity (including the phrase "non-believer"). I'll spare you his repetitiveness. Moving on:

Is Obama's repeated declaration -- including to Muslim audiences -- that America is, among other things, a nation of "non-believers" truly accurate? Does it comport with Obama's professed strategy of reaching out to the Islamic world and improving America's standing there by increasing understanding of our true nature as a nation?

The answers are: No and no.

First answer, yes (for the reasons stated above). Second, it may not "improve America's standing", but it certainly doesn't hurt us any more than saying we're a "Christian nation". Either way we're horrible infidels.

In the end, Obama is just trying to be as inclusive as possible in his religious diversity speeches. By mentioning Christians, Jews, Muslims, and non-believers he's probably included upwards of 98% of the US population. I didn't, until now, think it was possible to criticize someone for trying to highlight diversity and acceptance of others. Thanks, Terence Jeffrey, for lowering my opinion of humanity.

(via The Patriot Post)

354: Faith & Hebrews: In Review

2010-08-25T20:00:00.001-04:00

Hebrews 11-13

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for." - Hebrews 11:1-2

Faith, according to the mysterious writer of Hebrews, is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. Sure of what we hope for? Unfortunately there's a disconnect between this line of thinking and reality. I hope I don't ever die, and I'm sure I won't ever die should not be the same statement (at least for those of us that are sane). There are many things I do not see (Santa, invisible unicorns, the easter bunny), but I don't blindly believe any of them.

The rest of chapter 11 is a list of Old Testament characters. The writer commends these ancients one by one for their faith. Interestingly, he refers to all of these people as having died. So it is possible to cease existing. Why does God feel the need to torment some people eternally (post-Jesus)? Why doesn't he just allow the good people into heaven and blink the other people out of existence?

There's also a bit of a problem here. These Old Testament prophets weren't operating on faith (faith having been just defined as things not seen). Moses was given a burning bush, and a cloud of fire. God spoke to Abraham in person and told him to kill his son. How were these acts of faith? I wouldn't require faith if God were holding conversations with me.

Chapter 12 tells us that we should accept "discipline" from God. When we suffer hardship this is really God disciplining us. Disciplining us for what? Aren't we forgiven from all of our sins? Even if hardship is discipline, why is God completely inconsistent in his discipline. The bible compares God all the time to a father (it makes the comparison here too). Isn't inconsistent punishment the first indicator of shitty parenting?

The chapter goes on to tell us to live in peace with everyone. But then immediately says that we should allow no one to be sexually immoral or Godless. These people will be "bitter roots" that will grow up and defile many. What happened to not judging each other? How can we live in peace if we have to rid ourselves of one another?

Chapter 13 starts by telling us to love each other as brothers. Again, we have to love each other, but certain people we have to get rid of. The beginning of the chapter also tells us to entertain a lot of strangers, because some people have accidentally ended up entertaining angels. Strangers can also be axe murderers. Somehow I think axe murderer is more likely than angel.

The final interesting thing in the chapter is a quote. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever". I've actually had this very quote used to validate the theory that Jesus must have been around since the beginning of the universe. I guess it depends on how you want to define "the same". Was Jesus the same the day he died as the day he was resurrected?

Hebrews: In Review

As with the letters of Paul, I feel like I've been more enlightened about modern Christianity in this book than I was with Matthew/Mark/Luke/John. At least in those books there was some facade of legitimacy. Those were "first hand accounts". Even if that's not true, I can understand that people could be convinced of it's truth.

I could even go so far as to say that I can understand people's believing the words of Paul (even though he's pretty obviously full of shit). But believing the words of some random Israelite from ~2000 years ago is taking absurdity to a whole new level. What's the standard here? It's old? It sounds pretty? Even Paul himself admits there are people running around preaching the message of Jesus "incorrectly" around this time. Who's to say this isn't one of those people?

In the end this letter obviously failed to convert at least some of the Hebrews.

*News*

This article starts out well but goes down hill:

There should be no question about it: it is a violation of the entire ethic of modern education when "faith schools" teach alternatives to evolution for explaining humankind's origins. Critical education rests on imparting a sceptical approach to claims about the world, clearly contradicted by presenting as equal choices – as Erfana Bora suggests – religious dogma alongside reasoned, and continually contested, scientific truth claims.

The writer goes on to say the downside of our scientific progress is that some people (namely, atheists) have forgotten about an "important" area of study. Metaphysics:

Contrary to modernist folklore, metaphysics is not just some relic of pre-Enlightenment thought. In two ways its relevance persists. The first relates to our understanding of the world in ways that escape the empirical method. For instance, in my own doctoral research I am examining the idea of events: non-phenomena with no physical, or testable properties, yet which appear indispensable for making sense of questions relating to causality and transformation. Second, and more important, there are the big "Why?" questions that also play an irreducible role in existential thought about life: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or "What happens to individuals' sense of existence after death severs individual existence?"

How exactly does one study events with no physical or testable properties? Do you sit around and wait for one of these "non-phenomena" to happen? How do you know when a non-event happens?

I understand that there are big "why?" questions. But if you can't answer them empirically I don't see the point in answering them at all. My "metaphysical" answer could be that the Flying Spaghetti Monster made the universe, and your answer could be something else entirely. What have we accomplished?

The writer then accuses atheists of not pursuing these big "why" questions. First of all, I don't think science can hope to answer "why" the universe began. It might eventually be able to determine "how" the universe began. And to say there is no one pursuing that problem is disingenuous. As for an after life, there is very little empirical evidence for any after life. That's not to say that nobody is "asking the question":

Of course, my argument runs against the grain of a lot of what you could call a strand of smug, self-satisfied atheist sentiment. When faced by the big questions that draw people to faith, all too often the self-righteous atheists' defence is to decline to enter into debates with the religious, by turning their own lack of reflection on such matters into a hallmark of maturity. "Unlike you, a believer," the smug atheist boasts, "I don't need to know everything, and I lack the hubristic will to know about life, the universe, and everything."

"I don't know" therefore I'm declining to have a debate about it, is different from "I don't need/want to know". How is it self-righteous to say that you don't know about something for which there is no empirical evidence? If someone asks me how the universe came into existence, I say I don't know. That's not because I don't want to know, or I just haven't looked hard enough. It's because there is no information. Am I supposed to make something up so I can have a debate?

I was reading through the comments, and someone had a much better rebuttal than mine:

I take it you'll be devoting a large chunk of the time on your doctoral thesis to studying the implications of the choice of sock colour made by the fairies at the bottom of your garden - thus making sure that your work doesn't run against the grain of a lot of what you could call a strand of smug, self-satisfied afairyist sentiment. - Or are you a hypocrite?

(via The Guardian)

353: It's a Dreadful Thing

2010-08-24T20:15:00.000-04:00

Hebrews 7-10

"It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." - Hebrews 10:31

Chapter 7 seems to be trying to convince us how great Melchizedek was, and how Jesus is a priest like Melchizedek. Again, whoever this is, is just pandering to the Hebrews. If Jesus was a "priest on the order of Melchizedek" you'd think he, or one of the gospel writers, would have mentioned it. In fact, you'd think he would have used this argument to avoid execution.

Chapter 8 talks about a "new covenant". The writer says that Jesus's new covenant is better than the covenant of the Old Testament. Jesus does speak of a new covenant when he is telling his disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Why doesn't the writer of Hebrews mention that you have to cannibalize Jesus to ratify this new covenant?

Chapter 9 starts by telling us all about the old tabernacle. As if I ever wanted to hear about the tabernacle again. The writer explains (needlessly, he is writing to Hebrews) that the priests could only enter the tabernacle once a year, and they had to enter with offerings (animal blood).

The writer goes on to compare this to Jesus. He says that Jesus entered his metaphorical ("Not of this world") tabernacle, and used his own blood instead of the blood of goats and cattle. The writer then asks us if the blood of goats can sanctify someone, how much more will the blood of Jesus sanctify us. Uh, I don't know. It kind of seems like comparing apples to oranges. I thought God didn't like human sacrifices anyway.

The bible then concludes that because we are so sanctified by Jesus, he is the mediator for the new covenant. The chapter ends with the bible saying that Jesus has once and for all sacrificed himself for our sins. However, Jesus will return to "bring salvation" to those who are waiting for him. Didn't he already bring us salvation?

The beginning of chapter 10 just reiterates that Jesus was sacrificed once and for all for all our sins. The end of the chapter, however, says that if we continue sinning after we have heard the knowledge of Jesus's salvation, no sacrifice for sins will be left. The writer says that people were killed for disobeying the laws Moses, and tells us to consider how much more someone would be punished for "trampl[ing] the Son of God under foot". He says that it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of God. According to the writer of Hebrews, God is still the same fear inducing being that he's always been.

*News*

This is the Christian Post's review of John Loftus's "The Christian Delusion":

Like most of the contributors to The Christian Delusion John sets out fists a flyin’ with a cold slap from Isaac Asimov who barks out:

“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” (181)

It is right there that I got held up. Let’s call this sentence the “Village Atheist Challenge”. In order to analyze it, allow me to present a parallel. I call it the “Tree Hugger Challenge”:

“Properly driven, the Ford GT is the most potent force for horseback riding ever conceived.”

I didn't realize someone could "bark out" things in writing. Nor do I imagine that Isaac Asimov meant his words in spite. This "parallel" is probably the most obvious example of a straw man argument I've ever seen. Let's here more about this Ford GT:

“The proper way to drive the Ford GT is on a narrow, rugged dirt path. But it is horribly inept at doing this. Horses, by contrast, are very adept at doing this. So we ought to be riding horseback instead of driving GTs.”

I dare say, with a rationale like that our tree hugger doesn’t know if he is afoot or horseback. How would you respond to this reasoning? Would you fall off your chair? Hurl a quart of Penzoil at the tree hugger in disgust? Pull out all your bling that sports the Blue Oval and provocatively jangle it in his dreadlock-framed face? Whatever you might do, you certainly would not be satisfied with his explanation.

I'm not even sure what this has to do with the bible any more. First of all, I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what Asimov meant by "properly". I don't think he meant "correctly", I think he meant "thoroughly". I base this assumption (not knowing the context of his quote) by how throughly Asimov read the bible. In fact, he wrote a 1296 page book about it.

Most people read the bible, but they don't give it a proper reading. That is, they quote mine and pick at the good parts, and then conclude that it must only say good things. Anyway, lets pretend for a moment that Asimov thought he had figured out the "proper" way to read the bible. Back to the straw man:

Here’s the obvious problem: his rationale is silly and question-begging. On my view, the GT was meant to be driven on the Nürburgring or Route 66, not on a rutted horse path. And so long as I find it so enormously capable of driving in those conditions I shall continue to do so.

Again, the writer of this article is doing a great job of ripping down his straw man, but he's still not actually talking about the original statement. It's not even a good analogy. The analogy would imply that the bible is only good in some situations, which most Christians would vehemently deny.

Now back to the Village Atheist Challenge. What, according to Isaac Asimov, is the proper way to read the Bible? One that assumes it commends immoral behaviors and actions which are inconsistent with the authorship of a divine being. (You see, Asimov is an atheist to begin with so of course this is how he reads the Bible.)

There's no assumption, the bible does condone (if not commend) immoral behaviors. The bible regulates slavery, I see no way you could honestly read the bible and deny that. But, in fact, it was only after I read the bible that I knew most of the immorality it commanded (killing people for adultery, killing people for being homosexual, subjugating women, and many more). I made no assumption (nor do I think Asimov did) about what the bible contained before I read it (except possibly making some overly positive assumptions about Jesus).

(via The Christian Post)

352: Don't Crucify Jesus

2010-08-23T20:00:00.002-04:00

Hebrews 1-6

"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace." - Hebrews 6:4-6

Hebrews is another letter, and it's actually more than one day long. This time, finally, the letter is not written by Paul (or, attributed to Paul I should say). This letter seems to be solely dedicated to convincing the Jews that they can achieve salvation through Jesus.

The introduction has some strange revelations. The writer says that it was through Jesus God created the universe. And that Jesus is the "exact representation of his being".

First of all, why didn't we hear about Jesus in the book of Genesis, or anywhere else for that matter? One could argue (unconvincingly) that there are references to Jesus's eventual existence in the Old Testament. But there is certainly no mention that he already existed in the Old Testament times. You'd think the messiah being right there while God was creating the universe (or Jesus doing the creating himself) would at least be worth a mention.

Second, how is Jesus an exact representation of God's being? If this is meant to be a physical description, God is generally described as a ball of fire, or made out of metal. If this is meant to be a character description, Jesus seems to defy most of the Old Testament laws. How can God defy himself?

The rest of the first chapter is devoted to quoting scripture to convince the Hebrews that Jesus is superior to the angels.

Chapter 2 begins by saying that we should not ignore the salvation of Jesus. This salvation was apparently testified by God through various "wonders and miracles" and by passing out the Holy Spirit according to his will.

Chapter 2 continues, giving us the same spiel about Jesus sacrificing himself for our sins. The bible then says that Jesus had flesh and blood, and was tempted like men. Later in Hebrews this is clarified to being tempted in every way. The problem here is that Jesus says anyone who looks upon a woman lustfully (the only way I can imagine you'd be tempted) has already committed adultery. The real issue here is, how can you be tempted without thinking about it?

Chapter 3 tells us that Jesus is superior to Moses. This is because Moses is but a servant and Jesus is the son. The chapter ends by saying that those who don't believe in Jesus will not be able to enter "God's rest".

In chapter 4 this mysterious Godly "rest" is clarified (sort of). This "rest" is really a sabbath rest. But not the sabbath rest of the Old Testament. This is a new sabbath rest, through Jesus, that only happens after you die. That is, the new sabbath rest is heaven (at least that's what I can discern from this chapter).

The end of chapter 4 is when Jesus is said to have been tempted "in every way" yet remained free of sin. By Jesus's definition of sin, this seems rather impossible. It also seems like you'd have to have a certain level of depravity to be tempted in every way possible. Was Jesus, for example, tempted to [insert the strangest sexual fetish you can think of]?

In chapter 5, the writer tries to convince us that Jesus was a "high priest". The bible says that after Jesus died, he was appointed to be a high priest in the order of Melchizedek. I'm not sure how the writer of Hebrews figured out that God had done this. All this high priest business seems to be solely for the benefit of Jewish readers.

Chapter 5 ends by saying that the writer has a lot to teach the Jews but it's hard because they're so slow to learn. Maybe if the writer would stop speaking in vague half-metaphor it would be easier to comprehend. Also, what makes this guy an expert on all things holy? At least the other books were written by "eye witnesses" or "friends of eye witnesses" or Paul (that's a whole different story). Now it's just some guy telling us what we should believe. Is "sounds good" the sole criteria for making it into the bible?

In chapter 6 the writer begins the arduous task of explaining Jesus to us. Because we, and the Jews, are apparently idiots. The writer promises to explain to us "baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment".

The first lesson is that people who have found Jesus, but subsequently turned away from him are actually recrucifying Jesus and subjecting him to public disgrace. The Catholics must love that one. I guess this is a metaphorical crucifixion, otherwise Jesus is being constantly crucified by millions of ex-Christians. The writer says that, because these ex-believers have crucified Jesus, they cannot be "brought back to repentance". Is this another one of those unforgivable sins?

Our education by some random guy will continue tomorrow.

*News*

We haven't had a good completely-misunderstands-atheism letter recently:

The author of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins for example doesn’t believe in God (admittedly of the Abrahamaic tradition for the most part) because He is an abrasive, angry, jealous, vengeful being who constantly plays favourites, commits genocide and delivers plagues on a regular basis — besides testing followers’ faith from time to time and demanding human sacrifice. It’s really no big deal rejecting this. So Dawkins doesn’t believe in a God he wants to believe in.

Of course, Dawkins never says that's the only God he doesn't believe in. In fact he clarifies that he doesn't believe in any God (including Zeus, Thor, etc). I don't think any legitimate atheist is arguing that the sole reason for their disbelief in God is his personality. His childish douchebaggery is more like icing on the cake of his nonexistence.

As for those who say their atheism rejects the existence of any divinity, it makes no sense. How can something that doesn’t exist be rejected? At least the very worst that can be said of believers is that they conjure up a God out of nothing and then accept it as real. But the very worst that can be said of atheists is they do the same thing and then reject it as unreal. It’s an act of faith by both. Say this about the power of faith — we can’t seem to live without it.

I reject the existence of Santa and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Did I just prove their existence by rejecting them? Did I just take a position of faith? I think the confusion here is that I'm rejecting the idea of Santa, not the person of Santa. I don't imagine that I've somehow conjured Santa into existence so I can reject him.

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. I have disbelief in the absence of evidence. I think they call that, oh what's the word, sanity.

(via The Economic Times)

351: Titus/Philemon

2010-08-22T21:30:00.000-04:00

Titus 1-3

"Even one of their own prophets has said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.' This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith" - Titus 1:12-13

This book is a letter to Titus from Paul, telling him some commands to give to the Cretans. Unfortunately Paul doesn't have a single new thing to say.

The first chapter starts with Paul repeating the qualities of a good leader. Namely: having one wife (implying that other people don't have to have only one wife), having obedient children, not quick-tempered, etc.

The most interesting part of this book is what Paul has to say about some of the Cretans. This group of Cretans still says that their members have to be circumcised. Paul, to refute this, says that one of their own (Cretan) prophets says "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons". So a Cretan prophet says that "Cretans are always liars". Which must mean this prophet is lying. Therefore all Cretans tell the truth? This is commonly called the "Epimenides paradox".

Chapter 2 is more of Paul's theory about whom should be subservient to whom. As he's said before, women should be subservient to men, and slaves should be subservient to their masters.

The last chapter is about being good servants to the rulers. Paul also tells us to "slander no one" and to be "peaceable and considerate". Paul seems to have forgotten he just got finished slandering the Cretans, calling them lazy gluttons. Finally, Paul says that we should warn someone who is divisive (someone who argues about Old Testament laws and genealogies) three times to stop being divisive. But after the third time we should have nothing more to do with them. I guess after three times, Jesus is ok with letting the person suffer eternal hellfire.

Philemon 1

"Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I appeal to you on the basis of love." - Philemon 1:8-9

The book of Philemon (all one chapter of it) is a letter from Paul, asking that Philemon welcome his slave (Onesimus) back to him. The first thing he says is that he could have commanded Philemon, in the name of Jesus, to take the slave back. But he's decided not to.

This slave had apparently run away and ended up with Paul. Paul then befriended and converted him. He now asks Philemon to accept Onesimus as a "brother" and not, say, kill him. The question I have is, why does Paul think it's necessary to send the slave back at all?

Now that he is sending the slave back, why wouldn't he (as he said he was able to) "command" Philemon to peaceably take the slave back? Does Paul care at all for the safety of his "very heart" (how he refers to the Onesimus). Who's to say that Philemon won't just say "no", and either put Onesimus into hard labor, or kill him. Paul says that he will pay back whatever debts Onesimus owes to his owner, hopefully that will be enough.

We never end up hearing the fate of Onesimus.

*News*

A Yale professor has decided that we should all study the bible:

Yale professor David Gelernter tells Big Think that America should acknowledge its identity as a Judeo-Christian society and mandate teaching of the Bible in our public schools.

America is a pluralistic society, but the “humane and liberating power of the American idea” which allows for such diversity is a direct result of the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which our nation was founded, says Gelernter. “Judeo-Christian thinking and teaching has been the most progressive, spiritually-liberating and humane phenomenon in human history.” Plus the Bible is the most influential book in history, he says. “How can we afford to let our children grow up ignorant of it?”

Of course, Judeo-Christian principles can be used to squash diversity as well. Indeed if we followed Christian principles there would be no women in the workforce, and we would still own slaves. Not to even mention diversity in sexual orientation.

My big question here is what does David Gelernter think is so important here? At least the public school I went to had no mention of the bible. I don't feel as if I've missed much, or that learning about this particular superstition has made me a more productive member of society. I don't think it's the responsibility of public schools to make people feel "spiritually liberated".

Americans, in particular, should understand the Bible’s unique role in the founding of our nation, which Gelernter calls “the most important political advance in human history.” Not only did America reintroduce the modern world to democracy (guaranteeing freedom of speech, press, and religion)—it also introduced the idea of a national government with no national church. Paradoxically, this freedom of religion and absence of a national church were made possible because of our founders’ progressive Judeo-Christian beliefs, "especially the 'Hebraid Christianity' of the Puritans and of many 17th and 18th-century Anglicans or Episcopalians," he says.

I seem to have missed the great revelation of Representative Democracy in the bible. If anything the bible seems to condone theocracy. In fact, Paul seems to think that rulers are "appointed by God" in Romans. How can a ruler be appointed by God if they are elected by the people? Unless God influences people's votes, which seems like a free will issue.

America is and always has been a ”biblical republic,” says Gelernter. He concedes that America and Christianity have failed at times to live up to their high ideals.

A biblical republic? I'm not even sure what that means. The Treaty of Tripoli (ratified by Congress and signed by John Adams a mere 8 years after the founding of the United States), clears up any arguments about the founding of the United States for me:

[Article 11] As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The United States is not a Christian nation. And I see no overall redeeming value that would tell me mandated bible study is necessary in public schools.

(via Big Think)

350: 2 Timothy

2010-08-21T18:30:00.000-04:00

2 Timothy 1-4

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

As the name of the book indicates, this is the second letter from Paul to Timothy.

Paul spends the first chapter, as usual, thanking God for the obedience of Timothy. He also recaps the story of Jesus, saying that Jesus has "defeated death". Does this mean to say that people actually died before Jesus returned? This definitely wouldn't be inconsistent with Old Testament teachings.

In chapter 2 Paul tells Timothy to be strong and obey Jesus over men. He tells Timothy to be like a "soldier" for Jesus. He also tells Timothy to pass the message of Jesus on to reliable people who will also be able to teach the gospel.

Paul finishes chapter 2 by again giving Timothy rules that he seems to have just made up. This time the rules are about fighting. He says people should not have disputes about words or have silly quarrels. He also says that we should avoid "godless chatter" because that chatter will spread like gangrene throughout the church. He gives the example of one church where the leaders preached that Jesus had already returned, and it "destroyed the faith" of many.

Chapter 3 is about what the last days will be like. Paul says that people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, disobedient to their parents, treacherous, conceited, and lovers of pleasure. Wow, that really does describe how things are today. Of course, it also describes how things are all the time. That's like saying, "in the end times, people will eat food and breathe oxygen". It may be true, but it's not at all insightful.

Chapter 3 ends with a much quoted phrase, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness." I wonder what the (sometimes contradictory) genealogies of the bible are useful for. I would also argue that from Paul's perspective all the dietary laws of the Old Testament are completely useless. Finally, and most importantly, what is Paul's definition of Scripture? He obviously had no idea what was going to make the final cut in the biblical canon (arguably not completely established until the Council of Trent over 1000 years after Paul's death).

In chapter 4 Paul first reiterates that Timothy should go and spread the gospel. He then seems to refer to his trial, saying that nobody came to his defense. He ends by saying that the Lord will protect him from every evil attack and bring him safely to the kingdom of heaven. Paul seems rather resigned to his execution. Wouldn't it be better if God/Jesus actually prevented his death, rather than just ensuring a safe trip to heaven? Not to mention that "God will deliver you safely to your death" is a bit of an oxymoron.

*News*

This is the second time this week I'm going to pick on a private school. Earlier this week I criticized a church school for firing it's teachers because they weren't the right kind of Christians, now this:

A child has been denied entrance into an [Anglican] school in Bedford because her parents are married lesbians.

First, what does this have to do with teaching a child? Assuming there's no issue with paying tuition, I see no reason this school should care about the parents at all. Second, isn't this the perfect opportunity to teach this child the horrible sinful ways of his/her parents? Without guidance from the church, this child is obviously destined to become a homosexual (all children of homosexuals become homosexual, just like all children of heterosexuals become heterosexual).

It gets worse, the school is advertised as "non-discriminatory":

Though the school's handbook and website say that the school is non-discriminatory as to race, color, religion and national or ethnic origin, it doesn't stipulate that they won't discriminate based on the sexual orientation of a child's parents.

"We are a church affiliated with the Anglican Church in North America, and it is their policy that we don't provide services to individuals or families that do not behave properly. We're going off our canons that say 'The Anglican Church in North America affirms our Lord's teaching that the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong of one man and one woman," said Kenneth Monk, head of the school.

So I, as an out atheist, could send my child to this school with no problem. But if you have the "wrong" sexual orientation your child is denied? Then they try to go the "it's because they disagree with our values" route? How is a rabid atheist better than a homosexual (in the eyes of the Anglican Church)? I would argue that an atheist is far worse, because they - by definition -actively disagree with the basic tenants of the church.

I never thought I'd say this, but what would Jesus do? Show me one instance where Jesus ever discriminated against someone in his healing/feeding/etc. Show me where he said "no, I can't heal this person, they're a sinner". I don't think you can find me one example of such discrimination, much less an instance of Jesus having discriminated based on the sins of someone's parents. Anglicans are still Christians, right?

(via NBC)

349: 1 Timothy

2010-08-20T20:00:00.001-04:00

1 Timothy 1-6

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." - 1 Timothy 2:11-12

Another day, another letter. This time it's the ultimate letter of approval. Paul is writing a letter to his understudy Timothy.

The first chapter starts with Paul again laying out who he thinks are false teachers. Namely those who devote themselves to "myths and endless genealogies". Incidentally, "myths and endless genealogies" is probably the easiest and quickest summary of the bible.

He then goes on to recount his story of conversion. Paul says that even though he is the worst sinner of all Jesus came to him and saved him. If only we could all get a personal visit from Jesus, I'm sure a lot more people would be saved from eternal hellfire.

In chapter 2 Paul provides some instructions for worship. His main point is to pray for everyone, but he goes on to say that women should dress modestly. "Modesty", though, doesn't have the definition you may be thinking. Paul says that, to dress modestly, women should not have braided hair, or wear gold, pearls, or expensive clothes. I guess you can wear a bikini to church, as long as it's cheap and your hair isn't braided.

The final rule for worship is that women are not allowed to teach, or have authority over men. I'm very curious how female pastors/preachers reconcile this one. Unless they just throw out the gospels of Paul, which seems like a good idea to me.

Chapter 3 is about the rules governing people fit to lead the church. The first rule is that an overseer must have only one wife. In contrast with everyone else, I presume. This is used by modern monogamous Christians as evidence that the goal should be to have just one wife, even though the bible never condemns polygamy. This overseer must also not be a lover of money (I'm looking at you Pat Robertson).

These overseers also must "manage" their families well. Because if they cannot manage their own families, Paul reasons, how can they possibly manage the church? It's interesting that nobody ever enforces these arbitrary laws. Does anyone ever check on their pastor and make sure he's managing his family well?

Chapter 4 is full of various instructions and warnings for Timothy. The only thing really new is Paul's command for Timothy to preach and read the gospel in public.

Chapter 5 has some strange commands about widows. Paul says that no widow should be put on a list of widows to give assistance to, unless she is over 60 and has a history of bringing up children, showing hospitality, and washing the feet of saints. This is to keep the widows off the list that should be marrying someone. This all seems like a long winded way of saying "get back in the kitchen".

Chapter 6 is a bunch of things we've already heard. It starts with Paul telling slaves to be obedient to their masters. He then ends by telling Timothy to be righteous and that people should give away their money. But remember, when Paul says "donate your money" he really means "give me your money".

*News*

The question is completely ridiculous, but apparently inescapable, "is Obama a Muslim?". None other than Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham) went on CNN to say that Obama is not a Muslim (even if it was a bit wishy-washy):

I can hear Richard Dawkins groaning all the way from England. You cannot be born a Muslim, or born a Jew any more than you can be born a Christian. That's like saying I was born a Republican or a Democrat just because my parents were.

To CNN's credit, they have been doing a good job trying to get the word out. I turned on Anderson Cooper last night to headlines of "Not a Muslim". A fifth of Americans being either ignorant or fooled into thinking Obama is a Muslim is unacceptable. Next thing you know they'll be convincing people of virgin births and resurrections.

(via CNN)

348: 2 Thessalonians

2010-08-19T20:45:00.000-04:00

2 Thessalonians 1-3

"This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus." - 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8

This is the shortest letter yet (only about 2 pages in my bible). Paul again doesn't have anything terribly interesting to say, because he's still just praising the Thessalonians.

In the first chapter Paul says that those who trouble the Thessalonians will be paid back by God. In fact, Paul says Jesus himself will come down with his "powerful angels" and personally punish those who persecuted Christians. Needless to say, the return of Jesus was not as soon as Paul had imagined, and those who may have bothered the Thessalonians are long dead.

In chapter 2 Paul tells the Thessalonians not to be deceived by people that say Jesus has already returned. Paul says that Jesus will not return until the man of "lawlessness" is revealed. This man of lawlessness (presumably meaning the anti-Christ) will set himself up in "God's temple" and proclaim himself to be God.

Paul says that this lawlessness is already at work, but it won't be revealed until the "one who holds it back" reveals it. Wouldn't this imply that, like Jesus said, the anti-Christ was going to reveal himself within the Thessalonians generation? Really there's no reason to imagine they didn't think Jesus was going to return within their generation. Jesus said so, after all.

The final chapter is again about casting certain people out of the church. This time it's those people who are "idle" and don't do any work that should be cast out. Paul even gives the rule, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat". Where was that one in Jesus's teachings?

*News*

I'll start today's news with this gem of English literature (from Facebook):

They're not just homosexual, they're " 'GAY' " homosexuals. The writer of this masterpiece is GOP candidate Jeremy Walters. Upon the realization that people can actually read what you put on Facebook, Jeremy apologized:

I am not against people having a gay lifestyle, and the statements made on Facebook have been taken the wrong way. The statement regarding gay homosexuality was not meant to be offensive and I deeply appologize. As far as the quote from Bible; I was replying to someone elses post. It should have been posted as a comment on their page, not my Facebook wall. I appologize for the mistake and if this statement offened anyone. Both postings have been removed and these comments do not pertain to my campaign or the Republican Party of Iowa. My passion is to listen and learn from the people so I can represent them at the statehouse. Everyone makes mistakes, please forgive me.

Yes, apparently this person running for public office actually thinks the term is "gay homosexual". This is, of course, not to be confused with the "straight homosexuals". I'm not quite sure how we're taking the assertion that gay people are given AIDS by God the "wrong way". What way should be be taking it?

I guess just because he meant to post this as a comment to another thread makes his statement less filled with bigotry and hate. If you don't want people to read the things you say, don't say them.

At least he's retracted his statement, and won't be publicly saying that AIDS is caused by God. Oh, wait:

VOLSKY: I understand that you regret posting it…But do you still believe that AIDS is the result of the sin of homosexuality?

WALTERS: Well, I don’t want to say that I don’t. I just, like I said, had an experience of [gay] friends dying [of AIDS]….But back to the posting, that post when I posted, I do feel sorry and denounce what I said.

He has anecdotal evidence! It must be true. I'm not sure how it could be any more obvious that he's just sorry people read it. He's not sorry for what he said, and he's not really denouncing what he said.

Aside from being completely irrational, these statements aren't even biblical. Sexual immorality is lumped together with all other forms of sin (at least by Jesus). There is no reason that God should be targeting homosexuality for his wrath while he allows unrepentant liars so run free. Not to mention that physical forms of violence seem to be reserved for after Jesus returns (as per todays reading).

People seem to wish for a God that is as petty and cruel as they are.

(via The Wonk Room)

347: 1 Thessalonians

2010-08-18T21:55:00.000-04:00

1 Thessalonians 1-5

"Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope." - 1 Thessalonians 4:13

This is really going to be a short one today. This is yet another letter where Paul is praising the people he's writing to.

Paul spends the first three chapters thanking God for the Thessalonians' faithful worship. Paul explains that he wanted to visit them for a second time to see how they were doing, but Satan stopped him. This is yet another example of Satan not really being that bad. Why, if Satan could stop him the second time, could he not have stopped him the first time? That would surely have been much worse, considering the Thessalonians would have been left unconverted.

In chapter 4 Paul repeats the same old nonsense about having to be sexually pure, even though he's said we don't have to follow Old Testament law to be saved. Paul seems to have taken a special interest in sexual immorality, whereas Jesus just lumped sexual immorality together with lying, murdering, stealing, etc. And, of course, Jesus says that all the OT laws still apply, where Paul does not.

He goes on to say in chapter 4 that we should not mourn those who "fall asleep", like the non-believers mourn. Eventually he contrasts this "falling asleep" with living, making it clear that he means people who have died. Is there some reason he used this bad metaphor? Anyway, Christians seem to fail at this one. I see Christians mourning their loved ones all the time.

Why, if you truly believe your loved one went to heaven, is a death even sad? First of all, they are in a "better place" and second you will be, presumably, seeing them in a couple of years. If anything, why not be happy for your dead loved one? Yet the average Christian I know mourns just as if they are never going to see their loved one again.

Paul goes on to say that when Jesus returns, the "dead in Christ" will be resurrected first. Wait, what? I thought everyone was going to heaven. In the end of days everyone is going to have to come out of heaven back into their earthly bodies? Or is Paul saying that only after Jesus has returned will we have eternal life?

Chapter 5 is about how the day of Jesus's return will be a surprise to everyone; it will come like a "thief in the night". Why, then, are people even speculating that this could be the end of days? The bible says that it will come when we least expect it. With this logic, all the people that think this is the end of days could actually be saving us.

Paul ends, as usual, with a call for the Thessalonians to pray, and love each other.

*News*

A Christian school is firing it's teachers:

An evangelical Christian school in Corona [California] is causing controversy after it fired at least 11 of its employees, including four teachers, because their belief systems were not in line with the new pastor's doctrine.

Were these teachers atheists? Were they even not Christians? No:

They were making a mockery of other people and religions. And this went for the Lutherans, the Episcopalians, the Catholics and they were very demeaning...

Yes, the pastor fired Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Catholics for not being "true Christians". Normally I would have no problem with a private school firing people that don't believe what they do, but in this case first, it's not true, and second it's simply not biblical. Therefore it seems like the one doing the firing is really the one that isn't a "true Christian".

The new Pastor, Chuck Booher, came with his (made up) "Level 4 living" doctrine. Anybody who's not a "level 4 Christian" cannot be a teacher at the school.

But soon he was requiring that all the staff conform to his own practice of Christianity [level 4 living], including baptism by immersion, a form of baptism in which the participant is submerged under water.

Wait, where in the bible does it say you have to have a full submersion baptism? In fact, the bible says that post-Jesus you don't even need to have a baptism, because Jesus will baptize you with the spirit.

The pastor also said that he's trying to make the staff "100 percent Christian". Needless to say this is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You only have to believe in Jesus to be 100 percent Christian. And you certainly don't have to have a full immersion baptism.

Even Paul says that all Christians are part of one "body". And that all Christians should love their Christian brothers. Where does "put your fellow Christian out of a job" fall in with this? Not to mention that this pastor is in no way humbling himself by saying that he knows the one true way to Jesus.

I suspect this "Level 4 living" is exactly what Paul was talking about when he mentioned "false gospels". Maybe the pastor is the one that should be getting fired.

(via ABC)

346: Colossians

2010-08-17T21:30:00.000-04:00

Colossians 1-4

"We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love you have for all the saints..." - Colossians 1:3-4

This one should be pretty short. Paul is again writing a letter to a group that already agrees with everything he's saying. Not only is this already boring, but it's completely devoid of new content.

In the first chapter, Paul again reiterates that - post-Jesus - God doesn't really care about your "bad behavior" because Jesus has forgiven us. While God may have moved a bit closer to all-loving, he's certainly drifted away from all-just.

At the end of chapter one and the beginning of chapter 2, Paul reiterates how much he's suffered for the church.

Chapter 2 goes on to say that we should not rely on philosophies that depend on the "basic principles of this world". I guess what he could say here is "don't rely on philosophies that are based on evidence". Paul prefers the "Paul is right, everyone else is wrong" philosophy.

Paul again says that we can eat whatever we want and do whatever we want on the sabbath. This is again because we are not bound by Old Testament law. As Paul has done in his other letters, he immediately contradicts himself by telling us a bunch of Old Testament laws that we do need to follow. Namely, don't be sexually immoral, angry, slanderous, etc. Did Paul just make this stuff up? Why do we need to follow these laws but not the others. Especially since we have all already received salvation.

Chapter 3 ends with the same terrible rules for a "Christian household". Including keeping your wife, kids, and slaves in submission at all times.

Chapter 4 is the standard closing chapter for these letters. Paul tells the people to keep praying for him and to stay faithful, and sends his greetings to random people we've never heard of. He ends with "Remember my chains. Grace be with you." Unfortunately, in this letter, he forgot to actually talk about his chains. I guess they're supposed to remember something they've never heard about.

*News*

We haven't had a good (read: bad) Billy Graham letter in awhile. Let's see how he's shredding the bible today. As usual, his column starts with a question from a reader:

It seems like I’m always having financial problems, and they’d all be solved if I could just win the lottery. But I haven’t won hardly anything the last few years, although I’ve prayed for God to help me win. Why won’t God hear my prayers?

For a bible thumping Christian this is actually a completely legitimate question. As silly as the question may sound, Jesus unabashedly promises to give us anything we ask for:

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! - Matthew 7:7-11

Maybe this was just an accidental slip of the tongue on the part of Jesus. Let's try again:

I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. - John 14:12-14

Jesus actually has two separate reasons for telling us that he will give us everything we ask for. One reason is God's goodness. If we, as evil humans, can give good gifts, why wouldn't God give us even greater gifts. Second is that if we randomly ask Jesus to do things, it will glorify God to actually have those things done (and this would be true if prayer ever worked).

This person is in financial trouble, and with full faith in Jesus he/she is asking for help. Jesus is simply breaking his promise. All that's asked for is not given; no amount of faith will make Jesus give you anything.

Let's see what Billy has to say:

Perhaps God isn’t answering your prayers because this isn’t the way he wants you to solve your financial problems. The Bible doesn’t encourage gambling, nor has God promised to bless us when we gamble.

Ok, so instead of gambling, this questioner needs to just ask for the money (in the same about as a lottery winning) to drop from the sky. God's plan for this person's financial security seems irrelevant based on the statements of Jesus.

As a thought experiment, let's imagine Jesus doesn't answer prayers for personal gain. [To clarify, the bible makes no mention of not answering these types of prayers.] What would happen if a bunch of Christians completely selflessly, and in full faith, prayed for cancer to be eradicated. Surely this type of prayer happens at least once a day (there are millions of Christians after all) yet cancer still exists. Why isn't Jesus keeping his promise?

In the end, prayer has been shown to have no measurable effects. The hypothesis that Jesus will help you win the lottery, or anything else for that matter: false.

(via KansasCity.com)

345: Philippians

2010-08-16T18:50:00.000-04:00

Philippians 1-4

"For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far..." - Philippians 1:21-23

Yet another letter by Paul. Only about 5 more to go.

Paul starts by saying that he thanks God every day for the Philippians. That must mean they've been good. It also probably means this letter is going to be incredibly boring.

Next Paul talks about being in chains for Jesus. First he was a slave for Jesus, then he said we were set free through Jesus, now he's back to being in chains. He goes on to contrast himself with people who are not in chains, but still preach the message of Jesus to advance their own goals. Paul actually defends these people, saying that even if they are preaching the message for the wrong reason, they're still preaching Jesus (and getting filthy rich if they're running a mega church).

Paul then says that he wishes he were dead so that he could be with Jesus. I've actually heard this from various Christians. I'm really not sure why there aren't hoards of Christians jumping off bridges. If you truly believe that you're going to a "better place", why not expedite the process? At least so far, the bible has offered no penalty for suicide. Paul says that he doesn't die so that he can preach the gospel to more people.

Chapter 2 begins with Paul telling us to embrace humility like Jesus did. I'm not sure what Paul would know about humility. He says that Jesus had enough humility to submit to death on a cross. So Jesus is back to being hung on a cross? What happened to hung from a tree?

Chapter 3 begins with Paul telling us not to put any confidence in our flesh. By "flesh" it seems like he means the laws of the Old Testament. He says that, though he was perfectly righteous before his conversion (so much for humility), he considers all that righteousness a loss for the sake of Christ. I guess this is back to the idea that someone can't be saved by how good they are in this life.

Chapter 3 ends with more instructions for the Philippians. Paul tells them to keep pushing ahead toward the goal, the goal being Jesus I suppose. He says that once we reach this goal (the goal of death?) we will get new glorious bodies in the after life.

In the last chapter Paul tells the Philippians - like he does with everyone - to just get along. He then says that he is content no matter what his circumstances, and everyone else should be just like him. If everyone was content when things are bad, then nothing good would be accomplished. If the roof of your house is leaking, you get a repairman because you're not content with being wet.

I almost like Paul better when he's mad. At least then he's entertaining.

*News*

What would scientific evidence of God mean? One writer for the Huffington Post thinks it would mean the end of not only atheism, but Christianity. He starts first by trying to describe evidence for God:

If the physical constants fail as convincing evidence of God, then what might succeed? In his book Universes, philosopher John Leslie conjures up a rather fanciful scenario for potential God-evidence (I'm taking a few liberties here in order to make Leslie's example a bit more fun). Imagine obviously intentionally engineered artifacts descending harmlessly from the sky (God doesn't want to hurt anyone!) each with an engraved label saying "made by God." Scientists are able to perform definitive tests on these artifacts and conclude beyond all doubt that they have been fashioned by an omniscient, all-powerful agent.

While that may be earth shattering, my next question would be which God? How difficult would it be for God to just follow everyone around in some sort of ghostly body? Maybe he could even exert a positive, practical influence on the world while he's here. That would certainly be strong (repeatable) evidence of God's existence.

The writer then tells us to suspend our disbelief and imagine that the Judeo-Christian God does exist. He then tells us what he thinks this would mean:

Well nothing major -- only the end of both atheism and Christianity. If scientific atheists are true to their convictions, then it seems that they have no choice but to become theists. Their worldview is based on evidence and the evidence says there's a god.

But it's also the end of Christianity. For those who find Christianity to be a stubbornly abhorrent strain of the religion virus, this ought to be a moment of much rejoicing. How so? A fundamental tenet of Christianity is free will. It is no stretch to say that Christianity without free will is simply not Christianity anymore. The Christian God grants humans free will and will not interfere with its exercise. Humans are free to believe or not believe, free to follow God's laws or free to sin and separate themselves from God. God condemns no one. People condemn themselves. This is all standard, mainline Christian theology and it all gets utterly demolished by convincing scientific evidence of God.

This is actually an argument I hear a lot. "God can't show himself, that would suspend our free will". How would this suspend free will? The writer tries to explain:

We really aren't free to believe or not believe in germs, gravity, evolution or other firmly established scientific facts. We can foolishly try to deny them, but their effects are with us and their laws hold regardless of our attitude. If I jump off a cliff, it matters not a whit whether I believe in gravity; I'm gonna fall. The laws of physics, Mendelian genetics, viral contagion, etc. -- my beliefs about these things are irrelevant. I follow their dictates. I suffer or enjoy their consequences.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. So in order to have free will there has to be a certain level of ambiguity? I know people that don't believe in evolution against all evidence. Scientific evidence doesn't mean anything to people that don't believe or understand it.

Gravity may always pull you down when you fall off a cliff. But I have the "free will" to believe that it's actually magic fairies pulling us inexorably toward the center of the earth. I don't, by definition, have to believe in Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory. Like the evolution denier, I still have the free will to be belligerently stupid.

Luckily for everyone, scientific attempts to prove or disprove God are all doomed to failure. We live in exactly the world the thoughtful Christian would expect to find. For those who believe, hints of God are everywhere. But none are convincing. Faith remains a requirement and atheism remains an option. A God who values free will would set it up just that way.

Incidentally, a God that values forced ignorance would also set it up this way. "Free will" is not forcing yourself to believe something with no evidential backing (some Christians would disagree with saying there is no evidence, but this writer would not). In fact, if you use this writer's logic, God is suspending our free will in the absence of evidence and forcing us to believe in him, with the threat of hell.

If God really could be proven to exist, I would kindly ask him to suspend my free will anyway. What's a few years of suspended free will in comparison with an eternity of torture? The idea that God would even give us the opportunity to eternally damn ourselves seems pretty selfish and unloving to me.

(via The Huffington Post)

344: Slaves, Obey Your Masters & Ephesians: In Review

2010-08-15T20:00:00.000-04:00

Ephesians 4-6

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free." - Ephesians 6:5-8

The entirety of chapter 4 and the first paragraph of chapter 5 is Paul reiterating how everyone in the church is part of the body of Christ. Paul explains how we should treat each other with love and respect. He also says that we should not be angry at each other and we should forgive each other on all matters.

He ends this all by again reiterating that we should be like Jesus and live a life of love and forgiveness. Wow, a nice message from Paul? Maybe he's really going to start following the basic message of Jesus. Oh, wait, keep reading:

But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them.

Love everyone, and forgive all their transgressions. But get them the hell away from you if they're ever immoral, greedy, sexually impure, or in any other way "disobedient" to God. I don't know how you can possibly follow all the commands of Paul without your brain falling out of your head. How can everyone love each other and be part of one "body" if we're commanded to constantly reject anyone that sins (which is everyone, by the bible's definition)?

Paul then goes on a long rant about submission. First, as he's said before, wives should submit to their husbands. He says that as the church submits to Christ, wives should submit to their husbands in "everything".

Is this even what Christian marriage counselors are saying these days? I must ashamedly admit that I've seen the movie "Fireproof". This was about a couple that saved their marriage with the help of the bible. The entire movie was the husband (played by Kirk Cameron) attempting to win his wife back by doing a bunch of things for her. How is this biblical? Shouldn't Kirk Cameron have just told his wife to get back in the kitchen? That's Paul's version of marriage.

Next Paul says that children should submit to their parents. He quotes the Old Testament to back this up. Wait a minute, I thought if you were a follower of Jesus, Old Testament law didn't apply anymore. Why is he quoting this law that he now claims is defunct?

The final form of submission is the submission of a slave to his master. I know it's the quote of the day, but I'm quoting it again:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

First of all, are we slaves to Christ or not? It was only two days ago (Galatians 5) that Paul was claiming that we were all set free through Jesus. Now he's saying the exact opposite. Second, I'd love to see the mental gymnastics someone has to do to get out of this clear endorsement of slavery by Paul. Paul doesn't just mention that slavery exists, he tells the slaves how throughly they should obey. If this isn't endorsement I don't know what is.

How can any self respecting modern Christian not rip any mention of Paul out of their bible. Jesus I can live with, Paul I cannot. Paul who not only encourages but demands the servitude of women, endorses slavery, and endorses throwing sinners out of the church. How can almost all Christians accept that most of these teachings are bullshit, yet still desperately cling to Paul's abolition of homosexuality, and all the other ridiculous things he talks about? Any quote from the writings of Paul needs to come with a bright red disclaimer "written by the bigoted chauvinist douchebag Paul".

Paul ends the chapter by telling us to put on our metaphorical armor against the world run by the devil. This includes: the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, shoes of readiness, the shield of faith, the sword of the spirit, and the helmet of salvation. You'll then be ready to go fight in the crusades, I suppose.

Ephesians: In Review

Paul has really run out of new ideas now. I guess I should stop complaining about this, because it looks like there are still several more letters to go (written by Paul), and I can't imagine they're going to me any more original.

I really don't have anything to say here that hasn't been said in the other letter reviews (largely because Paul really didn't say anything new).

*News*

Rifqa Bary, a convert from Islam to Christianity, has been in the news a lot in the past year. In July 2009, she ran away from her Muslim parents, accusing her father of threatening to kill her for her conversion.

She then became a ward of the state and a lengthy legal battle ensued, her parents trying to get her back, and her attorneys trying to keep her a ward of the state. Neither side could find evidence (besides Rifqa's testimony) that he father had ever actually threatened her, though I don't find it terribly unlikely. In any case, this has been great fodder for a number of Christian blogs.

She has since turned 18, thus ending the legal battle. But there is new news:

Christian convert Rifqa Bary is refusing chemotherapy for cancer because she believes that she was cured at a faith-healing event, according to a motion in Franklin County Juvenile Court.

Doctors had scheduled her for a year of chemotherapy. In the words of Christopher Hitchens, "religion poisons everything". First religion threatened to kill her for disobedience, now religion is sealing her fate by convincing her that she is cured.

To add icing on this shit-cake, some blogs are saying that because she is an "illegal immigrant", she should be immediately deported. Can't anyone help this woman? Convince her that treatment is necessary, stop trying to deport her, maybe even start treating her like a human being instead of using her to try to prop up your "Christian warrior" image.

(via The Columbus Dispatch)

343: Another Letter

2010-08-14T20:00:00.004-04:00

Ephesians 1-3

"Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly." - Ephesians 3:2-3

As the title alludes, this is yet another letter by Paul. You'd think they would have just stopped including these letters. It doesn't seem like Paul has anything new to add.

It seems that, for once, the people Paul is writing a letter to are actually obeying his commands. Paul uses this as a opportunity to go on and on about how God loves them and gives them wisdom. He's obviously never heard of "preaching to the choir".

The only thing of real interest in here is Paul saying that the Ephesians were all predestined to find Jesus. This, along with the teaching that some are blinded from the truth of Jesus, seems to completely undermine any modern definition of "free will". Of course, modern Christianity's definition of free will is probably a product of the bible being contradictory, the bible does say that we should "choose" to follow God, thus implying that we have the free will to choose. But how can people choose the right thing when people are "blinded" from the gospels, or just flat out prevented from doing the right thing (in the case of Pharaoh)?

Chapter 2 starts with Paul again reiterating Jesus's sacrifice. He ends this by saying, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith ... not by works, so that no one can boast". Not by works? I hear this passage in response to the reasonable assumption (in my opinion) that an all loving God would favor people who have done good works over murderers. Even if the person who did good works didn't follow Jesus, and the murderer did.

This "not by works" concept may seem unreasonable to me, but what does Jesus have to say?:

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
...
You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'"

"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

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." [emphasis mine] - Mark 10:17-31

For not being saved by works, Jesus sure has a lot of earthly things you need to do before you can get into heaven. This "just follow Jesus and you'll be saved" concept seems completely made up by Paul. It certainly wasn't Jesus's idea.

Chapter 2 ends with Paul again saying that all the believers in Jesus are a part of the "body of Christ".

In chapter 3, Paul just reiterates that he's been sent by God to preach to the gentiles. He tells the Ephesians not to be discouraged by his "sufferings". The chapter ends with Paul praying for God to give the Ephesians the knowledge of how much Jesus loves them.

*News*

Fort Wayne, an Indiana city, has actually taken a stand on removing a Christian education program from their public schools. Well, sort of:

As a matter of constitutional law, there's no reason for Fort Wayne Community Schools to end its long religious-education partnership with the Associated Churches of Fort Wayne and Allen County, so long as the classes are privately funded and conducted off school property, students are not coerced and parents give their informed consent.

For those of you unfamiliar with the story. The Associated Churches of Fort Wayne bought trailers, and put the trailers on public high school campuses. This was somehow, legally speaking, "not on school property". Even though the trailers were sitting atop school property. And the lawsuit was actually about a student who was forced to go to these Christian bible classes against her and her parents' will.

A few days ago, the Fort Wayne school board voted unanimously to end these programs. Unfortunately, the bible classes were replaced with "character building" classes. And they're still sponsored by the exact same organization (the Associated Churches of Fort Wayne). You can't tell me that they're not just going to crack open their bibles to figure out what "good character" is.

(via News Sentinel)

342: To be a Slave, or Not to be a Slave & Galatians: In Review

2010-08-13T22:30:00.000-04:00

Galatians 4-6

"But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness." - Romans 6:17-18

"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." - Galatians 5:1

I had a hard time picking a quote today. This entire section is a gold mine of stupid.

Chapter 4 starts with talk of Jesus setting us free from slavery. This, of course, contradicts Paul's own teaching about being slaves to righteousness, instead of sin. Are we slaves to righteousness, or are we set free from slavery by Jesus.

The chapter continues with Paul (again) complaining that the Galatians are becoming slaves to worldly things. Therefore they're not following Jesus. Paul says that he's going to be in the "pains of childbirth" until the Galatians turn to Jesus. I'm sure the pain in Paul's vagina (metaphorically speaking) will get the Galatians on the Jesus bandwagon.

Paul then tries to draw some strange analogy between the followers of Jesus, and the descendants of Abraham. Abraham had sons from a slave woman, and from a free woman (the sons were Ishmael and Isaac, respectively). Paul uses this as confirmation that the Galatians should not be slaves, because the bible says they should cast out the Ishmael and his mother.

Chapter 5 starts with Paul again talking about slavery. He says that we should not burden ourselves with the yoke of slavery. And again he is contradicting his demand in Romans that we all be slaves to righteousness.

Seemingly still on the subject of slavery, Paul says, "I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law." As usual, Paul fails to add any qualifiers to this statement, thus making it sound like a universal rule.

What does Paul mean by "lets himself be circumcised"? I'll go out on a limb here and say that the vast majority of circumcisions happen to babies. Did they let themselves be circumcised? It must be pretty hard to be a bible literalist and also be circumcised, considering that you have to follow all the Old Testament laws and Christ is meaningless.

This time, Paul can't even wait more than a sentence before contradicting himself. He says, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value". Make up your mind, does circumcision bind you to Old Testament law, or is it completely meaningless?

Fast forward another couple of sentences, and Paul again seems to contradict himself. He says, "Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted?". Did he not just say several times that he wasn't preaching circumcision? Directly before this, Paul says, "The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be." The only one throwing me into confusion is Paul.

Paul has even more harsh words for these people that are confusing the Galatians. He says, "I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" Today I learned a new comeback from the bible, "I wish you would just go chop your balls off!" I'll have to use that next time I get into a dispute with one of my Christian friends. For someone that's supposed to be channeling God, Paul sure seems petty and immature.

The next section is about living your life by the Spirit. Paul says that if you live by the Spirit, you will not "gratify the desires of the sinful nature". He also says that if you live your life by the Spirit you are no longer bound by the law. What, then, are you bound by? Your own interpretation of what you think God is telling you to do through the Holy Spirit? But if we hypothesize for the moment that God doesn't exist, then that just turns into "do what you think is right". Isn't this the very reason some Christians claim that atheists have no basis for morality?

Paul goes on to define some sinful things that are "obvious", including "sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery [whatever that is]; idolatry and witchcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, and envy... [etc.]". Most of these terms leave interpretation completely up to the individual. For example, what is "sexual immorality"? I guess we have to let our own personal "Spirit" tell us. Paul says that if we do any of these poorly defined things, we will not inherit the Kingdom of God. I guess we are bound to Paul's made up law now?

Chapter 6 is mostly about sharing each other's burdens. But near the middle of the chapter Paul says, "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows". In an attempt to find out what Christians think this means (I've witnessed and participated in my fair share of God mockery, it's obviously possible) I ran across this ridiculous website. It cites random cases of someone mocking God, and God "getting even". This one's my favorite:

After the construction of the Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe the
ship would be. With an ironic tone he said: "Not even God can sink it." The
result? I think you know what happened to the Titanic.

First of all this is barely mockery, it's almost a figure of speech. Second, does this article mean to say that, had the maker of the titanic not made this offhand remark, the titanic wouldn't have sunk? What kind of superficial God to Christians worship?

Paul ends his letter with a strange comment. He says, "Finally, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus". This has led to frenzied speculation that Paul had the stigmata (incidentally, the term "stigmata" originated with this very passage). Other apologetics, however, say that Paul could have just been referring to marks of torture in the name of Jesus.

Galatians: In Review

There's really nothing to be said here that hasn't been said in the reviews of Paul's other letters. Paul just seems to be further damaging his credibility by constantly contradicting himself in different letters to different people. With every new letter Paul seems to come up with a new concept that Jesus never talked about.

*News*
Here we have some interesting mental gymnastics in an attempt to save the bible's credibility:

With the busy topic lately of "Is the entire Bible true?" I'd like to say this: To the unbeliever, no amount of evidence or persuasion will suffice. To the born-again Christian, no more is necessary; plenty exists already.

I don't think the bible, by it's very nature (+/- 2000 years old), can give horribly credible evidence. Though, the bible's credibility could be easily verified if it's "writer" would simply appear to everyone in existence and say "hey, the bible is true".

Abstaining from certain foods was an Old Testament requirement. The New Testament says all foods are permitted. Both are true, but there is a timing issue. Since certain foods were considered unclean, the practice of abstaining was symbolic and pointed futuristically to a time when cleansing from sin and uncleanness would come. Jesus fulfilled that with His sinless death on the cross; therefore the old practice no longer has value.

That's perfectly consistent until you consider that Jesus said none of the Old Testament laws would be abolished. Jesus also says that we should follow the Old Testament laws in order to get into the Kingdom of Heaven, but Paul says that's unnecessary.

Homosexuality, slavery and polygamy always have been wrong. It is man who has chosen to ignore that. Jesus did not address slavery because He was fulfilling a much larger purpose of redemption and of challenging people on the state of their eternal souls, not getting caught up in every single thing to which he could have called attention.

Whoa, now I'm really lost. Where does the bible say slavery (besides the spiritual slavery of Paul) is wrong? The Old Testament promotes it, unless a Jew is the slave. And the New Testament doesn't condemn it. It's the same idea with polygamy. The Old Testament certainly doesn't forbid it. And nobody in the New Testament even mentions it. I'm obviously missing some moral commandment that's hidden away in the bible, somehow making it consistent with modern morality.

Honoring the Sabbath is still correct. Christ reiterated that. Honoring God in one's heart is the most important. Do people honor it? Not most. Is that God's fault? I don't think so. It is mankind that has made it difficult to do with our busy schedules. My hat is off to the Chick-fil-A-ers of the world!

In what way did Jesus reiterate that we should honor the Sabbath? Jesus in fact says that we should break Sabbath law so that we can do good, just like any other day. Even if he had said we should unequivocally keep the Sabbath. The Sabbath is on Saturday. You've been honoring a Sabbath day, not the Sabbath day. "Hats off" would really be in order for Chick-fil-A (they are closed on Sunday, if you don't know what I'm talking about) if they, say, donated all their Sunday profits to charity. That would truly be in keeping with the wishes of Jesus.

Most folks who keep pointing to these alleged discrepancies do not understand the purpose and timing behind some of these Old Testament requirements nor the fulfillment Christ finished, and thus why it is no longer applicable in the New Testament. They just see a discrepancy.

All the discrepancies are easy to clear up if you simply (as this writer has done) completely fabricate various biblical teachings that aren't actually there. Paul would be proud.

(via The Augusta Chronicle)

341: Still not Crucified

2010-08-12T22:30:00.000-04:00

Galatians 1-3

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.' " - Galatians 3:13

The book of Galatians is yet another letter by Paul scolding a church (this time the Galatians) for not behaving. I'm starting to get Old Testament repetitiveness flashbacks.

Paul says that the Galatians have turned from one gospel, and gone to another. We are never told the author of this mysterious other gospel, or who delivered it to the Galatians. We are only told that it is not from Paul. In fact, this seems to be Paul's litmus test for whether the gospel is legit or not. If it's Paul's, it's correct, if not, it's not correct.

Paul is so serious about this principle that he says even if an angel from heaven descends and tries to teach a gospel different from Paul's, the angel should be eternally condemned. I wonder what happens if Jesus returns and tries to un-teach some of Paul's nonsense. I guess Paul would have him eternally condemned too.

The rest of the first chapter is Paul recounting his miraculous conversion story. He can't stop himself from slipping in some conceited douchebaggery. "I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers". Of course, his awesome Jewry was leading him to send Christians to their deaths, maybe that's not something he should be bragging about.

Chapter 2 starts with Paul recounting his first trip to Jerusalem. He says that this is when he realized that he should preach to the gentiles. The apostles, says Paul, agreed to his preaching to the gentiles on the condition that Paul "remember the poor". Paul says that this was the very thing he was eager to do. Remember them as he's robbing them, I guess.

Paul then says that he rebuked Peter for his refusal to eat with the gentiles. He says that Peter was not acting according to the gospel. Of course, neither is Paul.

In chapter 3 Paul goes on a long rant about the law of the prophets. He says that the only thing the law is good for is cursing everybody. But Jesus has become the curse for all of us by being "hung on a tree". Based on the bible, I'm not sure where, when, or how Jesus was killed. You'd think the writers could at least be consistent on these basics.

Paul then tries to convince us that God's covenant with Abraham was actually about Jesus. And that somehow God's law only applies until Jesus arrives.

Paul talks pretty regularly about nobody being bound by the law anymore. Why is it, then, that Christians condemn other people based on Old Testament law, if not even they are bound by it?Moreover, why is it that Christians claim to base their morality on a set of laws that the bible says don't apply to them any more? This reminds me of an awesome article in The Onion I just read.

I'm really ready to be done with these stupid letters from Paul.

*News*

Can you quote the bible in scientific journals? Apparently not:

Though it might work for The DaVinci Code, apparently citing the bible doesn’t fly in a scientific journal. Virology Journal apologized yesterday for publishing a paper titled “Influenza or not influenza: Analysis of a case of high fever that happened 2000 years ago in Biblical time,” which attempts to diagnosis “a woman with high fever cured by our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Did this journal not read over the article before they published it? Next thing you know they'll be publishing articles about the most common color for unicorns, or the genetic makeup of fairies. This is an excerpt from the "scientific" article:

The Bible describes that when Jesus touched the woman, the fever retreated instantaneously. This implies that the disease was probably not a severe acute bacterial infection (such as septicemia) or subacute endocarditis that would not resolved instantaneously.

Right, he can bring people back from the dead, and cure paralytics, but instantaneously curing septicemia is one step too far. Maybe instead of worrying about multi drug-resistant bacteria, we should be worried about those pesky Jesus-resistant bacteria.

As further "evidence" for their bacteria theory, these "scientists" consider whether the patient could be demon-possessed:

One final consideration that one might have is whether the illness was inflicted by a demon or devil. The Bible always tells if an illness is caused by a demon or devil (Matthew 9:18-25, 12:22, 9:32-33; Mark 1:23-26, 5:1-15, 9:17-29; Luke 4:33-35, 8:27-35, 9:38-43, 11:14). The victims often had what sounded like a convulsion when the demon was cast out. In our index case, demonic influence is not stated, and the woman had no apparent convulsion or residual symptomatology.

Does this mean to say that if the bible had said the woman was demon possessed that they would have to throw out their bacteria theory? Thus, I guess, accepting the possibility of demons as a scientific fact? Maybe the Virology Journal should at least skim the articles they publish.

(via Discover)

340: Super Apostles & 2 Corinthians: In Review

2010-08-11T22:50:00.001-04:00

2 Corinthians 10-13

"I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the 'super-apostles,' even though I am nothing." - 2 Corinthians 12:11

Paul really goes off the deep end today. This entire section seems like Paul got shitfaced and wrote the Corinthians an angry letter.

Like any drunk trying to write a letter, he starts out rather incoherently. Chapter 10 starts out with a long-winded appeal to the Corinthians to come back to Christ. If they are obedient, Paul says, they will be able to capture thoughts and make them obedient to God. And they will also be able to "punish" every act of disobedience. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he's speaking in metaphor, but I can't be quite sure that he hasn't just lost his mind.

This is my favorite part of the chapter:

I do not want to seem to be trying to frighten you with my letters. For some say, "His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing." Such people should realize that what we are in our letters when we are absent, we will be in our actions when we are present.

Christians seem to be big believers in the absolute truthfulness of eyewitness accounts. So listen to this eyewitness account, Paul in person is "unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing". Notice that Paul doesn't actually rebut this, he just tries to claim that people in writing are exactly like they are in person.

Paul spends the rest of the chapter trying to legitimize boasting (which he's going to do for the rest of 2 Corinthians). He says that while some boast with their own standards, Christians boast with God's standards. And when they boast, they "boast in the Lord". Of course, the Lord constantly tells us to be humble (both Yahweh and Jesus), so what makes Paul think God wouldn't tell him to shut the hell up?

Paul's opening to chapter 11 is priceless:

I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that.

Hell yeah we are.

Paul goes on to say that he's jealous for the Corinthians (with a "godly jealousy"), because he promised them to Christ as virgins. I haven't the faintest idea what Paul is talking about. Is he talking about mental virgins? Indeed he seems to be. Paul says that when someone comes to them and preaches Christ in a different way than he did, the Corinthians accept it.

Paul calls these other preachers "super-apostles". Is he being sarcastic? Is he talking about the real apostles (the twelve)? Either way, Paul says these super-apostles have led the Corinthians astray from their "pure devotion to Christ", thusly breaking their mental virginity (I guess).

Paul then brags about providing the gospel free of charge. But now that the Corinthians are failing to be good Christians, Paul says that he's "robbed" the other churches by taking their money to preach to the Corinthians free of charge. He would have been robbing them even if he did succeed with the Corinthians. After all, didn't the Corinthians then pay for Paul to go preach somewhere else? How is this "free of charge"?

Next, Paul says that he is going to start talking, not as the Lord would, but "as a fool". I thought he was already doing that (he just said he was). Paul says he's doing this because the only thing the Corinthians understand is foolishness.

What anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again.

He goes on for quite a while longer about how he was shipwrecked and beaten and how he has to worry about all of his churches all the time. This, I guess, makes him a superior Christ worshiper? Is Paul somehow showing the Corinthians what not to do? Is he being sarcastic? Or is he just lowering himself to their level in the hopes of their salvation? Either way, he comes off as a nut job (or "out of his mind" as Paul describes himself).

Chapter 12 is a continuation of the boasting, "although there is nothing to be gained" says Paul. Well I guess that throws out the theory that Paul is hoping for the Corinthian's salvation. Paul is now, self-admittedly, rambling on for no reason.

Paul decides to tell a story about a man he knew. This man, fourteen years ago, was taken up to the "third heaven". How many heavens are there? He says, in heaven, this man heard things that he is not permitted to tell. Paul says that he will only brag about this man, but not himself (as if he hasn't already been bragging about himself).

In order that Paul wouldn't be conceited (I think it's a little late to prevent that), Paul says that God sent him a messenger of Satan to be a thorn in his side. Paul pleaded for God to take the thorn away, but in the end Paul decided it was a good thing. Because "[God's] power is made perfect in weakness". For brevity's sake, we'll just pretend that makes sense.

In the last half of chapter 12 Paul rambles on about how the Corinthians should be grateful for hearing Paul's message, because Paul is much better than the super-apostles. I still don't know who these other apostles are, or if they're really super.

Paul starts chapter 13 by saying that this will be his third visit to the Corinthians. Wait, I thought he wasn't even going to visit them for the second time? We seem to have been severely left out of the loop here. Paul then randomly says that every matter "must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses". Is Jesus's appearance to Paul established by two or three witnesses?

The rest of chapter 13 (pretty short) is about testing yourself and making sure Jesus is really in you. Paul ends by saying that we should aim for perfection, and live in peace. Living in peace would probably be far easier if Paul had never written these letters.

2 Corinthians: In Review

There's not too much to add from the Romans/1 Corinthians review. Except maybe that Paul is even more obviously nuts.

Is this really a guy that you're willing to base your life on? A guy with no evidence of Jesus appearing to him. A former Pharisee that obviously denies some of Jesus's more loving attributes. A self contradictory bigot at every turn. What makes people think this guy is legit?

More an more every day I realize that there are followers of Paul all around me, rather than followers of Jesus. Instead of striving to be Christlike, they strive to be Paullike. That is, constantly bragging, conceited, bigoted, and half insane. Oh, and we can't forget homophobic, and women controlling (neither of which Jesus ever mentioned).

I think I could almost deal with people being like Jesus. Then we'd only have to worry about people trashing temples, stealing donkeys, drowning pigs, and maliciously killing fig trees.

*News*

Oh boy, let the twisting of Christopher Hitchens's words begin:

Hitchens is not an atheist, however. His agnosticism often seems to undo God, but he is admittedly incapable of doing so, merely limited as he is to undoing the legitimacy of divine spokespersons. He reveals his limits in this interview.

Link to the interview here, if you care to watch it, I warn you though that it's almost exactly like the CNN interview I already had on this blog.

The "limits" Hitchens reveals in the interview are the limits of not being able to disprove anything (except in mathematics). Yes, at some point you can't disprove God, just as you can't disprove invisible unicorns or floating teapots. That certainly doesn't make me an agnostic on the subject of invisible unicorns.

As he deals with the awful burden of esophagal cancer spreading through his lymph nodes, he is concerned about rumors of a death bed confession. He is trying to make clear to us what he believes before he is incapable of doing so later-on.

In fact, if you watch the interview, he clearly says he's not concerned. Perhaps he has reason to be concerned if people are already trying to twist his words to this extent.

Despite that over-arching political concern, Hitchens' first real philosophical assumption is that the universe exceeds in complexity, full human understanding. And so, uncertainty is inescapable. He did not discover the principle, he must concede to it. He also concedes the possibility of a prime mover.

Again the writer is quote mining. Like I just explained, I too concede the possibility of God, just like I concede the possibility of invisible unicorns. That still doesn't make me anything but an atheist. Or an agnostic atheist if you really want to get technical.

Hitchens mission against these taxing shepherds [priests] subverts his acceptance of new possibilities, however. He cannot know beforehand, what his death will or will not teach him.

I hope Hitchens recovers by whatever miracle or medicine. And I hope for Hitchens that he knows he is loved by the universe, as is my hunch.

I have a hunch that the writer of this article is an idiot trying to take advantage of someone's possibly imminent death. Fortunately, I don't make judgments about people, much less the universe, based on my hunches.

(via Irish Central)

339: Paul, Also a Socialist

2010-08-10T22:30:00.000-04:00

2 Corinthians 5-9

"At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality..." - 2 Corinthians 8:14

In the first part of chapter 5 Paul tells us that we all long to be "clothed with our heavenly dwelling". Maybe I would long for that if I had any idea what Paul was talking about. He then rambles on for awhile about how he would rather be dead and with the Lord.

Paul then says we shall no longer regard anyone from a "worldly" point of view. He says that we once regarded Christ as worldly, but we should regard him this way no longer. Jesus wasn't a worldly man? I thought that was the whole point. In fact, Paul is the one that said Jesus had to give a worldly sacrifice for our sins.

Paul ends all this babble with "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God". Jesus has no sin, therefore he is sin, therefore we're righteous? What? I think Paul had a little too much to drink before he drafted this letter.

Chapter 6 begins with Paul listing all of his hardships (and presumably that of the church, because he says "we"). This includes beating/imprisonment/sleepless nights/etc. Does this mean to say that Paul is writing this after he's imprisoned? I think I've given up trying to put a time frame on these letters. Paul ends by saying that the Corinthians are withholding affection from him.

We then come to the quote Pat Robertson used in yesterday's news story. "What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?". Paul doesn't necessarily refer to marriage, he just says that people should not be "yoked together" with unbelievers. If this is referring to marriage, Paul is contradicting himself. And not only himself, but Jesus. After all, Jesus hung out with all sorts of "sinners". It's interesting that Paul compares unbelievers to "Belial" (a demon). Jesus did cast out demons, but he never "cast out" unbelievers from his company.

Paul spends the entirety of chapter 7 saying that he's glad his letter effected the Corinthians negatively. This is because (Paul thinks) it's made them better people. Paul says that "Godly sorrow" leads to repentance.

Chapter 8 is all about giving. Paul talks about the poverty stricken Macedonians who, even though they were poor, gave more than they could afford to the church. Paul says that he is not commanding the Corinthians to do the same thing, but he wants to test the sincerity of their love by "comparing it to the earnestness of others". Allow me to paraphrase: "The poor Macedonians are out-giving you. Therefore they love Jesus more. What the hell is wrong with you?". I'm still not sure why everyone is giving to Jerusalem. Couldn't the Corinthian church do just as much good with the money?

Paul then says that he doesn't want the Corinthians to have hardship while he gives their money to someone who isn't in need. He just wants everyone to be equal. Isn't Paul doing just that? What great need is the church of Jerusalem in? Paul continues talking about these imaginary "in need" people. He says that the Corinthians should give to them when they are in need, so that they may receive money if they are ever in need themselves.

Again Paul repeats that all of this is in the quest for financial "equality". If there is a difference between this and Socialism, I don't see it. Of course, the church of Jerusalem isn't actually in need, so this is more like theocracy.

Paul ends chapter 8 by saying that he's going to send Titus to Corinth. I'm still not sure why he's not going himself.

Chapter 9 is again all about giving. This time Paul lays on the guilt even more heavily. He says that he's been boasting about the Corinthians to the poor Macedonians. He then says that he fears that one of these Macedonians may come to Corinth and find that he's been lying. In which case Paul would be ashamed that he'd been so confident of the Corinthians. Again, allow me to paraphrase: "If you don't give us a bunch of money, everyone is going to be ashamed of you".

Paul tells the Corinthians that those who sow generously will reap generously. This is starting to sound like some bad Ponzi scheme. Is Paul really implying that the Corinthians are going to get back any of the money they're giving? Or maybe he's talking about "spiritual" rewards (even though this would contradict what he's said before).

Paul even has the gall to say "God loves a cheerful giver". If you buy that, you should cheerfully give me all your money. Of course, it's not me that wants you to give me your money, it's God. This is blatant exploitation of Jesus's order to give away all your money.

*News*

We have yet another person saying I can't possibly understand the bible, because I don't believe:

These days it seems that every time you turn around you hear another nonsensical leftist "interpretation" of the Holy Scriptures. Where is all this hermeneutical wackiness coming from? Maybe from people who literally cannot grasp God's written message. I'm using the term "disbeliever" here to mean someone actively opposed to the Biblical Jesus, as distinguished from someone without Christ but not openly hostile to Him.

Incidentally, "nonsensical leftist interpretation" is exactly the way I would describe Paul's letters.

The Bible is a big book, and people who aren't interested in hearing what God has to say aren't likely to take time to read the whole thing. But quoting a verse without knowing its context is like the squawking of a parrot. Polly can mimic the sounds of speech, but you can't carry on a conversation with her. The disbeliever can copy and paste verses, but the meaning is opaque to him (though he insists he sees it perfectly).

My favorite part of finishing the bible will be never having to hear this argument again. Not to give any credence to the argument. Reading the bible all the way through, admittedly, is a rather momentous task that most people just don't have the time (or the patience) for. So all Christians have to do is say that you have to read the entire thing to make sense out of even one small portion, and they can "win" any biblical argument. This is, of course, terribly intellectually dishonest, but it doesn't keep nearly every Christian I've ever met from using it.

When such a bird lights upon a sentence like, "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities" (Romans 13:1a), he's likely to create an instant doctrine: "Shut up and pay your taxes." He doesn't know that the Apostle who penned those words was executed for disobeying the governing authorities.

Wait, what? That passage had nothing to do with paying your taxes. The point of that passage is that God appoints the rulers, so to disobey the ruler is to disobey God, which will bring "judgement" upon you. And Paul was imprisoned because he was falsely accused of breaking Jewish law (not the Roman government's law). Talk about taking something out of context. I decided to try to Google how Paul died, just to make sure he didn't somehow rebel against the Roman government before his death (after all, I haven't read that far yet), and I found this on Wikipedia:

Neither the Bible nor other history says how or when Paul died. According to Christian tradition, Paul was beheaded in Rome during the reign of Nero around the mid-60s...

How can I be taking something "out of context" when it's not even in the bible?

I could write a letter to my cat, including the word "TUNA" in great big letters, and he probably wouldn't respond at all. Some human-feline communication is possible (or so I've been told), but this isn't the right approach. Communication must be adapted to the species.

Disbelievers are the wrong species to get a written message from God. To think about it from the other perspective, God would be sending Morse Code to turtles if He tried to get a complex message to scoffers. The disbeliever is still Man, Version 1.1. — the model with the Fatal Error. The believer is Man, 2.0. "Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature" (2 Corinthians 5:17) — he is a new kind of being.

If critical thinking is a fatal error, then yes I'm full of errors. This is another argument that attempts to avoid obvious biblical contradictions. If someone says "in order to understand my holy book, you have to first believe with all your heart that everything it says is true" then run away. Nothing honest and "obviously" truthful should ever require that you already believe it.

In His terrifying way, as He did when He hardened Pharaoh's heart, the Almighty is honoring the disbeliever's wish for God to "go away," by solidifying that decision. The scoffer waving the Bible is claiming knowledge that he has pointedly refused: the knowledge of God. That's what the Bible gives. That's what the disbeliever will not, and therefore cannot, have.

How can someone wish for something he/she doesn't believe in to "go away". In fact, if God exists he has my personal invitation for tea at my place whenever he'd like it. I tend not to have ill will towards things that don't exist.

Someone will say that I'm proclaiming a "Secret Decoder Ring" theology. And in a way, that's true. No competent General announces his plans to the other side. But God in His goodness and love has given each human being a decoder ring. You have one, believer. You have one, too, unbeliever. Disbeliever, you have the very same secret decoder ring I do.

That ring is your will.

All you have to do is turn it.

I've seen people using this decoder ring. I think all the decoder ring does is blind people to obvious contradiction. Sorry, changing my will would require that I have evidence a change is necessary.

(via Renew America)

338: Give Them to Satan or Not?

2010-08-09T22:15:00.000-04:00

2 Corinthians 1-4

"When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord." - 1 Corinthians 5:4-5

"If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes." - 2 Corinthians 2:10-11

After Paul's long introduction to this second letter, he tells the Corinthians that the church is having problems in Asia. In fact, Paul goes so far as to say that "We are under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure". What happened to "God doesn't give anyone more than they can handle"? Paul ends this by saying he needs the Corinthian's prayers, so that God may more readily assist them in Asia.

Paul spends the rest of the first chapter, and the beginning of the second, explaining why he won't be able to make a second visit to Corinth. I say he "explains" but in the end I'm not really sure why he doesn't make the second visit. He rambles on for awhile about the answers to all promises being "yes" through Christ. Except, apparently, for Paul's promise to return to Corinth. The only reason he gives for not visiting is that he was "sparing" the Corinthians another visit from him.

Next Paul tells the Corinthians that, if they have forgiven anyone, Paul forgives them too. Of course, if they had followed Paul's previous letters they would have thrown people that needed forgiven into the clutches of Satan. Anyway, I thought Jesus had already forgiven everyone, regardless of Paul's approval.

Chapter 3 is about how the glory of Jesus must be more glorious than the glory of Moses. This, Paul would contend, logically follows, because the glory of Moses only brought destruction but the glory of Jesus brings life. Paul's ramblings seem to get more vacuous every day.

In chapter 4 Paul repeats that God has blinded some from the message of Jesus. Some get personal visits from Jesus (like Paul), while others are intentionally blinded from seeing the message of Jesus? Why?

Paul ends the chapter by saying that we should focus on things that are unseen, rather than things that are seen. "For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal". Incidentally, things that are unseen are also sometimes nonexistent.

*News*

What does Pat Robertson think women should do with their committed boyfriends who just happen to be atheists:

Christ didn't have fellowship with people that believed differently than he did? What bible is that in?

This is reason #5382 that you shouldn't be taking relationship advice from Pat Robertson. It's interesting that Pat still goes the "it's never going to work" route, when the woman said that her and her boyfriend had been together for four years. It obviously seems to be working enough for them to stay together for four years.

By the way, Paul mentions interfaith marriages (1 Corinthians 7:12-13). In fact, he specifically mentions that people should not get a divorce in marriages where one spouse is a nonbeliever. He also says that the believing spouse "sanctifies" the unbelieving one. First, Paul is acknowledging that these marriages exist. And second he is giving his de facto approval to them by saying that they should not end in divorce.

Does Pat bother to read his bible between his bouts of vitriol?

(via Seattle Weekly)

337: Dead Seeds Grow & 1 Corinthians: In Review

2010-08-08T22:30:00.000-04:00

1 Corinthians 15-16

"But someone may ask, 'How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?' How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body." - 1 Corinthians 15:35-38

In the beginning of chapter 15, Paul feels the need to remind the Corinthians what the gospel is. As usual, he takes some liberties with the storytelling. He first tells them that Jesus died, was buried, and was resurrected. He ends all of these assertions with "according to the scriptures". Paul then says that Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at the same time. He, for good reason, doesn't end this with "according to the scriptures" because it's according to no scripture that I know of.

"Five hundred eyewitnesses" is often cited as conclusive evidence of Jesus's resurrection. Unfortunately it seems that Paul has just completely made this up. There's also the strange assertion by some apologetics that if the Corinthians didn't believe Paul, they could just go ask some of those other witnesses (that Paul says are mostly still alive). They seem to forget that Corinth is over 800 miles away from Jerusalem. I doubt anyone from the Corinthian church swung by Jerusalem to crosscheck Paul's sources. Even if they had, what would they have found? You'd think the twelve would have mentioned these 500 people in their own gospels if they had existed.

Paul next tries to convince people of the resurrection. Apparently some in the Corinthian church don't believe in resurrection, yet still believe in Jesus. Paul rightly says that the story of Christ doesn't make much sense without the resurrection. Paul asks the Corinthians, "Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?".

I'd never heard of this, but apparently people used to (and still do in LDS churches) baptize themselves to give the dead some sort of by-proxy salvation. Far from denouncing this practice, Paul uses it as a main point in his argument. Paul's "approval" of this after-death baptism is a fairly controversial topic, and I've found several websites doing some wild mental gymnastics to get out of Paul's endorsement. After all, if after-death baptism is illegitimate (in the eyes of Paul) why is he using it to legitimize his argument?

Paul then says something strange (he still seems to be on the topic of resurrection), "I die every day - I mean that, brothers - just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord". Is he still talking about bodily resurrection? Is he claiming that he dies every day and is resurrected? This is another rather controversial internet topic. Some say that he meant that every day he recommits himself to Christ, while others say that Paul was referring to the possibility of his martyrdom. Both of these turn Paul's words into a metaphor (and take him way out of context), which really doesn't seem like what he's trying to do here. If he's speaking in metaphor why would he say that he means this just as surely as he means that he glories over them with Christ Jesus. Does he metaphorically glory over them?

Paul's argument just goes down hill from there. Paul says that some ask him "How are the dead raised?". In response to this, he says that seeds must die before they grow. This echoes Jesus's message from the book of John. Needless to say, seeds don't die before they grow (though they may appear to). Again, God (who supposedly inspired this writing through the Holy Spirit) seems to forget some fairly basic things about his creations.

The rest of the chapter is spent talking about how your earthly flesh will be different than your resurrected flesh.

In chapter 16 Paul tells the Corinthians to do what he told the Galatians to do in respect to money collection. There's a couple of things wrong with this. First, why did the compilers of the bible put Corinthians and Galatians so obviously out of order (the book of Galatians is right after 2 Corinthians). And second, why is Paul bothering to tell the Corinthians to do what the Galatians did? How are the Corinthians supposed to know what he's talking about?

In the end Paul just explains what he wants the Corinthians to do. He basically tells them to have their money ready when he gets there so he doesn't have to go around collecting. Paul says that he will send messengers back to Jerusalem with the money. What's so special about Jerusalem? Couldn't the Corinthian church put the money to good use? The early church seems more and more like the Catholic church every day.

Paul ends his letter (like in Romans) with some irrelevant greetings/personal requests. But it's in the bible, so it must have some profound meaning that I'm missing.

1 Corinthians: In Review

Paul's influence on modern Christianity continues to surprise me. From the "body of Christ" concept, to waiting for everyone to arrive before eating a meal. Paul's influence seems to be everywhere. Unfortunately, Paul also seems to have his hand in the Christian subjugation of women (think pre-WWII), and the ostracism of "sinners" by telling the church to cast them out.

My objection to Paul is still the same. Aside from his own testimony he isn't legitimized by anything. Even the apostles only reluctantly allowed him to stay in Jerusalem. It's sad that the message of Jesus, which I might be talked into considering "good" for his time, is being so utterly corrupted by Paul.

Jesus, who didn't have much to say about women, is somehow trumped by Paul who says what women should be subservient to men. Jesus, who never condemned homosexuals, is trumped by Paul who says they should be expelled from church as "sinners".

Christians tout Paul as a perfect convert to Christianity. But some of these seemingly un-Jesus (for lack of a better adjective) concepts seem to stem directly from the ideas of the Pharisees, which Paul was before he was a convert. After all, subjugating women and the condemnation of homosexuals is an idea directly out of the Old Testament. It seems a little ridiculous to point out that the New Testament condemns homosexuals, based on the ramblings of a former Pharisee.

Christians would do well to recall that they belong to "Christianity" not "Paulianity".

*News*

This article is all about how we should be inspired by none other than Paul. This should be good:

The Apostle Paul wanted everybody to know about Jesus Christ, the anointed One. After all, Paul's life was totally transformed by Jesus. Through his own personal experience, Paul knew that Jesus was the only Savior and hope for mankind. Having tormented Christians, bringing many to death, Paul understood that the change within his own life, had to be supernatural and real.

Why don't I get a Jesus visit? The answer I always get from this is, "If you were visited by Jesus then you wouldn't have to have faith". Paul is allowed to be completely faithless, but I'm not? It doesn't seem very godlike for Jesus to give eternal salvation to some (through personal appearances) but not others ("others" being pretty much everyone else). Maybe I just haven't sent enough Christians to their deaths like Paul.

In a world of instant pudding, fast foods, DSL, and all the other convenient "fast" things available to us, people in our culture often forget about commitment. Frequently those who do make radical changes, because of their commitment to Christ, are labeled fanatics. That can actually be a compliment, because according to the dictionary, "fanatics simply are persons marked and motivated by a cause." Commitment is also a positive thing, and is described as "a pledge to do state of being bound emotionally or intellectually, to a course of action or to another person or persons."

Yes, it's the instant pudding and DSL (wait, DSL is fast?) that's made me unable to commit to Jesus. And fanatics are "marked and motivated by a cause", but they also occasionally fly planes into buildings. I don't think you're being complimented.

Paul most assuredly knew that following Jesus Christ, would take total commitment. He was not one to "water down" truth. Unfortunately many people are hearing a different Gospel today. Jesus is the only One that brings us to God. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6 KJV) Jesus also stated, "Anyone who puts a hand to the plow, and then looks back is not fit for the Kingdom of God." (Luke 9:62 NLT)

Paul didn't "water down" the truth, he just plain old made shit up. It's interesting to see that the second quote (Luke 9:62) is widely accepted. The context of this was that a potential follower of Jesus wanted to "look back" and say goodbye to his family. Jesus responds by saying that he cannot even say goodbye without being made unfit for the Kingdom of God. I'm not sure how this "screw your family" message is useful for converting people (which this article is surely trying to do).

I want everybody to know, that Jesus died on that cruel cross, just for you. You can receive Jesus as your Savior and Lord right now. When you pray with all of your heart, He hears and answers. Jesus will never turn you away, as you come to Him with a sincere heart, with a decision to follow Him all the days of your life. "and the one who comes to Me, I will certainly not cast out." (John 6:37 NAS)

Just for me? Well I guess everyone else is in trouble. "Jesus will never turn you away", except for in the quote the writer just mentioned where Jesus says that you're not fit for the Kingdom of God if you want to go say goodbye to your family.

If my world of instant pudding and DSL has taught me anything, it's to not commit your life to something that seems blatantly contradictory and false.

(via Daily News)

336: Women Shouldn't Speak in Church

2010-08-07T20:00:00.001-04:00

1 Corinthians 12-14

"...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." - 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Chapter 12 starts with Paul explaining that everyone won't have the same spiritual gifts. Some will speak in tongues, and some will be able to heal, while still others will be able to prophecy. Interestingly, Jesus says that those who believe will receive all these gifts at once (Mark 16:17-18). The plot thickens, though, because this is one of those sections in Mark that the NIV says wasn't there in the first manuscripts. Is fake-Jesus, or makes-up-random-shit-Paul a more legitimate source of truth?

Chapter 12 ends with a long section about all believers being one part of the body of Jesus. All believers, says Paul, are different, but they are all exactly the way that God wants them to be (that they may fit into the body of Christ). This is obviously why the idea of people being born gay is so abhorrent to Christians.

Chapter 13 is about love. Paul says that all the gifts of the spirit are useless without love. What he has to say about love is relatively famous (it's quoted in several bad romantic comedies, and thusly requoted on Facebook ad nauseam), I'll quote it:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

I certainly can't criticize the message, and I can see why it fits so well with a romantic comedy (even though Paul isn't talking about romantic love). But I'd like to compare Paul's ideal love with the love of our "all loving" God.

Love is patient: I wouldn't call God particularly "patient". But the argument could be made that he was "patient" with the Israelites, even though he rather seemed to enjoy killing them off. The real question is, what does patience even mean to a timeless being? Can something be patient if it can't experience time?

Love is kind: Of course, one would need to properly define "kind" before you could make an argument for or against God's kindness. But I would hope that we can all agree that killing women and children for the crimes of others doesn't qualify. Or how about leaving Adam and Eve to the temptation of the serpent, thereby dooming all of humanity for the rest of time. That doesn't sound very kind either.

Love does not envy, boast, and is not proud: This is where God really begins to fail. The God of the bible is, as he admits, a jealous God (which I think is a pretty solid synonym for "envious"). God boasts of his wonderfulness almost constantly in the Old Testament. And God is certainly proud (otherwise he wouldn't boast so much). In fact, I am unable to find but a couple books of the Old Testament that aren't God constantly boasting about how wonderful he is. This may be deservedly, after all if you create the universe you probably deserve to boast a little. But surely the point Paul is trying to make is that you don't boast even if you deserve to, everyone can boast about something.

Love is not self-seeking or easily angered: God is the epitome of self-seeking. He created mankind that we may worship him constantly. God, at least in my opinion, is easily angered. Even if he's not easily angered, when he does get angered he ends up killing off entire societies.

The last, and best, one I'm going to talk about; Love keeps no record of wrongs: Again, God is the epitome of keeping records of wrongs. Humanity is still being punished for Adam and Eve's wrongdoing.

Someone please explain to me how God is "all loving". God doesn't even meet the definition of a little loving (according to Paul).

Paul ends chapter 13 by saying that there are three things: faith, hope, and love. Among these, love is the greatest. How is this true? If you are only full of love (with no faith or hope), God will have no qualms about throwing you into an eternity of hellfire. The same can be said about hope. Why wouldn't Paul say that faith (i.e. the way to eternal salvation) is the greatest?

Chapter 14, for the most part, is about Paul explaining how the gift of prophecy is greater than the gift of speaking in tongues. Paul explains that speaking in tongues really doesn't get you anywhere, because nobody has any idea what you're saying. Prophesying, on the other hand, will gain you much more followers. Even though Paul says speaking in tongues isn't very important, he doesn't pass up the opportunity to rub in how great he is at it: "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you".

The last part of chapter 14 is about orderly worship. He says at most three people should speak at one time (this is "orderly"?). Paul then says that all women must remain silent in church. If they have a question about anything, they should wait till they get home and ask their husbands (who somehow have the answers to all life's questions). This is because it's disgraceful for a woman to speak in church. I've been to church, this command is not followed at all.

This command, of course, seems ridiculous in modern times. But it's in the bible. Why aren't churches following this like they do the abolition of homosexuality? I've heard several explanations for Paul's abolition of women speaking in churches, ranging from "this command was only for the Corinthians" to "it really just means that women shouldn't interrupt in church". It's very clear that Paul is giving general guidelines for how a church should be run, not specifically a Corinthian church. And the second argument just isn't in the bible. Paul clearly says that it's disgraceful for a woman to speak, at all, in church. Can we call the bible, or at least Paul, outdated yet?

*News*

Christopher Hitchens gave his first interview since his diagnosis. If you don't want to sit through the whole 9 minutes, fast forward to the 8 minute mark (if you want to watch more than 9 minutes, hit the link at the bottom for the unedited interview).

There it is, there will be no death bed conversion. Even if there is a deathbed "conversion", Hitchens himself is denying that he would ever say that in a lucid state of mind. Maybe now I'll stop getting Google alerts every day with random people just sure that Hitchens is going to find Jesus.

(via CNN [full interview])

335: Women Must Cover Their Heads

2010-08-06T23:10:00.000-04:00

1 Corinthians 9-11

"If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." - 1 Corinthians 11:6-7

Paul starts chapter 9 by again asserting that he is an Apostle (i.e. one of the twelve), and saying that he's seen Jesus. Both of these claims are only backed up by his own eyewitness account. I've said this before and I'll say it again, by Paul's definition of apostleship, anyone could claim they've seen Jesus, write a few letters, and then expect to be taken seriously by everyone for the next 2000 years.

Paul goes on to say that those who spread the gospel should expect material reward for their efforts. He says in the same way that those who spread seed expect to reap profits, that those who spread the gospel should expect to reap rewards. This, indeed, seems to be the philosophy that the twelve are currently operating under. Considering they get all the money from the church and decide when/where to distribute it. But does this, in any way, align with the message of Jesus? The Jesus who blatantly told everyone to give away all their money? I think not.

Paul then immediately contradicts himself by saying that he's not taking any of these "expected" rewards, because doing so would be "discharging the trust committed to [him]". So which is it Paul? Is taking material reward for preaching the gospel a violation of trust, or an expected reward for a job well done?

Chapter 9 ends with Paul saying that he acts the way the Jews act, to win the Jews, and he acts the way the weak act, to win the weak, and so on. This surely inspired St. Ambrose's, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" some 300 years later.

The next chapter starts with Paul telling us that when God killed people in the Old Testament, it was as a warning to us. A warning of what? That he's going to start killing again? Again, Paul is unable to go more than a paragraph without contradicting himself and says, "God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear." God warns us about things that he is going to prevent us from being overly tempted by?

This saying, ("God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear") is pretty similar to "God doesn't give people more than they can handle", which is by far the most infuriating saying in modern Christendom. Why are there hoards of people going to hell (at least from the Christian perspective) every day, if God doesn't tempt us more than we can handle? In fact, from the Christian perspective, the only message some people get their entire life is the message of "temptation" (i.e. Islam, Confucianism, or any other religion that isn't Christianity).

Paul then says that we shouldn't eat food sacrificed to idols. But only if the person giving you the food tells you it's a sacrifice. This is because you're refraining from eating the food for his sake, not your own. I guess eating food after someone says it's been sacrificed to an idol somehow legitimizes the sacrifice?

Chapter 11 is where things really get bad for Paul. I'll let the first few sentences speak for themself:

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved.

First of all, I thought God and Jesus were one being? How can something be the head of itself? Second, and more importantly, this whole paragraph is completely out of touch with modern reality. All woman have to pray with their head covered? The head of all women is men? This is another great example of Christians completely disregarding some teachings in the bible (women have to have their heads covered), while completely embracing others (homosexuality is wrong).

The section just goes down hill from there. Paul goes on to say that men shouldn't cover their heads, because they are the glory of God, and women should because they are the glory of men. Paul then says, "For this reason, and because of the angels, the women ought to have a sign of authority on her head". Because of the angels? Does it make angels sad when women aren't subjugated?

Paul then tells us to judge for ourselves if it is right for a woman to have her head uncovered. What happened to objective morality? He seems to assume that we will all come to the same conclusion, though, because he says, "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?". Yeah, those guys with long hair are disgraceful and generally abhorrent to nature:

Oops, sorry Jesus (yes, I realize Jesus probably didn't have long hair). In any case, this is all completely objective. What is "long hair"? Since we are given no concise definition, I could easily define "long" as going down to your ankles.

The rest of chapter 11 is about not eating meals until everyone arrives. This is because that's not the way they did it at the last supper. Paul also says that if you haven't properly thought about the sacrifice of Jesus before you take the sacrament, you are condemning yourself.

*News*

I would hope by now that everyone has heard of the reversal of Prop 8 by a California district judge. I knew it wouldn't take too long for some fundie to try to use the bible/religion as a rational basis for the rejection of gay marriage. Well, here it is, and from the Washington Post no less:

The decision called California citizens' decision to define marriage as "irrational," which suggests that their decision was absurd and beyond the pale. What's really irrational is the judge's dismissal of marriage between a man and a woman - the basic bedrock of our society - as if it were some kookie idea. What's irrational is his ignoring the will of the people with real life experience of marriage, who have voted down gay marriage not only in California, but throughout the United States whenever legalization of gay marriage has been put to a vote.

...

What is even more irrational is the judge's dismissal of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment and Freedom of Religion with these damning words: "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians."

First of all I don't have the slightest clue why this is an issue that should be up for a majority vote. No rights issue, from the abolition of slavery to the allowance of interracial marriage has been (or should have been) up for a majority vote. And if they had been they would have surely been rejected by the majority. Second, how is the judge "rejecting" marriage between a man and a woman? Allowing gay people to marry doesn't "reject" straight marriage any more than allowing women to vote "rejects" the vote of a man. Finally, why is this a violation of freedom of religion? Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to push your religion on minorities. Or freedom to impose your religious morality on everyone through state law.

Imagine if it were acceptable to push biblical morality on the government for any other situation. Should we disallow men having long hair because Paul calls it abhorrent to nature? Why is it that no judge would ever be condemned for upholding the right for men to have long hair? Surely this would be the same kind of religious "bigotry" that this judge committed when upholding the right of gay marriage.

The judge's placing religion and government at odds amounts to Constitutional irrationality. It is no small irony that his anti-religious position is enshrined in a ruling deemed to oppose bigotry. The U.S. Constitution guarantees citizens freedom for religion. That precludes government from weighing in on the "acceptability" of religious beliefs.

The government can absolutely weigh in on the "acceptability" of a religious belief when someone makes it into a law and gives it to a federal judge. Again, this argument wouldn't hold water for any other biblical morality. By the way, that's freedom of religion, not freedom for religion. If it was freedom for religion we would have to divide our states based on theological leaning. You can't possibly make a law that would satisfy all religions simultaneously.

Judge Walker devoted three pages of his decision to make his case for the bigotry of religion, an insult to the tens of millions of religious people in the nation. This is not to deny that some people act despicably and portray their bigotry against gays as religious expression. So too do those who spew anti-immigrant, anti-woman, and anti-whatever sentiments. They're an unfortunate result of our human condition that lets the morally weak, even morally decrepit, walk among us. Bigoted people are an unfortunate result but not a reason to upend the U.S. Constitution.

It seems that the writer of this article thinks that federal judges are not even allowed to mention religion in a negative light. I assure you that the U.S. Constitution says nothing about what the attitudes of judges should be. The true upending of the Constitution would be to allow religious organizations to dictate what should be made law.

(via The Washington Post)

334: Give Him to Satan, That his Spirit May be Saved

2010-08-05T20:00:00.001-04:00

1 Corinthians 5-8

Paul really loses it today.

The first thing he says to the Corinthians is that he's heard about sexual immorality among them. The sexual immorality being that men have been sleeping with their fathers' wives (aka their mothers?). He goes on to say that, instead of being in fellowship with these men, they should hand them over to Satan that their sinful nature will be destroyed and their spirit will be saved. Wait. What? Send them to Satan so their spirit will be saved? Now Satan is saving people's souls? I must be missing something here.

This is not to mention that Paul has just spent numerous chapters saying that people shouldn't judge each other because everyone is a sinner. In fact, if you judge someone for a sin you're probably doing the sin yourself (says Paul). Now we're not only supposed to judge the person, but we're supposed to personally deliver him to Satan?

Paul then says that he's written that it's ok to hang out with people that are immoral. But now, says Paul, "I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat." This is most definitely a verse that Christians have intentionally passed over (and probably for good reason, considering Jesus would not have approved). You're not even supposed to eat with sinners? One of Jesus's main messages was that it was ok to be around sinners (he did it himself all the time).

In the beginning of chapter 6 Paul tells the Corinthians that they shouldn't take their disputes before civil courts, but they should judge among themselves. We know how well that worked out with the Catholic church.

Paul then continues his completely anti-Jesus rant: "Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." He goes on to say that that's what some of them were until they found Jesus, but now they're somehow cured of their nastiness. I thought it was all about believing in Jesus, not your actions. After all, Paul just said that we're all sinners, but we'll be saved through salvation in Jesus. Contradictions abound.

The last part of chapter 6 is about how terrible sexual immorality is. Paul says that all other sins are outside the body, but sexual immorality is against the body. This is especially terrible because our bodies are temples to the Holy Spirit. I guess we all have the Holy Spirit now?

Chapter 7 is long and repetitive. Paul says that divorce is terrible, and once a man and a woman are married, they should stay together forever. He then says if a man is married to a non-believing woman, or vice versa, then the non-believing spouse is sanctified through the believing spouse. Does this mean all non-believing spouses go to heaven?

Paul then lays down an interesting rule, he says that if a man is already circumcised, then he should not be uncircumcised when he comes to Jesus, and vice versa. I didn't realize it was possible to uncircumcise someone.

Paul spends the rest of the chapter explaining that it's a far more noble position to remain unmarried. The only reason you should get married is if, as a result of not getting married, you would have to give into lust and sin.

The entirety of chapter 8 is Paul trying to overturn the Apostles decision on eating meat sacrificed to idols. He again says that it doesn't matter what a man eats, even if it's food sacrificed to idols. Who the hell does Paul think he is? What gives Paul the authority to overturn a decision made by the twelve? Paul's only source of authority seems to come from his own over sized ego.

*News*

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this article:

Sometimes I wonder what it's like to be an atheist. We all know an atheist is a person who does not believe in God.

A lot of atheists have their own reasons why they do not believe in God including parents who never brought them to church. The parents may be believers of God but the simple act of not bringing the child to church puts this non-belief in them.

Oh no, not this again. I thought I didn't believe in God because I'm a rebellious teenager, or I have deep seated father issues that I don't know about. Anyway, go on:

I once stayed in an atheist's house when I went to another place for a few days. It was interesting experience to go to a non-believer's house because the atheist housed us, fed us, treated us very well, talked with us, and made sure our stay was very comfortable. These are basic values that any person has around the world.

They gave you food? They talked to you? Someone find out who this is and take away their atheist card!

Was this person expecting to be beaten and thrown into the iron barred dungeon that every atheist has? This is what happens when biblical illogic (i.e. all atheists are nasty, immoral people) meets reality. People generally treat guests with basic hospitality, whether they're Christians, Jews, Muslims, or atheists. I'm shocked that this is news.

I could swear by the atheist's actions that he believed in God.

Even without God, the basic premise of being a good person was written all over him. This guy did not drink, get violent, treated his wife and child well.

You mean, morality isn't based on the illogical belief in an inherently unfalsifiable God? This is a classic case of why it's important that atheists make themselves known. This person had someone in their life tell them that atheists were nasty, terrible people (it could have been the bible), only an atheist can break that stereotype. Harvey Milk said it about the gay rights movement, but it seems to apply here:

Come out to your neighbors... to your fellow workers... to the people who work where you eat and shop... come out only to the people you know, and who know you. Not to anyone else. But once and for all, break down the myths, destroy the lies and distortions. For your sake. For their sake. For the sake of the youngsters...

(via The Tundra Drums)

333: The Easy Way, or The Hard Way

2010-08-04T22:15:00.000-04:00

1 Corinthians 1-4

"What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a whip, or in love and with a gentle spirit?" - 1 Corinthians 4:21

Just what we always wanted, more of Paul's ranting.

Paul writes this letter to the Corinthians because he hears that there are divisions among them. Some of them say they follow Apollos, some say Paul, and others say Jesus. Paul says that he (or is this some other Paul?) was not crucified for their sins, so they shouldn't follow him.

Paul goes on to say that, for those who don't believe, the message of Christ is foolishness. This is because God says, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise". Is God sending people to hell again? Indeed, Paul says that only those chosen by God can see that the message of Christ is not foolishness. It seems the New Testament has only changed when God punishes people for no reason, not if.

He then goes on to insult the intelligence of the early church. He says that when these people were called by God, they were not wise by human standards. In fact, God specifically chose these people because God wants to use the foolish things of this world to shame the wise. So God is letting stupid people into heaven, and letting the smart ones go to hell, just for the sick satisfaction of "shaming the wise"? Is this the same being I'm supposed to believe is "all loving"?

In chapter 2 Paul backs up a little. He says that the followers of Christ really do speak in wisdom. But it's secret God wisdom, that nobody but them understands. That's a pretty convenient type of wisdom that doesn't have to be very wise.

Paul then says something that I'd be shocked if some Priest hasn't latched onto, "The spiritual man makes judgement about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgement". What happened to "judge not lest ye be judged"? I think this should from now on be known as the "hypocrisy approved" clause of the bible.

Chapter 3 is all about laying your metaphorical foundation with Jesus. Because if you lay your foundation with Silver or Gold your house will surely be burned. I guess in metaphor land, Silver and Gold are highly flammable while Jesus is fireproof.

In chapter 4 Paul says that the Corinthians have become wealthy kings, while Paul is the scum of the earth (which is a good thing, of course). He then says that he's sending Timothy to re-educate them in the ways of Jesus. Finally, he urges the Corinthians to become more like him.

*News*

All atheists are just rebellious teenagers! It must be true, because this guy wrote a book about it:

A professor of philosophy and religion at Taylor University in Upland, Ind., Spiegel has written a 130-page book, The Making of an Atheist, in response to the New Atheists. But unlike the numerous responses that have emerged from Christian apologists, Spiegel's book focuses on the moral-psychological roots of atheism.

While atheists insist that their foundational reason for rejecting God is the problem of evil or the scientific irrelevance of the supernatural, the Christian philosopher says the argument is "only a ruse" or "a conceptual smoke screen to mask the real issue – personal rebellion."

Of course, with this explanation he doesn't actually have to bother answering the problem of evil or addressing the lack of evidence for God. This is not to mention that a good portion of the atheists I know (including me) weren't raised in religious homes. What am I rebelling against?

He admits that it could appear unseemly or offensive to suggest that a person's lack of belief in God is a form of rebellion. But he said in a recent interview with the Evangelical Philosophical Society that he was compelled to write the book because he is convinced that "it is a clear biblical truth."

Ok, let me just get this straight. His argument is that atheists can't possibly have a legitimate reason to say the bible isn't true, because the bible says so? Scientology and Pastafarianism say the exact same thing, I think the writer is just rebelling against their perfect revelations. But don't stop reading yet, he's got anecdotal evidence!

Spiegel, who converted to Christianity in 1980, has witnessed the pattern among several of his friends. Their path from Christianity to atheism involved: moral slippage (such as infidelity, resentment or unforgiveness); followed by withdrawal from contact with fellow believers; followed by growing doubts about their faith, accompanied by continued indulgence in the respective sin; and culminating in a conscious rejection of God.

That's a fun theory, but I've got some bad news. If you're consciously rejecting God (i.e. you acknowledge that he exists but reject him anyway) you're not an atheist. He seems to be accusing all atheists of not actually being atheists. But wait, there's more:

"It appears that the psychological fallout from a defective father must be combined with rebellion – a persistent immoral response of some sort, such as resentment, hatred, vanity, unforgiveness, or abject pride. And when that rebellion is deep or protracted enough, atheism results," Spiegel explains.

In essence, "atheists ultimately choose not to believe in God," the author maintains, and "this choice does not occur in a psychological vacuum."

If anything, wouldn't the lack of a father make you seek (read: "make up") a new father (God)? Why would the lack of a father make you want to be extra fatherless? Not that having a father has anything to do with atheism. Of course atheists, at some point, choose not to believe in God. Just like, at some point, all Christians consciously choose to believe in God.

All of this makes for a very convenient conclusion for Christians, where they don't actually have to address any of the concerns of atheists (as he mentioned, the problem of evil and the lack of evidence). If my position is so obviously indefensible, give me some logical reason to be a Christian.

(via The Christian Post)

332: Eat What You Want & Romans: In Review

2010-08-03T21:55:00.000-04:00

Romans 14-16

"As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean." - Romans 14:14

Chapter 14 is again about not judging other people. Paul says that everyone's faith is different, and some people's faith allow them to do some things, while other's faith disallow the same thing. I'm really not sure what he's trying to say here. There are different rules for different people? The example he gives is that if one man's faith is strong, he can eat all kinds of food. While if another man's faith is weak he can only eat vegetables. How strong does your faith have to be to be gay?

He goes on to randomly say that, as someone who is in Jesus, that he doesn't believe anything is unclean to eat. What happened to Jesus not erasing any of the laws of the Old Testament? And what happened to not being a "slave" to sin? If we can disregard dietary laws why can't we disregard everything else? This is also contrary to the Apostles' letter to the gentiles saying they couldn't eat strangled animals, or animals sacrificed to idols.

Paul then clarifies that if you have doubts about what you're eating, then you are condemned. But if you eat with faith then you'll be fine. So you just have to be fully convinced what you're doing is right, then that makes it right?

Chapter 15 is all about Jews and Gentiles accepting each other because they all have Jesus in common. Paul also talks about his plan to visit Rome. Now I'm really confused about when Paul is writing this (not that it matters that much).

The entirety of chapter 16 (almost) is just Paul listing people that he wants to greet in Rome. Paul also says to watch out for people that are contrary to the teachings of Jesus, and to keep away from them. Wait a minute, how do you decide that they're doing something contrary to Jesus? Didn't we just talk about not ever judging someone, and how some people's standards are different based on their level of faith? Jesus spoke in parables, Paul speaks in contradictions.

*News*

Romans really starts to look like what I would call stereotypical "Christianity". That is, disregard random Old Testament laws, talk about sexual uncleanliness, talk about Jesus's salvation of humanity, etc.

Romans is interesting, though, in that it doesn't necessarily claim to be divine revelation. It's merely Paul's observation through the Holy Spirit. But with this criteria, any modern Christian (who is supposed to be endowed with the Holy Spirit) could write a letter and it would be just as legitimate as Paul's. That would be like putting Billy Graham's column into a book and calling it scripture.

For a book that seems to be the foundation of modern Christianity (or at least modern Christianity's rhetoric), you'd think the source would be a little more legitimate. It hasn't been so long, after all, since Paul was sending Christians to their deaths. Now he's supposed to be one of the authorities on Christianity?

Aside from his own self testimony (Jesus says self testimony is invalid, remember?), there is no evidence that would make Paul any sort of authority on Christianity. But, of course, we can't let lack of evidence ruin a perfectly good story.

*News*

Don't worry about your finances. God will take care of it:

Your heavenly Father already knows all your needs. Seek the Kingdom of God above all else, and live righteously, and he will give you everything you need. Matthew 6:32-33 (NLT)

*God promises to meet all your financial needs, if you (1) ask him for help; (2) learn to be content; (3) practice giving in faith; (4) maintain your integrity; and (5) trust him with your life

It took me about 5 seconds on Google to reveal the bullshit in this statement.

NAIROBI, KENYA (BosNewsLife)-- Christian aid workers were closely monitoring the situation in Kenya Saturday, February 11, amid reports that Christians are starving as famine spreads across the African nation and nearby countries, effecting millions of people.

I guess these starving Kenyans just didn't "learn to be content" enough. Maybe these rules only apply to American Christians? Even on an infinitely more superficial level, Christians every day lose their homes because of financial troubles. That's far from God "meeting all your financial needs".

This is my favorite part:

Worry is really just a form of atheism. Every time you worry, you’re acting like an atheist. You’re saying, “It all depends on me.” That’s just not in the Bible.

Worry is a warning light that you doubt the love of God. Yet, the Bible says God “provides food for those who fear him; he remembers his covenant forever.” (Psalm 111:5, NIV)

Rick Warren (the writer of this article), just like Jesus, forgets to add any qualifiers to this statement. Some things are perfectly healthy to worry about. "Am I going to get hit by a bus crossing the street?", that worry causes you to look both ways. If you worry about your financial situation, you're probably more likely to keep a budget. In short, it does depend on you.

And the book of Romans tells us that God sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for you to pay for your salvation. If God loves you enough to send his own son to die for you, don’t you think he loves you enough to take care of your bills?

If God doesn't love people enough to prevent children from dying agonizing deaths from cancer, I don't think he's going to bat an eye if you can't pay your credit card bill. Please, work to make your life better (even if you have to worry a little), don't wait for God to do it for you.

(via Electronic Urban Report/Worthy News)

331: Obama was Sent by God, The Bible Says So

2010-08-02T22:30:00.000-04:00

Romans 11-13

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." - Romans 13:1

Paul spends the entirety of chapter 11 explaining that the Israelites aren't bad people. In fact, Paul says that it was because Israel was so bad that God had to give salvation to everyone. So the gentiles only received salvation as a result of God trying to give the Israelites salvation? A better question is why he didn't God foresee all this trouble and give salvation to everyone sooner? It seems that a lot of people are burning in eternal hellfire just because they didn't have the privilege of being born after Jesus.

In chapter 12, Paul says since we have received God's mercy that we should offer ourselves as living sacrifices. After we do this, and "transform" our minds, we will be able to test and see God's pleasing and perfect will. I see how this works, you simply have to accept that God's will is pleasing and perfect (by accepting Jesus), then you will be able to see that God's will is pleasing and perfect. By those criteria, I can prove anything to you.

We then have another section that some Christians conveniently forget to read. Paul says that we should bless those who persecute us, and that we should live in harmony with one another. Of course, living in harmony requires acceptance of other's beliefs/practices, which seems to be a problem with some Christians (I'm looking at you, Pat Robertson, Westboro Baptist Church, etc.).

Paul then goes on to say that we should not repay evil for evil, and we should be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. Everybody? I don't think anything can be right in the eyes of everybody. He also says that we should not take revenge on anyone, but instead allow for God's wrath. I guess George Bush didn't quite get to this part of the bible.

Finally, chapter 13 is all about obeying government officials. This is because, Paul says, no authority comes to power without God. I'm curious what God saw in Hitler that he made him come to power. Paul even says that anyone who rebels against government authority is actually rebelling against God. Christians seem to be great at following (and quoting) this passage, until a Democrat is the president.

Paul ends chapter 13 by saying that all of the commandments are summed up by "love your neighbor as yourself". I'm curious where stone the gays/sabbath breakers/adulterers, falls in with "love your neighbor as yourself".

*News*

Does religion give you some sort of exemption from violent crime? A New Jersey judge seems to think so:

She said on Nov. 16, 2008 her husband ordered her to strip naked and said, "Now we're going to start punishing you. Then he started to pinch my private areas." She said that while she cried, her husband proceeded to engage in non-consensual sex that was very painful to her.

The wife told family court her husband said, "This is according to our religion. You are my wife, I can do anything to you."

An imam who testified at the family court hearing agreed, saying a wife must comply with her husband's sexual needs, but noted that he is forbidden from approaching her "like any animal," according to court records.

The judge heard the evidence of this rape, and ruled this:

But in his ruling, Charles, a former assemblyman and state senator, said he did not feel the husband "had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault . He was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was consistent with his practices and was something that was not prohibited."

He had the intent to have sex with someone against their will. I don't see the judge's hesitation. How much more intent to sexually assault can you have? It also says in the bible that rapists are obligated to marry their rape victims. Would this ass hole back that up too because it's "consistent with practices". We can go even further with this, it says in the bible (and surely in the Quran as well) that's it's ok to stone people for a number of reasons. That's also "consistent with his practices" does he get off for that too?

This is the very reason that those crazy Christians are afraid Sharia law is going to take over America if we start letting people build Mosques. It's unfathomable to me that any real judge would actually support the idea of Sharia law exempting anyone.

Thankfully, the appellate judge isn't an idiot:

The appellate court reversal on July 23 states that Charles recognized "the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts.

"In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except (sic) defendant from the operation of the state's statutes as the result of his religious belief. In doing so, the judge was mistaken."

"Relativistic morality" wins again. Yes, Christians, that "objective morality" you tout, when applied in Islam allows people to rape their wives. When you understand why you reject the "objective morality" of Islam you will understand why I reject your objective morality.

(via NJ.com)

330: Paul Agrees, God is a Douche

2010-08-01T22:10:00.000-04:00

Romans 8-10

"For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." - Romans 9:17-18

Paul's rant seems to get longer and more mind bending by the day.

Paul starts out chapter 8 by talking more about sinful nature vs. the Spirit. He says that you are either saved through the Spirit of Jesus (the Holy Spirit?) or you are controlled by your sinful nature. This sinful nature, as Paul previously defined, is laid out in the Old Testament laws.

Paul continues on, saying that if we live with the holy spirit we will never die, and if we don't we will die. I'll assume he means to say that we'll live an eternal spiritual life as opposed to physical life, but he never actually says this. Paul conveniently leaves out any mention of hell. Why isn't he warning us about the eternal hellfire if we don't believe in Jesus?

This is where it gets interesting. Paul says, "It [morality?] does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy". He uses the example of Pharaoh, and how God hardened Pharaoh's heart (preventing him from freeing the Israelites) so that God could glorify his name (through plagues). Paul seems to have just shat all over the idea of "free will".

First of all, thanks for backing me up Paul. Whenever I bring up the God hardening Pharaoh's heart incident I'm invariably met with, "No no no no, you're reading it wrong/taking it out of context/not translating it right/trying to find fault with the bible" (example). Paul is clearly saying here that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Either admit that God did it, or admit that Paul doesn't know what he's talking about.

Paul then tries to vindicate God, he asks the hypothetical question, "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?". Man, Paul explains to himself, has no place questioning God. He says this would be like a potter's lump of clay talking back to him.

The problem with this example is that no clay actually does talk back to it's pot maker. To relate this to my own field, if I could create a sentient computer, wouldn't it have the right to not be enslaved or unreasonably punished? If I somehow tortured my sentient computer, would that be intrinsically moral just because I created it? I don't think so. But I also wouldn't form my creation so that it was unable to detect me and left to forever ponder my existence. So I guess Yahweh and I have some fundamental disagreements.

Chapter 10 is all about salvation through Jesus (again). Paul says that Jesus was the end of the law. But wait, I thought we had to live out the law so that we won't be slaves to sin. In a way we're still bound by Old Testament laws, because if we're being "slaves to sin" we can't be slaves to the Holy Spirit. With this logic, Jesus hasn't really done anything. I think Paul's blathering may have scrambled my brain.

Paul then asks some very good questions:

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?

This is essentially my question of how tribal people/Iranians can be saved by Jesus if they've never heard of him. Unfortunately, Paul just answers this by quoting an OT passage that says that the word of Christ has gone "to the ends of the world". This simply isn't true.

*News*

I don't even know what to say about this one:

I am not a religious person but I realize religion’s importance to provide moral guideposts for a civilized society.

So this is someone who's not religious, saying that people can't be moral without religion. Go on:

The smear and vitriol that some on the Left have heaped on religion, especially Christianity, has brought us to what they gleefuly call “a post-biblical period.” They go back centuries to the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trials as examples of religious abuse. However, they say little about the moral vacuum they have created. We have rampant crime, STDs, drug addiction, divorce and many unwed mothers. Then there is the putrid stench of corruption in the federal government and some of our state governments so pervasive that to correct it will be tantamount to cleaning the Augean Stables. Much of big corporate America is just as bad, but the government’ answer is more regulations.

First of all, there's no evidence that rampant crimes have anything to do with atheism. As for STD's and unwed mothers, wasn't it the religious organizations championing the ineffective "abstinence only" education programs? I'm also finding a few websites that say atheist divorce rates are considerably lower than that of the religious in general. The writer then descends into a political argument. Government is corrupt? How is that an argument for religion?

I believe that morality is the glue of society and if we Americans cannot agree between us on what is right or wrong, then Big Brother will.

Who does this guy think is deciding what is right and wrong right now? One of the biggest duties of any government is to make and enforce laws. This could be a news flash, but God doesn't descend to punish criminals. If he did there would probably be a lot more dead adulterers/Sabbath breakers.

America has decided what's right and wrong (the Constitution?). "Big Brother" does enforce the laws that our Representatives have decided on. I don't think people deserve to be in jail for breaking the Sabbath laws, or being an adulterer. It's time to reject these biblical "morals" and start embracing true morality that actually cares about humanity.

(via Citizen-Times)

329: Original Sin

2010-07-31T21:40:00.000-04:00

Romans 4-7

"Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." - Romans 5:18-19

Paul continues his rather dry monologue.

Chapter 4 starts with Paul talking about circumcision again. This time with respect to Abraham. Abraham, Paul says, was able to be righteous before his circumcision (considering he was the first to receive the revelation of circumcision). I didn't think that was quite the way it worked. I thought the point was that circumcision was the new covenant with the people. That is, the good that's supposed to come from circumcision (I'm still not quite sure what that is) only took effect after the covenant.

Paul goes on to say how awesome Jesus was for dying for our sins. Because the average person would not even die for a righteous man, and Jesus died for all the ungodly people. Of course, Jesus never really mentioned that he was dying for the forgiveness of our sins. He said he was dying to fulfill the words of the prophets.

Paul then talks about original sin, and how Jesus is the perfect antithesis to Adam's original sin. One of the results of Adam's sin is that we die. So Jesus's death gives us eternal life. Of course, to the rational observer it still looks a lot like people die. It seems like a cop out to say that even though Adam would have had eternal (physical) life had he not sinned, that humans must suffer a physical death even after Jesus forgave the original sin. Not to mention that Christians would be much more convincing (and have much more of an opportunity to bring salvation to the masses) if they didn't die a physical death.

The next big question (and one I have a lot) is, if Jesus forgives everyones sins, then why not sin all the time? Paul attempts to answer this. He says that when we sin we are being a slave to sin, where we should be a slave to righteousness. I'm not even going to begin to try to reconcile this with "free will". More important than the free will issue is that this really doesn't fix anything. By this definition someone can be a "slave to sin" for 99% of their life, have a deathbed conversion, and be saved. This is by no means consistent with an "all just" God.

The last part of this section is just strange. Paul tries to explain that the laws of the prophets actually cause people to sin. I'll try to give an example: I make a law that says "don't think about elephants". The very first thing you do is think about elephants, so my "law" has caused you to break it. In the same way, Paul says that when God says "do not covet" the first thing he does is immediately covet everything he can think of.

This actually seems kind of insightful until you realize that God wants to kill you and/or send you to hell for coveting things. Then it just sounds like God is looking for an excuse to kill people. It adds yet another layer of absurdity when you realize that God is supposedly the creator of covetous feelings in the first place.

The answer to all this nonsense, Paul says, is Jesus. I guess the millions of pre-Jesus people are just screwed. As are the people today that, through no fault of their own, are unable to access the gospels of Jesus (people in fundamentalist Islamic countries come to mind). I guess God still sends them to hell for their stray thoughts (which God himself originally implanted in their brains).

*News*

This isn't the first atheist conversion story, and it probably won't be the last. But it's certainly the most absurd:

A former atheist says he has been forced to rethink his religious views after Jesus' image appeared to him twice.

A year later, the man who is a university scientist has decided to finally speak about his experience because he wants others who have had similar life-changing experiences to come forward.

These two images must be pretty convincing to convert a die hard atheist. Let's take a look:

To be perfectly honest I don't even see the second one. Moral of this story: pour the coffee in your mouth, not all over your nasty cups. I was hoping this was a joke, but then I kept reading:

"It was 11.30pm on a Sunday," he recalls.
"I had switched the television off and I said: 'Give me a sign, show me something, I know I am arrogant'.

"Then I said: 'Talk to me, show me' and then I went to sleep."

The next morning, the man says he woke up and noticed the strange image as he went to wash his mug.

Even a year later, it is easy to see why the man was so struck by the picture - the brownish-coloured stain clearly shows the crown and head of Jesus, slightly titled, with his arms stretched out wide and his feet together.

What it "clearly shows" is a coffee stain. The man seems to forget that he asked God to talk to him, not show him his dirty cup.

Now the man says he is desperately searching for answers from all religious sectors and experts.
"I know I have a soul which I cherish and I know I must be careful of what I say," he says.

"I plead with anyone to examine the mugs and explain how the pictures were formed."

He's supposed to be a scientist. Take the cup to a lab. See if the stain was from coffee (which is what my layman's observation tells me). If it is, in fact, coffee, he can reasonably surmise that he just forgot to clean the cup before he put it in the cupboard. Next time, ask God for something a little more convincing.

(via iol)

328: Lesbians, Finally

2010-07-30T16:40:00.000-04:00

Romans 1-3

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." - Romans 1:26-27

Romans is written by Paul as a letter to the people of Rome. The time frame is a little unclear though. Paul says that he has longed to visit Rome, but has been unable to "until now". Does this mean he's about to go to Rome (right after his trial)? Or that he's already in Rome? If it's the latter there's not much reason for him to be writing a letter.

The first thing Paul talks about after his introduction is God's wrath against the world. He first talks about atheists (godless people). These atheists, claims Paul, are suppressing God's message, because God has so obviously made himself clear. He says this: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse". Somehow I think believers in Thor and Zeus would debate you on how clear the Judeo-Christian God reveals himself.

Because of this godlessness, God "gave them over" to all sorts of sexual desires. Does this mean to say that sexual impurity is some sort of punishment for sin? The sexual impurity that Paul mentions is homosexuality. This is the first time that female homosexuals are mentioned.

Paul goes on to mention all sorts of other wickedness including greed, gossip, strife, deceit, disobeying parents, and being senseless. Paul says that all of these things are deserving of death. This would also imply that all these sins are about as bad as the homosexuality.

However, at the beginning of chapter 2, Paul says that nobody can pass judgement on anyone else, because we are all guilty of at least one of these aforementioned wickednesses. Paul says that the very things you condemn other people for are the things you do. Why do the people who use Romans to condemn gays then ignore this paragraph about not judging people?

Paul then goes on a rant about circumcision. And how someone who is circumcised, yet breaks the law, is like someone who isn't circumcised. However, he says that if you're not circumcised, yet follow the law, can still be righteous. Then what's the point of cutting of part of your penis? It seems to make absolutely no difference.

This all leads up to the end of chapter three where Paul says that we all sin, and that our only way to redemption is through Jesus. Finally, we receive this revelation. It seems that up to this point, Jesus has been more about bringing the Holy Spirit/wisdom to humanity than actually atoning for our sins.

*News*

A vicar from London says that Christianity needs some "street talk":

Rev Michael Land is encouraging worshippers to get 'streetwise' by swearing.

Offering up some encouragement he sermonised about a recent road rage incident where he told a motorist to ‘**** off ’ while wearing his dog collar.

The 67-year-old even claimed that Jesus regularly liked to swear and urged church-goers not to ‘place him on a pedestal’.

Where exactly does Jesus cuss up a storm in the bible? I think telling a fellow motorist to "fuck off" is rather contrary to the "love your enemy" concept. Jesus also said that hate coming out of your mouth would imply hate in your heart, and you're not supposed to hate anyone.

I would agree with him if he were merely saying that Christians should be allowed to use those words. I don't think there's anything about the word "fuck" that makes it inherently bad. It's all about the context in which the Reverend used the word.

He said: ‘The church needs to modernise and that means keeping up with the trends in language. People view Jesus through tinted spectacles and place him on a pedestal.

‘The reality is that he was poor, lacked any real education and did not fraternise with Pharisees or scholars. People today would probably be quite shocked at the language he used.’

Who's side is this guy on? The bible says that Jesus did fraternize with Pharisees and scholars. The bible says that Jesus was thoroughly educated on the Old Testament laws. Has this guy read the bible? Of course, everyone can choose for themselves whether the bible is absolutely true or not, but it seems like at least Reverends need to tow the party line.

The vicar also has a less than traditionally Christian view about doorstep begging, adding: ‘Whilst working in London I would often have people knocking on my door and asking for money. ‘I would never give in and usually shut the door on them. Just because I am a vicar I am not a soft touch.’

He wouldn't give to a poor person that came to his door? One of Jesus's biggest messages (if not the biggest) was to give all your money away. How could he have missed the mark this much?

In the name of experiment, I guess I should at least try this "street talk" thing (in the name of bringing myself closer to God, of course). So here it is: Dear Reverend Land, you're a fucking idiot. Yeah, that just made me sound like a douchebag.

(via Mail Online)

327: Sailing Around Europe & Acts: In Review

2010-07-29T18:30:00.000-04:00

Acts 27-28

"We boarded a ship from Adramyttium about to sail for ports along the coast of the province of Asia, and we put out to sea. Aristarchus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica, was with us." - Acts 27:2

On Paul's trip to Rome the ship runs into a storm. This storm is so bad that the ships crew begin throwing supplies (including food) overboard. Paul continues to have visions and tells the men that and angel said everyone will be ok and only the ship will be lost.

After 14 days of this storm, the crew decides to run the ship aground on an island they've found. The Roman soldiers plot to kill the prisoners so they don't escape, but the centurion in charge wants to keep Paul alive.

When Paul reaches the shore, he starts to make a fire. As he is gathering brush, a viper jumps out and bites him. He has no adverse effects to this snake bite and the islanders declare him a god. I'll presume that this is meaning to imply that people with the Holy Spirit can withstand snake bites. For the sake of argument, lets presume that we can prove this was actually a venomous snake. Then why do people with the Holy Spirit die of snake bites today?

Paul then proceeds to cure a chief official on the island. This causes all of the islanders to bring their sick to Paul, and he heals them. This is the same situation as the snake bite. We're never told that Paul is endowed with any special power besides the Holy Spirit (he's not one of the twelve). So why are millions of people today who claim to have the Holy Spirit unable to miraculously cure people? This would certainly be a convincing conversion tool (which is essentially what Paul is using his powers for here).

Paul eventually does arrive in Rome. When he arrives there, he is given his own personal guard and allowed to wander around where ever he wants. He is even allowed to go to the Jews of Rome (weren't the Jews supposed to be kicked out of Rome?) and preach the message of Jesus. Isn't that the very thing he's being imprisoned for?

The book of Acts ends by saying that Paul stayed in Rome for two more years preaching the message of Jesus. Paul is getting a pretty sweet deal here. He got a free trip to Rome, and now he gets to hang out and do whatever he wants. Is he going to get a trial eventually? Maybe we'll find out it some other book.

Acts: In Review

Acts is interesting as the first New Testament book that's post-Jesus. It helps tell us how at least the disciples translated the messages of Jesus into action. Unfortunately, some of the ideas of Jesus seem to have been forgotten. Acts also helps illuminate what we (as mere humans) should be able to with this mysterious "Holy Spirit".

The new church run by Peter seems to be a tyrannical, money-centric organization. This is evidenced by people being killed for withholding money from the church. I'm not sure how this could be any further from what Jesus had in mind. Everyone was supposed to give away their money to the poor, not give it to the disciples. It's no wonder the Catholic church claims Peter as the first Pope. "Steal from the rich. Give to the richer and hope they'll give a little to the poor" seems to sum up both Peter's and the Catholic church's ideology.

My second problem is what the disciples (and others) seem to be able to do with the Holy Spirit. They are able to speak in tongues (actual other languages, not the gibberish of today), heal people, and withstand snake bites. This is all what Jesus predicted could be done with the Holy Spirit, but then why can't modern day people do these things?

Aside from the theological inconsistencies, Acts reads like a badly written fiction novel. Though it's still not as bad as anything from the Old Testament.

*News*

This is a lesson in how an argument becomes circular:

One lie that was in his letter is that "There is no God to save us from our undoing …"

The truth is that there is a God, the creator who created us and who tremendously loves us: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female. He created them." — Genesis 1:27.

This is the long version of "yuh huh, there is too a God". People can write down whatever they want and call it a holy book (see Scientology). This doesn't make it real. And until God can be proven in more empirical terms, "the bible says so" just won't do.

Mr. Kyde says, "… millions of normally rational and intelligent beings get on their knees to beg and worship a figment of their imagination." Let me emphatically state that God is not a figment of anyone's imagination. God exists from eternity past, exists now and will exist forever. God is worthy and deserves our worship.

Well, the writer emphatically stated it, so it must be true. In fact the writer makes a couple of giant leaps. First that God exists, and second that God is deserving of worship.

I haven't talked about this a whole lot, but even if someone could prove to me that God does exist, I'd have some major reservations about actually worshiping him. Is it really good to worship a being just because you're afraid of it? That's like saying an abusive spouse is deserving of worship. And an abusive spouse couldn't get close to the atrocities committed by God.

The reason it is possible to believe that this universe and every living thing was created in six days, some 6,000 years ago by God is simple. Faith. It takes just as much faith, or more, to believe in the theory of evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

Now we're getting somewhere. Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof (Merriam Webster). In fact, the writer's faith goes a step beyond that. The writer believes in something for which there is contrary evidence. No serious geologist/physicist/scientist believes that the earth is 6000 years old.

As for belief in the theory of evolution, I don't think that fits any definition of "faith". Unless you are in complete denial of all the evidence in it's favor. Incidentally, I think that's probably the problem here.

I and other Christians are praying for Mr. Kyde to accept God's gift of eternal life so you can truly know the truth and so you can be happy.

Yes, I'm sure if it's ever proven that there is a God that wants to send you to hell if you don't obey his every demand, Mr. Kyde will be just giddy with glee. Especially after reading the bible, I'm not sure how the existence of God is supposed to make me a happier person.

(via Sheboygan Press)

326: Kiss Ass

2010-07-28T20:00:00.001-04:00

Acts 24-26

"We have enjoyed a long period of peace under you, and your foresight has brought about reforms in this nation. Everywhere and in every way, most excellent Felix, we acknowledge this with profound gratitude. But in order not to weary you further, I would request that you be kind enough to hear us briefly." - Acts 24:2-4

[The blog is moving back to Eastern Standard Time. Hopefully this is the last time I have to fiddle with the time zone.]

The day starts with Paul on trial again. Paul's accusers make their case (while kissing the ass of the judge), and Paul denies all of their allegations. The judge says that he will make a decision when the Roman commander shows up. Days later the judge comes with his wife to hear Paul talk about Jesus (why?).

The bible says that the judge keeps coming back to Paul in the hopes that Paul will give him a bribe. Two years go by like this. I guess that Roman commander is taking his sweet time to come testify. He takes so long to get there that the judge is replaced with a new one (Festus).

This causes Paul to have yet another trial under the new judge. This new judge asks Paul if he is willing to go to Jerusalem to be put on trial. Have they forgotten about how bad that worked out before? Paul says, instead, that he is in Caesar's court and wants to be heard by Caesar himself. The judge agrees to this strange request. Why would Caesar care about some unruly Jew?

Festus ends up talking to a king, who he tells about Paul's case. This king is so interested that he too wants to hear Paul. The king is also told to figure out what exactly Paul is being charged with so they can tell Caesar.

When Paul is brought before the king he again tells his entire life story (about Jesus appearing to him etc, etc). Upon completion of his story the king says that he's obviously gone insane (was it the voices or hallucinations that gave it away?). Paul responds by saying he's perfectly sane. This is, incidentally, exactly what an insane person would say.

Paul says that he will pray the king will become a Christian (only the second time the word "Christian" is actually used in the bible). As the king is walking out he tells one of his associates that Paul is not doing anything that deserves death or imprisonment.

*News*

What's it like to be a "true Christian"?:

I'm a Christian. Why? "I was raised in church." "I obey the church creed or sacraments." "I live a good, clean life." "I believe in God." Sorry, you're probably not a Christian. Romans 10:9-10 makes it very simple. Confess aloud that Jesus is your master and that God raised him from the dead to pay for your sins.

Don't forget that you have to drink Jesus's blood, eat his flesh, and give away all your money, among other things. Her letter is actually titled "Bible says true Christian believing requires more than just talk". It's interesting that the writer immediately quotes a passage that essentially says all you have to do is talk (about believing in Jesus).

You never know what God will do. Wrong. Jesus always did the will of God. How? He listened to God and did what he said. Ignoring the Bible is the only reason for not knowing God's will.

Ignoring the bible? I didn't think the bible had anything to do with it. Isn't the Holy Spirit supposed to tell you the will of God/Jesus? Does ignorance of the bible make the Holy Spirit not want to talk to you?

I can do all things through Christ. I hear Christians complain frequently about not being able to do things because they don't have the money, the education, the ability, etc.
...
Jesus says if you ask anything in his name, God will provide it. Try I John 5:13-14.

This argument is just fundamentally absurd. People ask things of Jesus all the time. Namely, those Christians the writer talks about that complain they can't do things. Does the writer think they haven't asked? Maybe they're not asking "for the right reason" but where in the bible does it say you have to ask for something for the right reason?

The point is very difficult days lie ahead, and most Christians aren't prepared. The devil, through people, is out to steal from you or kill you. You have mighty spiritual weapons, but most aren't loaded.

Speaking of "true Christian". What kind of true Christian worries about people stealing their things or killing them? Stealing what exactly? The money and possessions that Jesus told you not to have? Killing you? So you can exist in eternal prosperity? I think if I were a true Christian I'd be hoping every day for someone to steal all my shit and kill me.

(via Zanesville Times Recorder)

325: Paul is Greeted in Jerusalem

2010-07-27T21:00:00.001-04:00

Acts 21-23

"The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple, and immediately the gates were shut. While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar." - Acts 21:30-31

On Paul's way to Jerusalem many people urge him not to go to Jerusalem "through the Spirit". Can't the Holy Spirit just tell Paul directly what it thinks? Regardless, how can he disobey the Holy Spirit and still be called righteous?

Paul is then confronted by a man who steals his belt. The man uses this belt to tie himself up. He tells Paul that the Holy Spirit has told him that this is how Paul will be tied up in Jerusalem. Paul says that he's willing to die in Jerusalem and "The Lord's will be done." Again, if it's the Lord's will to have him killed then why is the Holy Spirit persuading all these people to try to stop him?

Paul eventually gets to Jerusalem and meets up with the disciples. He tells them all the progress he's made with the gentiles and they all praise God. Not to beat a dead horse, but why didn't the Holy Spirit tell them this good news? I guess the Holy Spirit only tells you the bad things that have happened/will happen.

After being in Jerusalem for awhile, Paul is told about a rumor that spreading among the Jews. The rumor is that Paul has been telling the Jews to stop being circumcised and stop following Moses. Because of this false accusation Paul is arrested (more like kidnapped by a large mob), as the Holy Spirit apparently predicted. Of course, it could also be that the people of Jerusalem already knew about this rumor against Paul and used their reasoning skills to conclude that he was going to be arrested. "The Holy Spirit told me" sounds better though.

The mob of Jews seizes Paul and starts trying to beat him to death. News that Jerusalem is in an uproar comes to the commander of the Roman troops in the area. The commander sends some men to break up the riot and arrest Paul.

When the commander gets there he asks the crowd who Paul is and what he has done. The commander can't get a straight answer so he orders that Paul be taken to the barracks. Once Paul is in the barracks the commander asks him if he is the Egyptian that started a revolt. I'm not sure where he got that from. Paul answers that he is a Jew, and asks the commander if he can speak to the crowd. Strangely, the commander agrees. Why would he allow the person causing the riot to go talk to the crowd?

Paul proceeds to defend himself with the story of how he was converted by the heavenly voice of Jesus and had visions sent by God. After this impassioned defense, the Jews yell "Rid the earth of him! He's not fit to live". I guess they're not convinced by a man hearing voices and having psychotic visions.

The commander orders that Paul be taken back into the barracks and flogged to make him tell the commander why the Jews hate him. As Paul is about to be flogged, he asks if it's legal to flog a Roman citizen who hasn't even been charged. The commander takes him on his word that he's a Roman citizen and decides that he can't be flogged. Why doesn't everyone use this "get out of flogging free" card?

The commander then orders that Paul be brought before the Sanhedrin so he can figure out why the Jews hate him. Paul claims, before the Sanhedrin, that he is a Pharisee and is being persecuted because of his "hope in the resurrection". The Pharisees, apparently, believe in the possibility of resurrection while the Sadducees don't. This causes a big argument among the Sanhedrin and the commander orders Paul be brought back to the barracks.

The next day 40 Jews start conspiring about Paul. They end up vowing not to eat or drink until Paul is dead. They tell the Sanhedrin to ask the commander to see Paul again, to get more information about his trial. It's when he's before the Sanhedrin that they will kill him. Long story short, the commander finds out about this and decides to transfer Paul to a different city.

The commander ends up sending two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen to escort Paul. Why is this one Roman citizen so important to the Roman commander that he sends a small army to protect him? The chapter ends with Paul waiting for his accusers to arrive at this protected location for his trial to begin.

I think this was the most boring/most scripturally unenlightening section of the New Testament thus far.

*News*

An Augusta State University graduate student has been ordered to drop her Christian religion or drop out of college. Of course, there's a little more to this story:

“Augusta State ordered Keeton to undergo a re-education plan, in which she must attend “diversity sensitivity training,” complete additional remedial reading, and write papers to describe their impact on her beliefs. If she does not change her beliefs or agree to the plan, the university says it will expel her from the Counselor Education Program.”

The nature of Ms. Keeton’s beliefs were ascertained through private conversations with classmates and classroom discussions. The teaching staff decided on this basis that “Jen’s ability to be a multiculturally competent counselor, particularly with regard to working with gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (GLBTQ) populations.”

Oh, so this actually has nothing to do with her religion, it has to do with her homophobia. As a part of this "diversity sensitivity training" Keeton has to prove that she has denounced her homophobic beliefs or be kicked out of the program. Keeton obviously disagrees with this and is suing.

The real question here is should this woman have to change her beliefs, even if those beliefs are (some say) a basic tenant of her religion? I'm not even sure why this is a question. Hint: the answer is "hell yes she has to change her beliefs or get the fuck out".

If a medical student has the solemn belief that he can cure his patients with the Holy Spirit (this could be justified with the bible), then that's perfectly fine. But if he decides that, instead of using modern medical science, he's just going to lay his hands on people, then we don't give him a medical license.

In the same way, a counselor can have the solemn belief that being gay is a sin and is wrong. Of course, this is also contrary to modern medical science. So why should Augusta State University be obligated to keep her in their program?

The final nail in this bigot's coffin (and hopefully the coffin of her lawsuit) comes directly from the American Counseling Association's website:

Counselors who conduct this type of [gay conversion] therapy view same-sex attractions and behaviors as abnormal and unnatural and, therefore, in need of "curing." The belief that same-sex attraction and behavior is abnormal and in need of treatment is in opposition to the position taken by national mental health organizations, including ACA. [FULL TEXT]

No legitimate mental health association thinks that homosexuality can be "cured" (nor is it abnormal or unnatural), just as no legitimate medical association thinks Spirit healing works. Why can we kick crazy medical students out, but not crazy prospective counselors?

(via Indy Posted)

324: Paul Bores People to Death

2010-07-26T21:00:00.001-04:00

Acts 18-20

"Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting. Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead." Acts 20:7-9

The day starts with Paul settling in Corinth for awhile. Silas and Timothy meet him there and he "devotes himself" to spreading the word of Jesus to the Jews. However, when the Jews begin opposing/abusing him (as usual) he gets fed up and says, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

God then speaks to Paul in a vision and tells him not to fear because he will not allow the people of the city to harm him. So he stays in Corinth for another year and a half, exclusively preaching to the gentiles, if we're to take him on his word.

After this time the Jews bring a united front against Paul and send him to court. I'm not sure why they don't just run him out of town like usual. The proconsul (governor) tells them that since it is a matter of Jewish law he will not judge Paul, and tells them to judge him among themselves. The Jews respond by turning on their synagogue leader and beating him in front of the proconsul. I have no idea what that was supposed to accomplish, and neither, it seems, does the proconsul.

Some time later Paul heads to Syria. On the way there he cuts off all his hair because of the "vow he had taken". What vow? Paul then goes to the synagogue in Syria and tries to reason with the Jews. So much for only preaching to the gentiles.

Paul preaches in Syria for awhile but then goes back to Ephesus (in Turkey). He finds some followers of Jesus and asks them if they have received the Holy Spirit. They reply by saying they haven't even heard of the Holy Spirit. Well, they seem to have missed the point entirely. Paul re-baptizes them and has to lay his hands on them for the Holy Spirit to go into them.

Where did the idea come from that we all have a little Holy Spirit inside of us? I've heard countless times that all morality comes from the bit of Holy Spirit God has put inside you. Why, in the time of the early church, do the disciples have to manually insert the Holy Spirit into every non-believer they come across? I feel certain that someone would have tried to lay their hands on me if they didn't already think I had the Holy Spirit.

Paul continues to preach and argue with the Jews for two more years. Paul was so blessed, the bible says, that even handkerchiefs and aprons he touched were turned into magical healing tools. Evil spirits were also driven out with these magical aprons.

The next paragraph is interesting. A group of Jews are going around driving out demons in Jesus's name. One day, an evil spirit talks back to them and says "Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but who are you?" The man with the demon proceeds to kick the asses of seven men. He also apparently rips off their clothes, because they all run away naked with bloody noses. I guess the whole "in Jesus's name" thing doesn't work so well after all.

Paul then decides to go back to Jerusalem. Before he leaves, though, a silversmith claims that Paul has interfered with his idol making business, and blasphemed his god. Soon, this silversmith has gotten the whole city in an uproar. The city clerk decides that he doesn't want a riot, so he gets up in front of the crowd. He says that the whole world knows that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the image of Artemis, who fell from heaven. And that Paul hasn't even blasphemed their goddess (yes he has). This seems to appease the crowd and they disperse.

In chapter 20 we get a shift in perspective. The writer switches from saying "Paul did this... Paul did that" to "we did this... we did that". Somewhere on Paul's journey back to Jerusalem he's picked up the writer of this gospel.

In a city named Troas, Paul is preaching the gospel to a group of people in an upstairs room of a house. Since it's Paul's last night in the city, he goes on and on about the gospel. A man is listening to Paul while sitting in the window. Paul goes on for so long that the man falls asleep and falls out of the window. He falls three stories and the bible claims that he's dead. Paul runs downstairs and jumps on the man, wrapping his arms around him and says, "Don't be alarmed. He's alive!" We're, of course, meant to believe that Paul brought this man back from the dead (says my NIV bible). Even though, like Jesus, he claims that the object of his magical resurrection isn't actually dead.

On the boat to Jerusalem, he passes by Ephesus (where he came from, was he going the wrong way?). He stops and says a heartfelt fair-well to all of his friends there. This fair-well consists mostly of him telling them to keep doing what he preached, and saying how righteous he is.

*News*

Sex: The bible is apparently all for it. I guess that's why it spends so much time condemning so many forms of it:

WOMEN'S and girls' magazines are full of advice on better sex, from how to catch and hold your man down to detailed instructions on sexual techniques. Now it seems the oldest written recipe, the Bible's, might be the best.

Neuroscientific studies suggest that ''life-long heterosexual monogamy'' is most likely to provide both sexual satisfaction and excitement, a Melbourne conference heard at the weekend.

Life-long heterosexual monogamy in the bible? Maybe life-long, and certainly heterosexual, but monogamous? I seemed to have missed the bit where polygamy was condemned. In fact, most of the kings of Israel had many wives (thousands in the case of Solomon) and God never made a peep. He certainly had every opportunity to say "oh by the way, only one wife".

After some research, it seems that even apologists recognize that polygamy is not condemned. They contend, instead, that monogamy was the original plan that we should all be aspiring to. This seems dubious at best. But lets move on:

In a joint paper with her son, Sydney Presbyterian minister Kamal Weerakoon, she said non-religious people expected the church to be fearful, ignorant, defensive, repressed and hypocritical with only one message about sex: don't do it.

But a biblical understanding of sex was deeply positive - ''do it, God made us for it'' - while also being honest about human imperfections and limitations.

I never thought that the church would say "don't do it" *period*. But I did (and still do) expect them to try to tell me with whom I can have sex. "Sex is wonderful, you just have to wait till you're 26 [average age of marriage in the U.S.]. Oh, and if you're gay, you're out of luck." That seems like a lot of "don't do it" and not very much "do it".

Where in the bible does it say that God made us to have sex? I was under the impression that we were made to worship God. Sex is but a means to and end (the end being more people to worship God).

''Biologically, we are wired to desire sex, to fall in love with the person we desire sex with, and for that love to develop into deep attachment. Our bodies are wired to operate best with one sexual partner for life,'' he said. ''Both academia and pop culture assume that biblical, Christian sexual ethics are at best outdated and irrelevant, and at worst repressive and harmful. We are seen as legalist, repressed, hypocritical killjoys who spend all our time trying to stop everyone from having a good time.''

We seem to have strayed from science into the land of religious based speculation. I'm fairly certain that the thousands of practicing polygamists would disagree with the assertion that they would be happier if they were monogamous. But again, the basic premise of this article is flawed. The bible doesn't take a particularly convincing stance on the virtue of monogamy.

(via The Age)

323: Jailbreak

2010-07-25T21:00:00.000-04:00

Acts 16-17

"Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the prison were shaken. At once all the prison doors flew open, and everybody's chains came loose. The jailer woke up, and when he saw the prison doors open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself because he thought the prisoners had escaped." - Acts 16:26-27

We're still following Paul today (even though he split from Barnabas). He is now traveling with Silas. They come upon a Greek city and find a fellow follower of Jesus named Timothy. Paul wanted to take Timothy along with them, so he had him circumcised. The bible implies that this circumcision is for the benefit of the Jews in the area.

Theres a couple of things wrong with this. First, we just went over yesterday how it was supposed to be ok to be uncircumcised (indeed Paul is supposed to be delivering this message). What would illustrate this better than going around the country with an uncircumcised guy in toe? Second, who's going to know the difference? Does everyone in ancient times walk around with their penis on display?

All three of them come to the border of an area called Mysia (in modern day Turkey). When they try to cross the border to Bithynia the "Spirit of Jesus" (is this the Holy Spirit or something different?) would not let them enter. Did this spirit put up some physical barricade?

They then decide to go the other way. In the night Paul dreams that someone from Macedonia is calling for his help. The next day they are on a boat to Macedonia. When they arrive, they are met by believers, who they spend the night with.

On their way to a place of prayer, they are met by a slave girl with the gift of prophecy. She starts following them around saying, "These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved." She follows them around for several days saying this, until Paul gets fed up with her. He turns around and says, "In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!" Couldn't he just tell her to go away?

Her owners (who were making money off of her prophecies) are angry at Paul and have him locked up. I thought the Holy Spirit was supposed to give you the gift of prophecy, now apparently it can take it away. Paul and Silas (where did Timothy go?) are locked up for taking away her ability to prophecy.

At midnight, while they are in jail, there is a great earthquake and all the prison doors fly open and everyones chains fall off. I didn't realize that earthquakes somehow picked locks without harming the people in the locks. None of the prisoners are feeling very frisky and decide to stay in their jail cells (?). The jailer sees that all the doors are open, and draws his sword to kill himself because he thinks his prisoners have escaped. I thought Seppuku was only for Samurai.

Paul tells the jailer to stop trying to kill himself because everyone is still in their cell. The jailer then has some kind of religious experience and comes to ask Paul and Silas what he needs to do to be saved. Paul tells him all about Jesus and the jailer is immediately converted. This entire story seems suspiciously like bullshit. Especially since this story is a second hand account of a later retelling.

The bullshit continues with Paul and Silas going to this jailers house. When the morning comes the magistrate sends a message to the jailer telling him to release Paul and Silas. Why would they release them now? Paul and Silas demand that the magistrates escort them out of town, because they are Roman citizens and they were beaten without being charged. The magistrates are apparently surprised that they are Roman citizens and agree to escort them out of town.

They then end up in Thessalonica where they are chased out of town by a mob of angry Jews (as usual). They then go to Berea, where they have better luck converting. That is until the Jews of Thessalonica hear that they've started preaching there. Paul runs out of town (before he can be chased out by the usual mob of angry Jews) to Athens.

In Athens Paul finds a variety of different "false" idols. He even finds an altar with an inscription written, "to an unknown God", which I find rather amusing. Paul only finds a few converts among the Athenians. They seem especially skeptical of the various resurrections Paul talks about.

*News*

We've got some interesting mental gymnastics today:

As the consciousness revolution hots up, it's becoming pretty clear that what's really holy about the Holy Bible is the person reading it. We may imbue the book with holiness, but surely, isn't it even more valuable to see it as a mirror in which our soul is reflected? Isn't the Bible about us? About God's purpose for us? How he created us as an expression of himself? How we lost awareness of our divine nature? And how we can restore it?

I'll largely agree with this besides the "soul reflection" bit. I would certainly agree that the readers of the bible are the ones imbuing it with it's holiness. If not for them it would be a badly written, generally disturbing work of mostly fiction.

Take Genesis. Let's face it, we know for sure that
The universe was not created in seven days;
Man is not made from dust;
Serpents do not hold conversations with naked ladies.
Orthodox doctrine maintains that everything must be taken literally and that the Bible is a full, final, immutable transcription of God's Word -- mess with it at your peril!

If you can't take something as blatant as "a woman talked to a snake" literally, then what can you take literally? We know for sure that people can't prophecy, and that people can't heal other people with magic touch. So every miracle of Jesus was a metaphor? We also know that, in recorded medical history, nobody has ever come back from the dead after three days. I declare it all a metaphor!

As told in the story of Jacob, God may want us to struggle with his teachings in order to receive enlightenment. My working hypothesis is that God leaves us clues. Scripture is poetry that speaks through our minds to our souls. Perhaps our spiritual evolution occurs as we use these clues as a catalyst for looking within ourselves for meaning and truth. This would be fully consistent with the first commandment, "Have no other gods before me." He may be saying, "I, God, am within you. I am your true self. Don't look out there and worship symbols or you'll get lost. Use the symbols to go deeper inside."

Oh, that's what it means. And all this time I though it meant "Have no other gods before me". It's so clear that it really means that God wants you to search the bible for hidden clues about what God really means by (metaphorically) killing millions of people and generally being a douchebag.

Take Genesis again. The Bible offers us three versions of the creation story: Genesis 1, Genesis 2, and John 1. Why? Maybe this is a clue, a pointer?

Perhaps the anomalies are the portals to the hidden meaning. If John says it is "the Word" that is the causative factor in creation, why is it not mentioned in Genesis 1? Maybe it is. Maybe 6,000 years before John came along, they used a different word for the same thing? That's hardly heresy, is it? So where does Genesis 1 tally with John?

Oh. My. God. "The word". That's that segment on the Colbert Report. Stephen Colbert started as a correspondent on the Daily Show. The Daily Show is the reason I know about Viacom. Viacom also owns BET. BET, black, first black President, Obama! Obama is the Word! The Word is Jesus, Obama is Jesus! Is that it? Did I get the right hidden meaning?

Throughout Genesis 1, the expression "the waters" is used seven times, culminating in verse 20: "And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life ... '"

Could the missing word for "Word" in Genesis be "waters"? In Genesis 2, "the waters" as a creative force has morphed into the river that "went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads." The four forces of the universe, perhaps? Imagine that: has Genesis been telling us all along what science is now discovering?

Could these metaphors be God's inscrutable way of telling us who we are and why we're here?

Dammit, God was really telling us to go along with science, not that Obama is Jesus. Incidentally, my logic wasn't any more or less convoluted than his, so I claim we're both equally right. But the symbolism goes on:

John 1 gives us more clues, "And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." Here, "light" and "darkness" are not physical electromagnetic light energies; they are obviously symbols for awareness and ignorance, respectively!

As we step past the miasma of the mind and move into our holy consciousness, it sheds light on verse 1. What if "heaven and earth" is not the universe but us, who we really are? The dual elements of consciousness? The spiritual touching the physical, like Da Vinci's "Creation of Adam"? Our purpose here, then, is God's simply stated purpose:

"Let there be light."

Wait, so when did God create light if he was talking about metaphorical enlightenment? For once I think someone has made a contradiction in the bible where there isn't one. John says "in the beginning was the Word". I'm told that "the Word" is Jesus (John says this a lot too). That doesn't mean that God didn't use literal words (e.g. "let there be light") in the beginning. It's just trying to imply that Jesus was also there.

This is a bit of a tangent. But I once had someone try to explain to me how Jesus and God were one at the beginning of time. Apparently they were some type of super being until Jesus was crucified. Then they were torn apart forever (except not really, because they're still one being). I'm not sure what the obsession is with making God and Jesus one being. Monotheism isn't worth these sorts of mental gymnastics.

(via The Huffington Post)

322: Zeus Makes an Appearance

2010-07-24T22:20:00.000-04:00

Acts 14-15

"When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, 'The gods have come down to us in human form!' Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them." - Acts 14:11-13

The chapter starts with Paul (who has completely stopped calling himself Saul) and Barnabas converting some Jews and Gentiles. However, some of the Jews that "refused to believe" rile up some of the gentiles and they make a plot to have them stoned. Paul and Barnabas end up finding out about this and run.

While Paul is preaching in another city he sees a crippled man. Paul looks at the man and can somehow tell that he has enough faith to be healed. When he sees this he tells the man to stand up, and he does. This would imply that Paul only reminded this man that he could heal himself, how is that a miraculous act on the part of Paul? It's important to note that Jesus also says "your faith has healed you" after several of his miracles.

The Lyconians are impressed by this non-miracle and decide that Barnabas is Zeus in human form, and Paul is Hermes. They all decide to start sacrificing cattle to them. The Lyconians only reluctantly stop after being begged by Paul and Barnabas. I guess they didn't make it very clear that they were there to preach about Jesus.

Almost the entirety of chapter 15 is about whether you need to be circumcised to be saved by Jesus. The chapter starts with some unnamed people coming and telling the early church that they (and more importantly the gentiles) have to be circumcised to go to heaven according to the law of Moses. Everyone is so disturbed by this (why?) that Paul and Barnabas agree to go ask the disciples about it.

Peter rebukes them, saying that it is through Jesus's grace that they are saved. This is interesting because Jesus says a couple of times that he's not here to interfere with the law of Moses. Because of this news of "false teaching" about circumcision the disciples decide to write an open letter to the gentiles, and pass it around. In this letter, they tell the gentiles the things they should do (presumably to go to heaven):

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

First of all, it seems like this letter is to the already converted gentiles. But wouldn't it be a good idea to at least remind them that the most important thing is to worship Jesus? Second, and more importantly, lets examine what the early church thinks are the most important things to follow: don't eat food sacrificed to idols, don't drink blood, don't eat strangled animals, and don't do unnamed sexually immoral things.

Is the commandment not to eat strangled animals even in the Old Testament? I certainly don't remember it. The command not to eat certain food is just more evidence that the early church is completely disregarding Jesus's assertion that "it's not what goes into your mouth, but what comes out of it". Jesus does mention that sexual immorality is bad (though he too doesn't give specifics):

What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' - Mark 7:20-23

Jesus inspires my next question. Why aren't the gentiles discouraged from theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance, or folly? It seems that the disciples are trying to make it "easy" to come to the church. But nobody ever said it was supposed to be easy. In the name of growing the church, the disciples are distorting the words of Jesus, trying to make it seem easier than it actually is to be "clean".

The chapter ends with a dispute between Paul and Barnabas about who they should take with them to go back and check on the people they have converted. They can't decide and they end up splitting, Paul going with Silas, and Barnabas going with Mark.

*News*

This is an article called "Only way to heaven is spelled out in Bible". That's interesting, I've seen quite a few "only" ways to heaven so far.

Mankind's worst tragedy is the hundreds of millions of people who have been deceived by Satan by placing their faith in false religions. The Holy Bible records the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 7:15 when he warned, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

That's really mankind's worst tragedy? I was thinking more along the lines of the holocaust.

In every instance recorded in the Bible when a person asked how to be saved, the answer is always the same: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." [chapter:verse??] There is no other way to heaven except by faith in Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior. Religion has never saved a single soul and never will.

In every instance you say? That's quite a claim. This Reverend is certainly not the only person I've heard this from. Lets look at a few of these instances where Jesus tells us how to get to heaven, example one:

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. - Luke 14:26

Some may argue that "disciple" means one of the twelve, but "disciple" is more commonly defined as "someone who believes and helps to spread the doctrine of another" (Princeton). So, if you don't hate your father, mother, and life you can't be a believer. Example two:

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "

"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." - Luke 10:25-28

In this case, Jesus doesn't even mention that you have to believe in him. He says you have to love God and your neighbor. This is the first example (the only one needed) to disprove the Reverend's hypothesis that the answer to every question of "how do I get saved" is answered with, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved". Example three:

A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.' "

"All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.

When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." - Luke 18:18-22

We're getting a little closer, Jesus does eventually mention that you should follow him to be saved. But first he says you can't kill, steal, lie, or commit adultery. And you have to give away all your things. This is still far from "just believe in Jesus". Example four:

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." - John 6:53-54

Now we have to feast on his flesh. This is also not "just believe in Jesus". Example five:

He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 18:2-3

He's back to not even mentioning believing in him. I guess we now have to be like children to make it to heaven. Example six:

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 5:20

So we have to have the knowledge of the teachers and Pharisees (to be more righteous than them), yet still have the ignorance of a child. That's perfectly reasonable. This is still not "just believe in Jesus". Finally, finally, the quote we've been looking for:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

I think what the Reverend meant to say was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, throw out the majority of Jesus's teachings in the New Testament, and you will be saved". It's even more interesting if Jesus didn't actually say John 3:16. My red letter KJV bible seems to think that Jesus said it, but I don't recall Jesus talking about himself in the third person. Is universal salvation through just believing in Jesus a concept made up by John?

Any attempt to find salvation other than by faith in Jesus will result in spending eternity in hell. Sadly, many people believe they can earn their way to heaven by good works, or by church membership, or by baptism, or by putting their faith in the pope, or the virgin Mary, or Buddha, or Mohammed or some other human being.

It seems that, at least based on the bible, the idea of preaching that you only need to believe in Jesus is the real thing that's sending people to hell. Based on what they preach, many modern Christians have completely lost touch with the words that actually came out of Jesus's mouth. I only find people later on in the church that preach "just believe in Jesus".

I'm left with an open question to Christians: If you like Jesus so much why do you ignore what he says?

(via The Augusta Chronicle) [list of Jesus quotes via GodisImaginary.com]

321: God, Still Killing People

2010-07-23T21:00:00.000-04:00

Acts 11-13

"Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died." - Acts 12:23

Chapter 11 starts with Peter explaining to the early church why he gave the Holy Spirit to the gentiles. Why does he need to explain himself? Didn't Jesus make it pretty clear that he wanted Christians to spread the word to everyone (i.e. not just Jews)?

The chapter goes on to tell about the Christian church spreading to Antioch (a Greek city). Barnabas and Saul are the head of this offshoot church. This story doesn't seem to have much significance other than to tell us that the church is spreading to Greece. In this story we see one of the very few times (three, if my googling is correct) that the followers of Jesus are actually referred to as "Christians".

Chapter 12 is all about Herod arresting members of the church. He first arrests, and executes, James. He then arrests Peter, presumably planning to do the same thing. However, the church earnestly prays for him (were they not earnestly praying for James?) and the night before his trial an angel comes and breaks him out of jail. When Peter meets back up with the disciples, he immediately tells them to go tell James of his miraculous release. Does he mean the James that just died? This constant use of first names only is getting old.

On a bit of a tangent, the disciples seem to have lost their concern for having twelve disciples. James dies and they make no move to replace him. I guess if you're a good person and die, it must have been God's will.

The chapter ends with Herod giving a speech to the people of Tyre and Sidon. After he gives this speech they all shout, "This is the voice of a god, not of a man". Immediately after this, Herod is killed by an angel of God for not properly praising the Lord. Of all the things Herod could have been killed by God for (namely, killing disciples and taking part in the execution of Jesus depending on which gospel you read), he was executed for not correcting a rowdy crowd?

Anyway, I thought Godly killings were supposed to be over. It's the New Testament after all. Of course, I have little biblical evidence for this claim. But it seems that any Christian you ask will claim that God just sits around playing with kittens in the New Testament.

In chapter 13 we're back to Saul and Barnabas. This time the Holy Spirit sends them off to Cyprus. While they're on the island they meet a sorcerer/false prophet. Saul, who the bible says is also referred to as Paul, looks this sorcerer straight in the eyes and says, "You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right!" This sorcerer is going to be immediately executed by an angel, right? After all, "child of the devil" is surely worse than someone who fails to properly acknowledge God. Wrong. This sorcerer is just blinded.

The remainder of the chapter is just more converting by the disciples. This is a lot of stuff we've already heard, including the repeated assertion that Jesus was hung from a tree. At the end of this conversion attempt, the bible says that, "all who were appointed for eternal life believed". This would again imply that God has preselected the people that he's going to allow to believe, and thus allow into heaven.

*News*

Are the tea partiers following the bible? They seem to be the only ones that think so:

That's what some progressive Christian leaders are arguing as battle lines are drawn for the 2010 mid-term elections. They say Beck and his Tea Party followers are, in a word, unbiblical.

Not so fast, say Tea Party activists, who claim biblical grounds for a libertarian-minded Jesus. He didn't like tax-based welfare programs, they say, and encouraged his followers to donate from the heart.

First of all, I'm 99.9% sure that Jesus had no opinion on tax-based welfare programs. I also don't recall him telling us to "donate from the heart" anywhere. He tells us to give to the needy (which tax based welfare programs would seem to do), and he mostly tells us to get rid of our money at all costs (forgive the pun). Remember, its easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven. So, as a Christian, you're really encouraged to give for your own eternal welfare. That is, you should give for the primary purpose of not burning in hell.

Lloyd Marcus of Deltona, Fla., a spokesman for the Tea Party Express, is a born-again, nondenominational Christian who says flatly that "Jesus was not for socialism."

''Yes, the Bible advocates giving, but out of the goodness of our own hearts, not out of government confiscation of wealth or re-distribution of wealth," he said.

Jesus may not have been a fan of socialism or re-distribution of wealth. But there seems to be solid bible-based evidence that the early church was. Lets look at Acts 2 and 4:

All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. - Acts 2:44-45

Note, this doesn't say "they gave to the people when their heart called them to". It says they gave to anyone in need. Sounds a lot like a welfare system to me.

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales - Acts 4:32-34

First of all, they shared everything. That's redistribution of wealth taken to it's most extreme. Then, if anyone is needy, the people sell their houses and give them the money. What did these needy people do to deserve this money? They need to stop being lazy and get a job (note: this is not my opinion, I'm just channeling my inner tea partier). And remember what happens if you try to keep a little money from the sale of your house? That's right, Peter has you killed. Talk about "socialist nightmare".

"When Jesus talks about clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, he's talking to us as individuals," Farah said. The Bible does not "suggest that government is the institution that he designed to help the poor." Government social welfare programs are akin to "coercively taking money from people and redistributing to other people, which, at the end of the day, is legalized stealing," he said.

I'm beginning to wonder if these people have ever opened their bibles. This "coercively taking money from people and redistributing it to other people" is exactly what happened in the early church (see previous paragraph). Is this early church the utopia we're supposed to be aspiring to, or the socialist nightmare that's going to end America?

I'll give the last word today to Michael Lindsay from Rice University:

"I would like to think that Christians are generous," he said, "but sadly the truth of the matter is that their rhetoric is much stronger than their action."

(via The Washington Post)

320: Peter Makes Zombies

2010-07-22T23:20:00.000-04:00

Acts 9-10

"Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, 'Tabitha, get up.' She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up." - Acts 9:40

Chapter 9 picks up with Saul going around throwing Jesus lovers in jail. On Saul's way to Damascus, he falls to the ground and hears a voice that says, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?". Saul asks the voice who it is, and the voice replies, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do". How is Saul persecuting Jesus? He's persecuting people that he feels are breaking Jewish law by worshiping a false idol. I'm not sure how that's a personal affront to Jesus.

Saul stands up, and the bible says that the people who were with him "heard the sound but did not see anyone". What sound? The sound of the voice? The bible doesn't say. When Saul opens his eyes, he finds that he is blind.

Saul is blind for three days until a disciple of Jesus is sent to him. This disciple tells Saul that he has been sent by Jesus to fill him with the Holy Spirit. As soon as the disciple says this, scales fall out of Saul's eyes and he can see.

When Saul gets to Damascus he begins preaching about Jesus. When the Jewish elders catch wind of this, they conspire to kill Saul. Saul somehow finds out about this conspiracy and sneaks out of the city by night.

Saul returns to Jerusalem and attempts to join with the twelve. They are reluctant because they think it's a trap. Wait, shouldn't the Holy Spirit be telling them that it isn't a trap? After all, Saul is supposed to be filled with the Holy Spirit now. Some guy I've never heard of (Barnabas) vouches for Saul, and the twelve welcome him.

The focus shifts to Peter and the bible tells a story of him healing a paralytic. When he heals the man, he says "Jesus Christ heals you". I thought he was using the Holy Spirit to heal people, not Jesus. Isn't Jesus supposed to be staying at the right hand of God (at least till the end of the world)?

Next is a story about a woman named Tabitha. The bible says that she was a follower of Jesus, but she died of some sickness. Her friends call for Peter (who is in an adjacent town) upon her death, to come resurrect her. Peter goes to them and tells everyone to leave the room. He then tells Tabitha to get up (who is witnessing this if nobody is in the room?). She does, and everyone is convinced. We are given no clue as to why Tabitha is special in the early church. Unless this is meant to imply that all sufficiently righteous people in the early church were immediately resurrected upon their death. Somehow I doubt that.

In chapter 10, Cornelius (a centurion) has a vision about an angel telling him to go get Peter. He sends two of his servants and a soldier on their way to fetch Peter from the town he's staying in.

As these men are on their journey to get him, Peter collapses and has a vision. In this vision a large sheet is let down on the earth. This sheet somehow contains "all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air". Then a voice tells him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." Peter says surely not, he would never eat anything unclean (which seems to defy people's notion that Jesus made all things good to eat). The voice responds by saying, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean".

Ok, but what has God made clean? I guess this is meant to imply that all the animals on the sheet are good to eat? It's important to note that God still excludes all sorts of fish, and you still can't eat those four legged insects. That's if you assume that the animals on the sheet are the ones that God now means to imply are clean, which the bible doesn't explicitly say.

As this vision is wrapping up, the centurion's servants arrive at the gate of the house where Peter is staying. The Holy Spirit tells him to go with Cornelius's men, and he does.

When Peter arrives at Cornelius's house, he falls at Peter's feet. Peter tells him to get up because he is only a man. Peter goes on to give a long speech about how God doesn't show favoritism, and that he will treat everyone equally if they are God fearing. But I thought you also had to love Jesus now, lest you will be sent to hell? In any case, this seems to show extreme favoritism (at least at this time in history) toward the Jews, since they were the first ones to receive the Jesus message.

It's interesting to note that Peter reiterates that Jesus was hung from a tree (not a cross). As Peter is speaking, the Holy Spirit is given to everyone that is listening. The chapter ends with all of the gentiles being baptized.

*News*

This is an interesting story. And I promise it has something to do with the bible, bear with me:

Nmachi Ihegboro was born yesterday in London, England, with blonde hair, blue eyes, pale-pink skin, and other completely typical Caucasoid (that is, "white") features. The only thing that makes her birth unusual, aside from her African-sounding given and family names, is that both her parents are black, not white, and in fact she has two black siblings who look little different from their parents.

As they say, "Pics or it didn't happen", here it is:

African albinism is actually surprisingly unremarkable. Some sources say that it happens in 1 of every 20,000 births. However, the claim here is that this is a truly caucasian baby. That is, somehow this couple, that claims to have no white ancestors, held all the recessive genes to make a white baby:

...their doctors began to suspect that Nmachi suffered from albinism, or the total absence of bodily pigment. Albinism is a very serious disorder that places the patient at permanent risk of sunburn from even the slightest sun exposure, and often makes the patient's eyes permanently light-sensitive and can even lead to blindness. But the color of the skin, hair and eyes would tend toward an extreme, and the eyes would be pink, not blue. Therefore, as Professor Bryan Sykes of Oxford University suspects, this child is not an albino.

Unfortunately, instead of doing any research, the writer of this article just used his own idea of what an albino is and stated it as fact. Turns out, the Oxford University Professor is right (shocking). Allow me to point you to a gallery of African albinos that look exactly like this baby (that is, blonde, and mostly non-pink eyes). As for this baby's "white features", that's up to your own opinion.

Here's where the bible comes in: The writer, operating on the assumption that the baby is not an albino, starts drawing ridiculous conclusions:

But creationists know that in fact all human beings alive today have two common ancestors: Noah, the builder and captain of the largest lifeboat ever built, and his wife. Their son Ham happens to be the common ancestor of southern Africans and the ancient Egyptians. So Nmachi could be expressing genes long suppressed but passed along since the Babel Incident, and inherited either directly through Ham's son Cush or perhaps introduced to her family by an Egyptian soldier or two.

Whoa, what? I didn't realize that the Tower of Babel had anything to do with people's race. The most important, possibly false, assumption that the writer is making is that Noah and his wife were white. There is no biblical evidence of this, and there is certainly no historical evidence of this. As far as I remember there is no mention of (black/white) race anywhere in the bible.

Of course, nobody seems to want to do a genetic test that would put this case to rest.

If you want to do your own research/draw your own conclusion about this case, here are some relevant links:

Albinism,
Lighter eyes vs. Lighter skin (mentions African albinism sometimes comes with blonde hair blue eyes),
and the real origins of human skin color.

(via The Examiner)

319: The Old Testament, Again

2010-07-21T23:10:00.000-04:00

Acts 7-8

"Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran. 'Leave your country and your people,' God said, 'and go to the land I will show you.' " - Acts 7:2-3

Stephen is taken before the Sanhedrin and they ask him if the charges against him are true. The charges were, if you'll remember from yesterday, that he blasphemed against God and Moses. Stephen decides to give the longest, and most completely irrelevant answer of all time.

Stephen gives the Sanhedrin an almost complete synopsis of the Old Testament. He starts with Abraham and goes to the story of Solomon. The only thing worth mentioning is something Stephen says toward the end of his rant:

However, the Most High does not live in houses made by men.

In fact, he does:

Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you.

This is just a random example from Exodus (25:8-9), God is represented as living in the tabernacle many times in the Old Testament.

Factual errors or not, I don't see how any of this answers the question of whether he blasphemed against God or Moses. Just because he's a scholar of Old Testament history doesn't make him somehow incapable of blaspheming. The Sanhedrin seems to agree, as they immediately drag him outside and stone him. Stephen prays that they will be forgiven for their sin, and falls asleep.

On this same day, the Christian church in Jerusalem is disbanded. All but the twelve are scattered throughout the land. One of the main perpetrators of this split up is Saul. Saul, the bible says, goes from door to door dragging Christians away and tossing them in jail.

Some of the church that is scattered in Samaria comes across a man named Simon. This Simon can perform magic, and many of the Samarians say that he has divine power. I guess some people can perform magic without the assistance of God.

When Peter and John come for a visit, they start laying their hands on people, giving them the Holy Spirit. Why is this necessary? I thought the Holy Spirit was going to be given to us by God, not through any of the disciples. Simon sees this, and offers Peter money if he will give him this power. Peter says that Simon will have no part with this ministry because he tried to buy God. I thought God liked to be bought. The Old Testament is filled with people giving their earthly possessions in sacrifice to God.

The chapter ends with one of the disciples converting a eunuch. The eunuch is at the side of the road reading Isaiah, and Philip convinces him that Isaiah is full of clear prophecy about Jesus.

*News*

Speaking of shoddy biblical prophecy:

Many people have heard about a book called the Bible, some have read it, others have studied it as an old dusty history book, and others have seen the marvelous reality of its power and knowledge tell us things hundreds and thousands of years before they ever happen.

I've haven't yet seen a thoroughly convincing biblical prophecy. But maybe I just passed something up, let's see what he has to say:

Around 6,000 years ago, Genesis tells us that Eve’s seed will crush Satan’s head. This tells us that a virgin without a man’s seed will give birth to the Son of God to destroy Satan’s power.

Genesis does say that Eve's offspring will crush the head of a serpent (not explicitly said to be Satan). But it's quite a momentous leap to say that this implies that a virgin will give birth to the son of God to destroy Satan. This isn't his last momentous leap:

One of King David’s psalms is called the Lord’s passion, describing right down to the last detail of His crucifixion, what He was feeling and how He was watching the soldiers cast lots for His robe, 1,076 years before the Romans at the request of the religious Jewish leaders crucified Him. This is psalm 22 if you care to read it.

Right down to the last detail, that's quite a claim. It turns out that Psalm 22 is one of those "woe is David" Psalms. In the Psalm, David says "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" and David has his clothes divided by lots. Not even David phrases this as a prophecy. Are we to take what is clearly a coincidence (at best) and turn it into a prophecy, against the writer's will? I guess if I get mugged, and write a story about it, I'm really writing a prophecy that someday one of my great great great great grandchildren will be mugged.

I have had many people try to tell me that the men who wrote the Bible just made circumstances match up with what happened and pre-dated the event. Sorry! The ancient manuscripts found in Bedouin caves are within one-thousandth of total accuracy with our present Bible, translated by King James’ People.

I don't know about any of that, but it's clear that Jesus was intentionally fulfilling prophecies. Many times the bible says that Jesus does things "that they may fulfill the prophecy". An easy example of this is Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey (and/or colt). Jesus went out of his way to grab a donkey to fulfill the prophecy. I believe the name for that is "self-fulfilling prophecy".

At this point, this writer must feel that he has his audience reeled in. Because he decides it's a good time to go to crazyland:

What really blows my mind is our July Fourth celebration, declaring our Independence from Great Britain, found in Daniel Chapter 7 verse 4. July Fourth, 7-4, Daniel 7:4, just a coincidence, or does God have a sense of humor? The Bible didn’t have any chapters or numbered scripture verses until the printing press came into existence in the middle of the 14th century, about 226 years before we were even thinking of becoming a Nation. Daniel even tells us our emblem will be an Eagle and will become a man (Uncle Sam) to represent our Nation! How accurate is that?

Oh, my mind is blown alright. Let's look at Daniel 7:4:

The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a man, and the heart of a man was given to it.

To put this in context, this is one of Daniel's dreams. In this one there are four great beasts "America" is the first one). In the dream he ends up talking to one of the horns of one of the beasts.

The writer mentions that verses were not included until after the bible was written. I'm not sure if this is supposed to help his "July fourth" case or not. I guess God not only added the verses by hand, but also oversaw the universal adoption of the Gregorian calendar and made Uncle Sam an American symbol circa 1812. All for one, not very convincing, mention of America in the strange dream of someone thousands of years ago.

Let's review. The United States is in the bible. It's personified by a winged monster in the form of a lion. This lion has it's eagle wings ripped off (thus the eagle became our national symbol?), and stands up like a man (Uncle Sam?). Wait, does this mean Uncle Sam is secretly a lion?

I think people are getting crazier and crazier every day.

(via The Coolidge Examiner)

318: Socialists!

2010-07-20T23:15:00.000-04:00

Acts 4-6

"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had." - Acts 4:32

The day starts with Peter and John being taken before the Sanhedrin (the Jewish court). They are arrested for teaching that Jesus was resurrected. But when Peter speaks to the Sanhedrin he seems to think that he's being persecuted for healing the crippled man.

The Sanhedrin then, the bible says, feel outclassed. They tell Peter and John to leave so they can talk among themselves. Somehow we can still hear their conversation. The Jewish elders say that they cannot deny the miracles that the disciples have performed, but they need to stop this Jesus myth from spreading. I get the feeling that's not quite how the conversation went. It seems that Luke decided to fill in this gap with his own propaganda.

The Sanhedrin then calls the disciples back, threatens them, and tells them not to preach about Jesus. Then they let the disciples go. The disciples go back to their people and give them a speech about how they're not going to stop preaching about Jesus. In this speech they mention that both Pilate and Herod persecuted Jesus. This would seem to lend credence to the people that think Luke wrote this gospel. Considering Luke is the only one that mentions Jesus even coming before Herod.

Chapter 4 ends with a story about the early church. Luke says that, in this early Christian church, everyone shared all their possessions with each other. From time to time, people would sell their houses and give all the money they garnered from the sale to the disciples. The disciples were the one's in charge of distributing the money to the needy people.

First of all, it sounds a lot like this early church followed the basic tenants of Socialism. I wonder what Tea Partiers think of this "Socialist" bible. It's interesting that many Christians are so against this idea of Socialism that they're supposed to be aspiring to. Second, why is it that the disciples are getting filthy rich out of this whole setup? Shouldn't the people immediately distribute the money to poor people instead of first giving it to the disciples? After all, Jesus says sell your things and give the money to the poor, not sell your things and give the money to the disciples.

My objection turns to shock with the first story in chapter 5. Ananias and Sapphira (his wife) are two members of this early church. They are one of the families that sell their house and give the money to the disciples. However, Ananias, with his wife's knowledge, holds back some of the money from the disciples.

Peter somehow finds out about this and calls Ananias before him. He says that Satan has filled his heart, and he has lied to God. When Ananias hears this, he drops dead. Yes, you read that right. Peters servants then take his body outside and bury it.

Peter then calls Sapphira, who doesn't know that her husband has died. Peter asks her if the money that they gave him was the full price of their house. When she says yes, Peter asks her how she could have agreed to test the Holy Spirit. He tells her that the people who buried her husband are outside the door, and that they will take her too. She then, like her husband, drops dead. She is also taken outside and buried.

What the hell is this? This makes the early Christian church seem at least as bad as the worst of today's cults. Once you're in the church, if you don't give up all of your money, then you are ruthlessly killed. Why wouldn't Ananias and Sapphira just be kicked out of the church? Were they killed so that others may fear God? Indeed the bible says that these events struck fear into the early church. So nothing has changed since the Old Testament. The penalty for disobedience is still death. Except now, instead of just dying, you get to suffer eternal torture in hell. How does this God meet anyone's understanding of what is morally "good"?

The chapter continues with the disciples performing miracles. The bible says that people brought the sick into the streets so that Peter's shadow might be cast on them. I guess miraculous healing can be performed by merely casting shadows on people now. That's wonderfully inconsistent with anything we've heard thus far.

The Sanhedrin again arrest the disciples (this time all of them). During the night an angel comes and frees them from jail, and they begin preaching in public. Aren't I told all the time (with respect to illegal immigration) that good Christians are supposed to follow the laws of the land? In what way does the disciples breaking out of jail align with this?

The next morning the Sanhedrin assembles and they call for the jail to get the disciples. Someone tells them that they've broken out and are preaching in the temple courts. The Sanhedrin sends their guards to seize them, and the disciples don't put up much of a fight. In the end, breaking out of jail was a pointless stunt anyway.

The Sanhedrin tells the disciples that they were not to preach in Jesus's name. Peter, again, decides to give a long monologue. This is an interesting excerpt:

The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.

Wait, how was Jesus killed? He was killed by being hanged on a tree? I've got four gospels that tell me that Jesus carried (or had carried for him) a cross, with which he was crucified. I'd love to hear the mental gymnastics you have to do to make this fit. I supposed this is a metaphorical "tree" or some such other bullshit.

This monologue so infuriates the Sanhedrin that they want to have the disciples stoned. A Pharisee, however, orders that the disciples be put outside for awhile, while he talks to the Sanhedrin. Again, we are somehow privy to this conversation. This Pharisee explains that once the leader of a movement is killed, the movement eventually dies (just like the death of Martin Luther King destroyed the civil rights movement). I guess the idea of martyrdom hasn't occurred to these people yet. The Pharisee goes on to explain that the only way a movement can survive once it's leader is killed is if God is really in charge.

The Sanhedrin buys this, and sets the disciples free after a good flogging. The disciples (who are apparently a bunch of sadists) are grateful for this flogging, because they got to suffer in the name of Jesus. Whatever floats your boat.

Chapter 6 starts with a dispute between the Grecian Jews and the Hebraic Jews (whoever they are). The Hebraic Jews claim that their widows aren't getting a fair share of food. The disciples say that it wouldn't be fair to neglect the ministry to fairly distribute food, so they decide to choose seven people to be in charge (of food distribution?). I hope these seven turn out to be a little more than over hyped waiters.

One of these seven, Stephen, does miraculous signs among the people. Members of the Synagogue of Freedom (whoever they are) decide that they don't like him (for some unknown reason), and decide to give false testimony against him. They testify that he blasphemed against Moses and God. Stephen, like the disciples, are taken before the Sanhedrin, and the chapter ends. Tune in tomorrow for the shocking (or boring, I don't know) conclusion.

*News*

Can the bible be used as a counseling tool? Apparently this is a serious question:

“I’m not ashamed to tell you I’ve had years of counseling. I’ve been on four anti-depressants, three kinds of anti-anxiety prescriptions and a menu of meds for bipolar disorder. I’ve been suicidal at times and basically thought I’d never be happy.” That’s what Deborah, a 33-year-old wife and mom related after her life transformation courtesy of Dr. Greg Cynaumon, and his Unlocking The Bible’s Secrets to Happiness program. “I could have avoided years of pain and counseling and tens of thousands of dollars if I’d discovered this earlier in life,” she concluded.

Surely, because this program is based on the bible, he's going to give you this program for free. Or perhaps he will charge $2 (the approximate cost of 6 dvds, which the program comes on). Nope, if you want to participate, it's going to cost you $99.95 (plus shipping, of course). But maybe it's worth it, let's see what this program is going to do for you:

Look, I get that counseling is valuable and medication is absolutely beneficial – if not life-saving to many, many people. But if you’re depressed, anxious, stressed-out, can’t sleep, have a bad marriage, have difficulty setting boundaries and really aren’t at all sure what your bigger purpose for being here on this earth is - this program will change your life.

Yes, this will not only fix your depression, anxiety, and insomnia, but it will also fix your marriage! And if you believe that, I'm selling some high quality snake oil that you might be interested in.

Even if the bible can somehow miraculously cure you of your depression, you can get that for free at any church. And you'll probably get much more fellowship (which is what I would contend really cures depression) from a church than you would sitting at home by yourself, watching overpriced dvds. Of course, you can also get fellowship from your local atheist group. Then you won't have to try to be inspired by a book that promotes: killing people for not giving money to the church, sending bears to eat little children, and an assortment of other ghastly things.

(via PRWeb)

317: The Deaths of Judas

2010-07-19T23:00:00.000-04:00

Acts 1-3

"So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself." - Matthew 27:5

"With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out." - Acts 1:18

The Acts (of the Apostles) starts with the writer addressing Theophilus. The writer tells this Theophilus that he has a former book in which he writes about Jesus. My teen study bible claims that this book was written by Luke, but a little research tells me that this is debated. I'll attempt to draw my own conclusion.

The first story is about Jesus ascending into heaven. After his ascension the disciples are confronted by two men (angels?) who ask them why they are looking up into the sky. These men claim that Jesus will return the way that he has left.

The next story is about the disciples' replacement of Judas. There is no explanation given to why they have to replace him. Is twelve an important number of disciples for some reason? This then launches the writer of Acts into a small side story about how Judas dies. This time, as opposed to being hanged like in Matthew, Judas falls headlong into his field and his intestines spill out.

This story is a pretty famous contradiction in the bible, and there are some pretty hilarious attempted reconciliations. I've read everything from Acts being a metaphor, to Judas both hanging himself (failing) then throwing himself off a cliff (the bible doesn't say a cliff was involved), to the even more absurd claim that he hung himself over a cliff. The actual story in the bible makes it sound like Judas just falls down and his guts explode from within him. I don't see any reasonable way of reconciling Matthew and Acts.

Back to the story of choosing the new disciple. It ends up coming down to two people. The disciples pray for God to show them which one of the men is the best. This should be easy, the Holy Spirit will simply point them to which one they should choose. After all, the Holy Spirit is supposed to be a pocket-Jesus that tells you everything you need to know. Sadly, this is not the case, they end up casting lots to decide God's will. No need for the Holy Spirit, I'll just carry around a coin to flip when I need to know God's will (oops, did I just commit the unforgivable sin again?).

As it turns out, I may have given too much credence to John's account of the Holy Spirit. Because at the beginning of chapter 2 there is a long story about the disciples receiving the Holy Spirit. First I'll tell you the story, then I'll explain my confusion.

The disciples are together on the day of Pentecost. Suddenly the house is filled with a violent wind and "tongues of fire" go into them. All the disciples then start speaking in foreign languages (not the gibberish that people call "tongues" these days). There is, however, the interesting assertion from some in the crowd that the disciples have just had too much to drink. Maybe it did sound like they were just speaking in gibberish?

Here's my confusion. Rewind a day to John 20:20-23:

Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

To put this in context, this is directly after Jesus returns. Before his ascension (you know, the ascension that doesn't actually happen in the book of John). This seems to be further confirmed at the beginning of Acts:

In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.

This seems to support at least the claim that the twelve already had the Holy Spirit (otherwise how were they receiving commands through it?) before Jesus ascended. This all seems like someone was very confused while writing Acts.

Moving on. Peter gets up in front of the crowd and tells them that the disciples are not drunk, as they seem to presume, because it's only nine in the morning. This seems to be his only evidence that they're not all completely hammered. Needless to say, it's possible to get drunk at nine in the morning.

Peter goes on an interesting tangent about David's relationship with Jesus. This is a bunch of stuff we've heard before, till near the end:

God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said...

David didn't go to heaven? Wasn't he one of the most loyal kings of Israel to God? Aside from that little snafu with killing his girlfriend's husband, he seemed to be a God fearing man.

This speech ends up convincing around three thousand people to be baptized. The bible says that the members of this early church sold everything they had and gave it to those in need (sounds like socialism to me). What would the Christians today think of someone that sold everything they had and lived only on the kindness of others? Or maybe a better question, what if everyone did this? We wouldn't have much of an economic system if people's only goal was to sell all their belongings. Who would they sell their things to?

Chapter 3 is all about Peter healing a crippled man. This isn't any more or less convincing than the miracles of Jesus, but it brings up an important question. Why can't we all (or at least faithful Christians) heal on demand? Peter's only new tool seems to be the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is supposed to be freely given to any who believe in Jesus. I've certainly seen completely faithful people unable to heal their ailing loved ones. Maybe Peter has some especially potent Holy Spirit that I don't know about?

*News*

God shows himself in mysterious (read "trivial") ways:

With the exception of a copy of the Holy Bible, all other items, including paints, chemicals, electrical gadgets and personal belongings, were destroyed by fire at the Ark Paint ventures, a paint company at Takoradi on Friday morning. The opened Bible was not touched by fire, even though it was on a suitcase which was burnt.

First of all, this is a vague anecdote at best. We have no way of confirming where the bible actually was. Has someone tried, say, a lighter? Is this bible's paper somehow miraculously immune to fire? Or was this just, as any reasonable person would assume, a coincidence?

For the moment, let's roll with this and say that God himself came down and prevented the fire from consuming this bible. What does that say about God? Let's hear some details about this story:

Mr. Archibald Deman, owner of the company said owing to accommodation problems, he had packed a lot of goods, including his personal belongings into one of the office, intending to transfer them to a house on Sunday. Unfortunately, he said all the belongings, together with the paint chemicals for the production of paints and furniture, were consumed by the fire.

So God, presumably, allowed this fire to start in the first place. Then proceeded to allow the fire to consume not only this man's source of income, but all of his belongings. But when the flames reached the bible, that's when God stepped in. If the bible were burned that would've been a true tragedy.

But surely nobody actually thinks this was an act of God. Only a morally repugnant God would would do such a terri... Wait, *Scrolls down to the comments*:

Comment #1: HEAVEN IS INDEED REAL. MAY ALL WHO DO NOT BELIEVE STOP AND THINK AGAIN. OUR SAVIOUR LORD JESUS REIGNS.

Comment #2: that is the power of God.this is a lession to allnot to play games with the mighty God.i rest my case.

Comment #3: God is good.

Well I guess trying to make a logical point after that just seems a bit silly. I guess I'm done for the day.

(via Peace FM Online)

316: Finger Me and Believe & John: In Review

2010-07-18T22:55:00.000-04:00

John 19-21

"Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.' " - John 20:27

The day starts with Jesus being flogged. Why is Pilate having Jesus flogged? He just got finished saying (at the end of chapter 18) that he finds no basis for charging Jesus. After this unnecessary flogging, Jesus is put in a robe and crowned with thorns.

As soon as Pilate brings Jesus before the Jews they start yelling "crucify him" over and over again. Pilate tells the Jews to go crucify him themselves, because he can find nothing to charge him for. Why does Pilate keep insisting that the Jews execute him if it's illegal for the Jews to execute people?

Pilate then questions Jesus again, and Jesus says that he is sent from above. From then on, the bible says, Pilate "tried to set Jesus free". Tried? Is he not the Governor? If he really wanted Jesus set free why didn't he just say the word? The Jews claim that Jesus is not a friend of Caesar (because he claims to be king). But so what? There is no explanation as to why Pilate cares what the Jews think of him, or of his rulings.

At the end of all this, the bible says that John hands Jesus over to "them" to be crucified. He hands him over to the Jews? Those were the last people he was talking about. But this surely can't be true. And, in fact, Jesus is given to Pilate's guards (not the Jews) to be crucified. Either the translators of the bible or John confused their pronouns.

Jesus then carries his own cross to the place where he's to be crucified. There's no Simon to carry the cross for him in this gospel. Then he's crucified as per the other gospels.

While Jesus is on the cross, he says he is thirsty. Someone (it's not clear who) offers him vinegar to drink. As soon as Jesus drinks the vinegar he says "It is finished", and uneventfully dies. What happened to the sky darkening in the hours before his death? What happened to the earthquakes and the temple curtain being torn at the moment of his death?

Only in this gospel is Jesus speared in the side to make sure that he is dead. The bible says that when he is speared there was a sudden flow of blood and water. I'm not a doctor, and from what I've seen there are various explanations as to why blood and water may have come out of a wound to the side. So I wouldn't necessarily see this as inconsistent, but for the fact that it's not mentioned in any of the other gospels.

Jesus is then buried. There are no guards, and there is no seal on the tomb.

Early on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene arrives at the tomb before the sun comes up (two people generally arrive after the sun has risen in the other gospels). Mary sees that the stone has been rolled away and runs to tell Peter that Jesus's body has been stolen. Peter and "the one Jesus loved" (who?) sprint back to the tomb. They both go into the tomb and only see Jesus's death shroud. Nobody else is there. They return home, but Mary (arriving after them) stays.

She goes into the tomb (alone, not with the other Mary) and sees two angels sitting at the head and the feet of Jesus's death shroud. They ask Mary why she is crying and she explains that someone has taken her Lord away. They again ask why she is crying. Mary, thinking the angels are the gardeners (they must not look very angelic), asks them if they are the ones that took the body. Jesus then appears out of nowhere and says "Mary". After a brief discussion with Jesus, she runs back to tell the disciples that she's seen Jesus.

That evening, the disciples are meeting with the doors locked (for fear of the Jews). Jesus magically appears among them. He shows the disciples his still wounded hands and side. The bible says that he then goes around and breathes the Holy Spirit into his disciples. I thought only God was allowed to give people the Holy Spirit.

Jesus then disappears and Thomas (one of the twelve) arrives. The other disciples tell him that they've seen Jesus. Thomas ("Doubting Thomas") says that unless he puts his finger in Jesus's nail holes, he won't believe. Shouldn't Jesus be healed? Jesus really is a zombie in John's gospel Unless John isn't mentioning that blood is still gushing from his wounds, his heart must be stopped. Either that or the wounds are actually healed, and God just left the holes for posterity.

A week later they meet again (with the doors locked). Jesus again magically appears amongst them. This time, Thomas is with them. Jesus tells Thomas to put his finger in his nail holes, and shove his whole hand in his side (where he was speared). My skepticism is reaching a crescendo. Why does no other gospel even mention that Jesus is still wounded, much less that the disciples were going around shoving their hands in his side.

Some time later, Simon and the "disciple that Jesus loved" are fishing. They aren't catching anything till Jesus appears on the shore. Jesus tells them to throw their net back in. This time they catch (exactly) 153 fish. The bible says that none of them dared ask who he was. Why would they need to ask? This makes it sound like Jesus doesn't look like Jesus (like the other gospels).

Jesus then asks Peter three times if he loves him. Every time Peter says yes, and Jesus responds by saying "Feed my lambs" or "Feed my sheep". I'm assuming that Jesus is talking about his metaphorical sheep again. Didn't he say he was going to stop speaking in metaphors?

The chapter ends by saying two things. First, that this "disciple Jesus loved" was the one that wrote the gospel of John. That only tells us that someone thought John was this mysterious disciple that is especially loved by Jesus. Second, the bible says that Jesus did a bunch of other things, but if it were written the world would not have room for all the books about Jesus's life.

Wait, that's it? Jesus is supposed to ascend to heaven. I guess this is one of those things that the bible isn't mentioning, lest the book be too long. I wish some of the Old Testament writers had such concern about making books too long.

John: In Review

The end of the gospels about Jesus's life leaves me woefully unconvinced. The four gospels seem to do a great job of undermining each other. John especially seems illegitimate because his stories are so different from the stories in the other three gospels.

The first thing that comes to mind (because I just read it today) is Jesus's wounds. It really seems like John is just making this all up as he goes along. Where did John get this idea that Jesus's wounds were still there? How did he have get this revelation 40+ years after Jesus's death?

As boring as it would be, shouldn't these four gospels agree exactly on their major details? What did Jesus say on the cross? I don't know because none of the gospels agree. How many people and who came to Jesus's tomb? I don't know. Who saw Jesus, and what happened when they did see him? I don't know. Was Jesus recognizable after his resurrection? I don't know. Did Jesus carry his own cross? Everyone but John says no. These seem like pretty important things to get right.

Some complaints more exclusive to John. I think that I would be terribly confused about some concepts (e.g. the trial of Jesus) if I hadn't already read the other gospels. John randomly leaves out pretty big details (e.g. Jesus convicted before Caiaphas), either assuming that we already know what happens, or just forgetting to include them. None of this leads me to believe that this is the one true word of an all powerful all knowing God.

*News*

If you haven't heard (it's been in the news a bit), the "Atheists of Florida" are suing the Lakeland City Commission to stop them from opening their meetings with a prayer.

EllenBeth Wachs, director of the Lakeland chapter of Atheists of Florida, says the Lakeland's invocation policy to open City Commission meetings violates the separation of religion and state provisions in the First Amendment.

Ms. Wachs would do well to read the First Amendment. In it she would find no mention of "separation of religion and state," only "that Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof."

The writer of this article would do well to read some Supreme Court opinions with regard to the establishment clause. Those of you who have taken any Political Science should be familiar with the "Lemon Test" which is applied to establishment clause cases. All of these conditions must be met for a government action to pass the Lemon Test:

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

The only one that this case may pass is number three. But prayer before public city meetings certainly doesn't have a secular legislative purpose, and it does have the primary effect of advancing religion. Back to the article:

The point of this lawsuit is clearly not to protect to Constitution, but rather to alter it, to fit the atheist's worldview. It seems to me that the atheists here are actually the ones who are in violation of the First Amendment, which states there shall be no law "prohibiting the free exercise of" religion, City Commission members included.

This lawsuit seems appropriate based on Supreme Court precedence. If this case is an atheist conspiracy to promote our worldview, then this writer must be calling the Supreme Court Justices of the early 70's a bunch of atheists. Sorry, Supreme Court opinions constitute law in America.

(via The Ledger)

315: In a Little While

2010-07-17T22:50:00.000-04:00

John 16-18

"Some of his disciples said to one another, 'What does he mean by saying, 'In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me,' and 'Because I am going to the Father'?' They kept asking, 'What does he mean by 'a little while'? We don't understand what he is saying.' " - John 16:17-18

Jesus starts the day by repeating most of the concepts he explained yesterday. Namely that once he is crucified he will tell God to send the counselor (the Holy Spirit) to everyone. Why God can't do this without Jesus being crucified, I'm not sure (being all powerful, and all). Jesus ends all this by saying that he has much more to say, but he is going to let the Holy Spirit say the rest of the truth.

Jesus then tells his disciples that in a little while they will see him no more, then a little while after that they will see him. Jesus has a strange definition of "no more". His disciples ask him what he means by all this. He responds with a metaphor about mothers feeling pain until their baby is born then they feel joy.

Jesus ends the chapter by promising that eventually he will stop speaking figuratively. The disciples seem confused, and say that because he's stopped speaking figuratively, they now believe that he's from God (Jesus didn't say that he had actually stopped speaking figuratively). Does this mean they didn't believe before? Jesus happily exclaims, "you believe at last!" I guess the miracles of John's gospels aren't enough to even convince the disciples.

In chapter 17 Jesus prays for himself, his disciples, and all the other believers. This seems to be the Gethsemane scene from the other gospels (right before he is arrested). This time, instead of being reluctant to be crucified, Jesus seems to have accepted his fate. And because of this acceptance he tells God that it is time to glorify he and his son. I think he knows, Jesus. This seems to be the exact opposite of the Jesus from the other gospels, who prays that God will take the burden of crucifixion away from him.

Chapter 18 starts with Jesus being arrested. Again Peter chops off one of the ears of the men trying to arrest Jesus. This time Jesus tells him to stop, because Jesus has to "drink the cup" that his father has given him. There is no "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword". Jesus also neglects to heal the ear of the man who has it chopped off (as in Luke). And there is no naked disciple that runs away when Jesus is arrested (as in Mark).

Jesus is first taken to Annas (as opposed to Caiaphas). Annas is the one that asks him about his disciples and his teaching. After Annas has done his questioning, Jesus is sent to Caiaphas. While Jesus is going to Caiaphas, Peter is denying Jesus. Peter's denial happens in a similar manner to the other gospels, but this time he is talking to Jewish servants and officials. Peter seems to deny he is a disciple to different people in every gospel.

The next time we see Jesus is as he is being sent away from Caiaphas to Pilate. John just skipped the entire Jewish conviction of Jesus. Pilate asks the Jews what the man is being charged with. The Jews respond by saying that if he were not a criminal they would not have brought him before Pilate. Well that wasn't very helpful. Pilate tells the Jews to try them under their own laws, but the Jews say they are not allowed. Couldn't Pilate give them permission?

Pilate then questions Jesus, asking him if he is the king of the Jews. Jesus eventually says yes, he is the king. Pilate then tells the Jews that he's found no basis for charging Jesus. This merges right into Pilate asking if the Jews would like to release Barabbas or Jesus. Wait, Pilate just said he wasn't going to charge Jesus. Isn't the idea that the Jews are supposed to choose between two criminals? How does that work if one person hasn't been charged? Again John seems to have assumed we've read the other gospels.

*News*

This one's a good one. Will Smith is reportedly making a movie based on the bible.

According to reports, mega-star Will Smith has latched on to a new project called The Legend of Cain. Smith is planning to not only produce the movie through his own Overbrook Entertainment, but also star in the title role of Cain. The star’s wife Jada Pinkett Smith, James Lassiter, and Ken Stovitz will also produce.

This is interesting when you take into account Will Smith's alleged Scientology (which he denies). Is this an elaborate scheme to make sure we all know that he's actually a Christian? At least he can't take the anti-Semitic route (a la Mel Gibson) with the story of Cain and Abel.

But wait, there's a twist. Cain is actually a vampire! Seriously, I can't make this shit up:

On its own this content could probably make a decent film, but The Legend of Cain will take the old story a step further with a little twist: vampires. Yes, it looks like the plan is for Cain to also be a bloodsucker, likely pegging him as the very first vampire.

I'm sure this won't be the last we hear of this. If the movie actually goes into production I'm sure I'll have some fundie rage to talk about. "Cain? A vampire? Blasphemy!"

Until then, I'll give you a sneak preview of what this movie will look like:

Cain

Abel

Choose now, who's team are you on? Either that or commit seppuku before you have to hear about another vampire movie.

(via Geeks of Doom)