the cross [of Zombie] doesn’t make sense till you become stupid

er.. I mean till you have faith. And I call this load of crap.

I don’t think there is a right way of being an atheist. But there are a group of believers that I treat with a lot of suspicion. The type who every post they write they say when I was a non believer this or that. I understand it is possible to convert to a delusion religion after having being irreligious. I, however, would expect that these group of believers write articles that are better thought out than their other brethren and sisters. I don’t understand how it is they churn out the same kind of trash. Maybe, religion does really atrophy the brain.

This particular theist writes

When I was a non-believer I could grasp that Jesus was a great man. I could grasp that His death on the cross was a travesty of human justice. I could grasp that He was a holy man of God that spoke great truths of the universe.

A statement, which from the face of it points to one who was generally ignorant of the scholarship on Jesus. Any one with a little common sense would as well have written this. Adding he was a non believer doesn’t add any value to the above statement. It isn’t profound.

He continues to write

However, as a non-believer, I just could not grasp the Christian theology that Jesus’ death on the cross was for me. I just could not grasp that Him hanging on the cross was for the forgiveness of my sins. How does a man dying on the cross reconcile me to God, I asked myself?

And I see the ramblings of a believer, a confused one but still a believer. The much he could be, in my opinion is a Muslim who was trying to grasp what the message of his fellow book people mean with a dying messiah. It’s a statement lacking any attempt at being critical.

His conclusion that

Jesus dying on the cross was just the end of a cool dude’s life and then the church fabricated the resurrection thing. It just doesn’t make any sense if Jesus was just…a man.

sounds more like apologist rambling than one engaged with an intellectual question. In fact, had he not written he was a non believer, I would think he belongs to the WLC school of apologists. Those who, like Brandon and UnkleE pretend to have a faith that is intellectual. How this is even possible, I am yet to understand.

Mark tells us

During the last plague in Egypt, God commanded the Israelites to paint the blood of an innocent pure lamb on their doorway so that the death plague would passover their homes. This points to Jesus on the cross. His blood was spilled so that we might live.

and I wonder what happened to humanity? Putting aside the myth of the story of the plagues, for a minute, how in the name of all that is profane would someone take joy in senseless murder so that he may live? Would Mark be willing to die so that other people in some distant future may live forever plus 1? I want to bang my head on my computer when I read such crock, except I still need to use it tomorrow. My head, I mean.

Mark tells us it was important for Jesus to commit suicide because

It all goes back God’s sacrificial system. Jesus is the culmination of that. The animals used in the passover and the sacrifices at the Tabernacle and later the Temple had to be pure and spotless to be used to atone for the sinner’s sin. Jesus was pure and spotless.

A former non believer, who has lost all sense of decency, tells us a god could not find a way to forgive people without recourse to a scapegoat? Think about it for a moment. So god needed to die to save us from god. The same god who had created the conditions for our failure, first by making us in his image, an image that I think is full of shit and then cursing the land, making it possible for malingerers to flourish. I sympathise with Mark. He would have remained a non believer or if he had to believe this silliness, he shouldn’t have become an apologist.

If, as he writes,

On the cross, He was thus sacrficed for sin. He became all sin of all time, past, present and future.

why should the christian be moral? All his sins have been paid for in advance. What is the point in repentance when all the sins have been washed away by the sacrificial lamb? And how does this work? Does it mean if Mark steals from his neighbour, he can point them to the cross in his house or one hanging around his neck? Or do I need faith to understand this trope?

This post is already longer than I would want it to be. The rest of the post is the same trope. Freewill, Satan and all the other excuses apologists come up with to explain their inability to think critically. Go read it.

 

Nudity, Christianity and marriage among others

I had a dream about you. I was running barefoot on the beach, and you were chasing me because you were a cop, and I was naked. I couldn’t believe you tried to arrest me. What, is it a crime to run with no shoes?

Jarod Kintz

It’s the invention of clothes, not nature, that made “private parts” private.”
― Mokokoma Mokhonoana

This is a public service announcement. It may turn out all mixed up, so excuse me.

It seems to me Christian men are suffering. There is too much nudity online. And porn. What must a christian man do? Ask the holy spirit for help. I suggest they pray to their god to make sure Christians are born all dressed up.

Then we have that insane thing called National Prayer Breakfast where our corrupt MPigs and charlatans preachers meet over sumptuous breakfast to pray to their gods to help keep them safe from poor Kenyans. Some tweets about the event.

Then, here we find a person with enough intelligence to eat and nothing more. Reduces everything to tribe and nothing else. From my tweet about how useless the event is, all he sees is my tribe.

And lastly we come to the other obsession of the religious, marriage.

Doug tells us the traditional understanding of marriage is one man one woman and I must, sincerely, ask which tradition?

Ignorance of history is a bad thing. Though the bible isn’t a history book, we have in its pages concubinage, incest and prostitution. Prostitution wouldn’t have been condemned unless it was already prevalent. For the ignorant christian of today to write marriage was mortally wounded in the 20th century is to me, a display of ignorance of the facts as they stand.

That the christian is unaware of the promiscuity that was prevalent in the church until recently doesn’t surprise me. I only wished they don’t say it out loud. It is not contraceptives that is the problem. It is the religious idea that sex is sacred that means there is a lot of repressed sexual energies that is the problem.

One would ask why the bible talks about divorce, gives grounds for divorce if it wasn’t already happening?

I sympathise with the religious, I really do, but I hate to tell them that their fears have their source in ignorance. Had they been a little more enlightened, it would be obvious to them that couples would still divorce whether LGBTs had their rights to marry granted by legislation as they should have. Promiscuity will  not increase or decrease because LGBTs are not discriminated against.

Please, you goddites, work on your relationships. Don’t bother with that which doesn’t concern you.

As an introduction to a bit of history, the christian, I suggest they read this post. It is short.