Without the devil

As the fourth and silent member of the trinity, churches, mosques and most likely synagogues would have closed. We must, if we look at the narratives presented to us, take it that the devil has equal power with the god head.

Many a Christian believe themselves monotheistic while they believe in a multitude of gods; god the father, the son, the holy ghost, the devil, Mary mother of god and a multitude of angels and saints.

The priests believe in magic. They persecute magicians only because they think they have commerce with the devil.

The miracles of Jesus do not provide definitive proof of his power. The good book says even the antichrist will do the same but doesn’t tell how we can separate the two.

Nowhere in the bible is to be found a defence of freedom of thought.

There was never a just war. Only defensive wars.

How faiths spread

But how do you think, then, that my religion became established? Like all the rest. A man of strong imagination made himself followed by some persons of week imagination. The flock increased; fanaticism commences, fraud achieves. A powerful man comes; he sees a crowd, ready bridled and with a bit in its teeth; he mounts and leads it.

Voltaire

Questions

Happy Monday everyone.

Those who read this blog religiously have, I am sure, read the questions of Zapata. I am not going to re-post them here. No, the questions we have are more interesting, but before the questions something we might all agree with.

Everything for which we love and venerate the man Jesus becomes a bitter and absurd mockery when attributed to the Lord Christ

James Thomson, Satires and Profanities

Now the questions

  1. he went about doing good; if God, why did he not do all good at once?
  2. he cured many sick; if god why did he not give the whole world health?
  3. he associated with publicans and sinners; if god, why did he make publicans and sinners at all?
  4. he preached the kingdom of heaven; if god, why did he not bring the kingdom with him and make all mankind fit for it?
  5. he loved the poor, he taught the ignorant; if god, why did he let any remain poor and ignorant?
  6. he died for love of mankind; if god, why did he not restore mankind to himself without dying? and what great thing was it to seem to die for three days?
  7. he sent apostles to preach salvation to all men; if god, why did he not reveal it at once to all men, and so reveal it that doubt had been impossible?
  8. he lived an example of holiness to us all; if god, how can our humanity imitate deity
  9. why did he ever let the world get evil?

I hope to hear your responses and have a great week everyone.

On justice

I must say first that if you have time, pick this book by Robert A Heinlein and you will not fail to find something totally hilarious. In some place he writes

…justice is not a divine concept, it is a human illusion. The very basis of the judeo-christian code is injustice, the scapegoat system. The scapegoat sacrifice runs all through the old testament, then it reaches its height in the new testament with the notion of the martyred redeemer. How can justice possibly be served by loading your sins on another? Whether it be a lamb having its throat cut ritually or a messiah nailed to a cross and “dying for your sins”. Somebody should tell all of Yawheh’s followers, jews and Christians, that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Job, a comedy of justice

did you know

that it didn’t matter whether the gospels had mistakes? I know you didn’t but now you know. It is important for you to know that Jesus died for your sins but you are still going to hell for that tattoo or for the shrimp you ate.

I don’t think there are mistakes in the gospels; but even if there were, it wouldn’t affect the core of the Gospel: Jesus died for our sins, defeated death by rising again, and is coming back in glory to establish the Kingdom of God. Those truths stand firm forever!

I am glad we have this cleared up.

Thank goodness for apologists.

marriage advice

This information I am about to share I don’t think will be helpful to my old friends like Ark (he’s been around forever), Nan, Mary or even Judy but will help those of you like Mordanicus who might have ideas to tie the knot so to speak. And it is on grooming your  (christian) wives- I don’t know if it will work for Muslim, Hindu or Voodoo wives too, but heck, let’s see what it is. If this advice is followed, your marriage will be bliss.

First, is how did we get here?

I read your article on 7 ways to discipline your wife and you recommend taking away her debit card. I know I could do this, but in my view, that should be the last option. I am considering starting spanking her. I have mentioned it to her, not on the budget, but in general and she is against it. She thinks spanking is treating her like a child.

The question.

My question to you is, do you think I am making a mistake trying to incorporate spanking as a form of discipline in our marriage? Should I just take away her debit card and give her some limited cash?

I would say do both. Just kidding. Now I want you to sit and learn.

Just beware that grooming is sinful in humanism but sacred in the bible. All you damn non believers, you are not allowed to groom your wives. It is a sin. If there was a time to be Christian men, it is now. I know you didn’t know that grooming is a trigger word for humanists. I am sorry for all of you who are triggered by this post. It was not intentional. I am just trying to be helpful.

And just in case any of you, my readers is in major trigger mode because of the word grooming or use of animal in the definition, hold your horses, our poster has this to say

And one thing I want to mention for my humanist friends out there that are in major trigger mode right now. Some of them may be hung up on the word “animal” in the definition of grooming. If you look at the definition here you will see these examples of grooming “an impeccably groomed woman, was being groomed as a presidential candidate”. So no, this term is not exclusively used of animals.

I guess that settles it. You are no longer triggered or hung up.

Now we come to the meat or is it body of the lesson. The prerequisites for wife grooming

  1. You and your young bride must both be believers. This rule eliminates Mordanicus. I am sorry my friend.
  2. You and Your Wife Need to Be Biblicist Christians. In short you must believe like Ken Ham or forget it.

  3. Your wife needs to be young. Don’t try this if you are marrying anyone above 19 years of age!

With the preconditions behind us, we get to the steps of wife grooming. And my friends, this is a real gem. You will be thanking me for this 60 years into your marriage.

  1. unlearn what your culture has taught you– forget things like independent woman, feminism or anything of that kind. it is the man as the head of the family. the bible says it so it must be true.
  2. you must learn and embrace biblical gender roles– woman, know thy place!
  3. seek out a male spiritual mentor-you need a godly man to lead you on the ways of handling your wife with wisdom
  4. You must teach your wife biblical gender roles– i thought she would know these being she is a biblicist christian? It seems the bible limits the source of wife’s education to her husband at home. Woman, if you marry an ignorant man, you are done for. Literally.
  5. Get your wife a female spiritual mentor– because she can’t do it herself. Oh. I forget rule one.
  6. mold your wife into the glorious wife you want her to be– man, you are called to be a sculptor. Remove all the rough ages. Your wife will thank you for it.
  7. Discipline your wife– get your whip. Take her credit card. Lock her outside. Anything to put the fear of the Lord and you- is there a difference anyway- into her.

If all I have told you above doesn’t get you the glorious wife, remember

But one thing you never do is surrender to her desire to control your marriage.

Have a glorious day all of you, won’t you!


Just in case you are interested, the source of this brilliant information is here

Does science really disprove god

I know we are all tired of Covid19 news and or bike falls so we will do something different today. The author of this post says no but I want to argue that science doesn’t set out to prove or disprove god. The results from science studies only seem to make god unnecessary as a causative agent.

I want to begin by agreeing with the author that

None of the points I’ll make here is intended to provide absolute certainty; no amount of mere reasoning could do that — whether for or against God

though I think this makes the case for god already weak from the beginning. For all that is claimed for god, the evidence for god should be such that there is little doubt of its existence. You know like the sun.

The author says next

[…]over the years I’ve gradually become more and more confident that belief in God best explains the most important aspects of our lives — areas like science, morality, and meaning. Again, not 100 percent confidence, but much more than I think is warranted by the evidence for atheism.

and it is this evidence that we would want to consider in this post and see how it holds up. Maybe by the time we are done reading, Mary will be convinced to become a bible carrying, tithe paying evangelical :).

This

But hasn’t science — surely an impressive source for what we know — shown that there’s no God, or at least that God is unlikely?

is a strawman.I don’t think this can be a scientific conclusion. Generally we know scientists to say their findings are provisional and can change depending on new evidence. Since there is no known way of studying existence of god (given gods belong to that class of beings that we only have claims of others for their existence) no scientist in their right mind would say my experiment proves there is no god.

Cosmologists have attempted to answer the question of how/where did the universe come to being and there answers I think, without a doubt, beat “and god said let there be“.

We are told, well science has explained much, but not given us ultimate answers. From the horse’s mouth pen

Suppose that all these theories are entirely true. Surely an all-powerful being like God could have made the universe using the very objects and workings described by these theories. If there were a God, he could have easily guided natural selection and made sure that there were the genetic variations needed for the right evolutionary paths. He also could have created an enormous number of universes by way of quantum fluctuations, making sure that at least one of these universes resulted in us. There’s no necessary inconsistency between belief in God and our current scientific theories.

To which I respond that there is also no contradiction in arguing that the scientific explanations make god unnecessary.

At this point, I wonder why this author even set about to write this post. He writes,

These theories could never explain themselves, even in principle; that’s not in their job description. Scientific laws simply aren’t in a position to answer “Why these laws?” Moreover, our theories are about how the stuff of the universe behaves (whatever that stuff ultimately turns out to be), and not about the ultimate origin of the stuff itself.

which I think undermines the whole object of this thesis. If the conclusion is that science can’t tell us about the ultimate stuff, why then bother?

We are then asked

In any case, given all that we know today — given what science has told us — how can you be so confident about your atheism?

and my simple response is that all religions (that I am aware of) as far as I can tell have failed to demonstrate that their god is real, is necessary and that theirs is the right religion.

And finally Christianity and the bible make an appearance. I am surprised it took so long.

I wish I had more space and time (or spacetime) to discuss, but for now I’ll say this: the actual teachings and purpose of the Bible are more amenable to contemporary science than you might think.

Yeah. Like Jonah eating the fish, or the goats jumping over sticks and changing colour or Jesus walking on water. I know. I know. These are all compatible with the best science results we have from science. Who is to doubt.

And what good is an apologetics post with posing the question of meaning or morality?

One is the nature of morality. What would a purely human-grounded moral code imply for my everyday life if I took this idea seriously? Another is the meaning and purpose of life itself. Why get out of bed in the morning? Why choose the life goals I do, and why pursue the relationships I do, particularly if the universe and its contents (including us) are just going to end in what physicists call the “heat death”? And if this is the whole story, is that a problem?

Have a science-y day, won’t you?

 

Unbelievable? Chapter 9

Living the Christian story

In this final chapter, Justin argues that for one to understand Christianity, they should necessarily become Christian. Sought of the argument that you need to believe first then it will become clear, not I want it to be clear than I can believe.

He says he asked some atheists to pray for 40 days because they lose nothing anyway by trying. It should be noted that none of those who took part in the experiment saw the light. The two he claims came to god, he clarifies did so or were already on the way to religion even before the experiment began and as such don’t count.

He makes a case for divine hiddenness, arguing that maybe god really want us to search for him. He is not interested in making the search easy. God, who is all powerful and all, is interested in you loving and trusting in him. If he were to come again and smote the city of Paris with an earthquake like he did to Gomorrah, you will not believe him. This is poppycock!