Terrorism

ter⋅ror⋅ism
  /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Let's see, god tells us to obey or we will be tortured for eternity. Check. He tells his followers to go out and threaten others in his name. Check. Some even go so far as to claim that they do not need to follow the government of this land as they follow only god. Check.

god is a terrorist and Xianity could be classified a terrorist movement. Discuss.

Like Cattle to the Slaughter

I actually recently ran across an argument that god sent Jesus to us in order to save us and change the paradigm between the OT and the NT, and that he had to wait in order to allow the conditions to be correct, which is why we had an OT and a Jesus-less world up until the time of Jesus. When faced with arguments like this, it's hard not to ask, "Are you serious?"

The obvious objections are that god, being omnipotent, would not have to wait for any conditions to come true, especially not just to decide to forgive us for our supposed sins against him. What possible conditions are there that god could not overcome? This, once again, makes god somewhat less than omnipotent (which is easy to do since an omnipotent god is so hard to actually argue for). There's also the problem that this doesn't account for the bloodthirsty attributes of the god of the OT. If he was simply waiting for conditions to allow us to be "saved" by Jesus, it doesn't make sense that he would be as cruel, petty, vindictive, and evil as the OT shows him to be.

But, apart from all that, one problem really stands out to me, which is that this argument reduces all the people that came before Jesus into simple cattle playing out some part - being slaughtered until this god was satisfied in his blood lust and would allow us individuals (post Jesus) to live a life with the possibility of salvation. How arrogant (not that the normal Xian perspective isn't arrogant, but this is just piling on). When you can view all of pre-Jesus humanity as simply cattle that are playing a part to pave the way for your personal salvation, I'd say that you've lost all perspective of what it really means to be human.

It's Not About the Love

I had another post that was going to go up today, but I decided that I had to write this post now. I just watched part of a program on gays and religion and something in me decided I had to write about it. The program was about the fight between religious peoples over gays, where some religious people call gays abominations and others are more tolerant and accepting. Actually, to be more specific, the show was about Xians and gays, as all the people featured were Xians.

Before I say any more, I think it's important to note one thing. I think it's a good thing that some Xians are becoming more tolerant; that they are setting aside the barbarisms of their holy book and learning to accept gays as people instead of seeing them as sinners/abominations/etc. That said, one of the people being interviewed for the show said something that I'll paraphrase below:

We need to teach our fellow Xians that the Bible isn't about hatred and intolerance, but that it's about love and acceptance. We need to extend this love and acceptance to gays.

What the hell book has this woman been reading? The Bible is not about love - it is about evil, hatred, damnation, etc. The OT is most certainly about destruction and intolerance as god routinely kills whole peoples and orders the deaths of whole societies. He lays down draconian rules with death as the only penalty, and being gay certainly goes against some of those rules! It seems that god really does hate fags.

The NT is not much better. Sure, Jesus talks about turning the other cheek and loving your neighbor (which was most likely defined in the narrow sense of other Jews) but there's also plenty of fire and brimstone and the damnation of others to eternal torment - a concept that came about in the NT and far outstrips the cruelty of the OT. I believe it was Dawkins that said something along the lines that at least the OT god left you alone after you died - the NT god will keep on torturing you for eternity. This book is about death, hatred, evil, intolerance, etc.

So, yeah, it's good that some Xians are changing their tune when it comes to gays, but it's a stretch to claim that the Bible is what is leading the charge. C'mon. Instead of using post-hoc reasoning to make the Bible fit with what we see as moral and good, why not look at the book that has brought about so much hatred and see it for what it really is and reject it?

My Way or the Highway

If you read John 16:4, it clearly states that the only way that one can attain heaven is through Jesus Christ. We can debate as to whether this means that one must follow Jesus, believe in Jesus, etc, but what we can't debate is that the Bible states that one must go through Jesus. So, how does one do that if one has never heard of Jesus? In our modern world, it is difficult to find people who don't learn something about Jesus or at least hear of this idea of Jesus. But, what about people who lived before the age of mass communication? Well, those people are bound for hell, simply for being ignorant of Xianity. I think we can all agree that this is unjust and immoral.

What about children who are too young to believe in anything? Well, then those children are bound for hell as well. I think we can agree that this is unjust and immoral as well.

Some Xians might object that surely a good god would not do such things, and would allow those people to go to heaven. But, this would demonstrate an unjust attitude as well, as those people would be held to different standards than those of us who have heard of this Jesus fellow. Either way, it is god who must act unjustly and immorally.

Unforgivable Sin

I'm sure by now that we've all heard of the "Blasphemy Challenge." And we all know that anyone who blasphemes the holy spirit can never be forgiven. I'm at a loss as to why this is such a heinous crime, however. Is it really worse for me to say, "The holy spirit is a wanker," than to go out and kill someone? Yet, god, it seems, would rather I kill someone than talk trash about one specific aspect of him. Curiously enough, it's not unforgivable to say that "Jesus is a wanker."

And, why would an all-loving god lay down a rule that says that one can not be forgiven for something - that one must go to hell if one breaks rule X?

Where's the Love?

Supposedly, god loves us. He loves us so much that he puts us in hell if we don't live our lives the way that he dictates. Is there any doubt that the Xian conception of love is so twisted and tortured as to be beyond what any of us would consider love? If you truly loved someone, would you be able to torture that person? Condemn that person to hell? Or, would you do everything in your power to save that person, to help them? Wouldn't you do this especially if you knew ahead of time what would happen to that person? That is what love is, yet god does not engage in these types of actions according to god's own book.

In fact, in god's book, it is said that most people will go to hell. Is this what Xians deem to be love?

And, why will god put people in hell? For not being obedient enough and/or thought crimes, etc is the answer. Again, we don't see god expressing love here, but instead we see god trying to exert dominance over us. Once again, this is not love, this is sadism, cruelty, and barbarism. For a Xian to call this "love" seriously strains the bounds of language and thought. This is twisted and beyond comprehension. Any Xians reading this should think long and hard about this concept and what "love" any god can show that holds the threat of eternal damnation over your head and isn't afraid to use it.

The Inevitability of Jesus

I've recently had a theist posit that god planned to have Jesus come and save us from the beginning of time, whether the fall had happened or not. Let's think about that for a moment, shall we?

If Jesus was always destined to come, then humans were always in need of saving, even before the fall. This wipes away any chance the theist has to claim that we deserve hell due to the fall (not that that is a good claim to make mind you). If we were in need of salvation from the beginning, the all humans regardless of our deeds or the past deeds of our ancestors were made by god to be destined for hell unless he comes to save us. What moral being would consciously make entities that it earmarked for hell from the very beginning?

Yet, in a strange way, it's probably one of the most logical stances that a theist could take. If god is omni-max, then anything and everything that happens in this world necessarily has to happen by this god's demand and according to this god's will. So, god wills that people die in horrible accidents, he wills that people are evil to each other, and he wills that people go to hell. The argument that god does not wish for anyone to perish is also obviously thrown out the window with this admission that Jesus was destined from the start. I'd score that one an own goal.

What I have to put up with

"I checked out the site very briefly. Presenting the gospel to a militant atheist seems to me to be a waste of time, since the person has apparently already rejected the gospel. Jesus told His disciples to wipe their feet as a testimony against those who rejected the gospel they presented, and not to cast pearls to swine (in other words, don't waste your time trying to tell someone the Good News of the gospel if they obviously refuse to accept it). Though only God can change hearts, and He can change any heart He chooses to change [for example, Saul, a persecutor of the Church, was changed by God to become Paul, the greatest Christian missionary of all time]; nevertheless, unless I feel led by the Lord to witness to someone who has apparently already rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ, I don't see much purpose in it, other than merely starting a fight, which is pointless. You can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped. However, we can and should pray for him to come to Christ, so that he will not suffer eternal torment in Hell."

Free Will?

Is it even possible to have free will? Supposedly, it's OK that god allows/causes evil, because we have a choice in what we do. Apart from the fact that our choices don't make it OK for god to damn us, isn't He omnipotent and omniscient? Doesn't that make free will logically impossible?

Think about this. When god created the universe, even before he started creating, he knew what all of us would do, down to the smallest detail. He knew what we would think, feel, act upon, etc. Knowing all of this, he set the universe in motion. Had he wanted it to be different, he would have set up the universe to work differently; but he didn't. Since god knows all that I will do, say, think, feel - and has known it from the beginning - my path has been determined since god willed the universe into existence. If he didn't want me to be an infidel, then why did he make me one?

Default

This is my first post here and I'd like to thank Mr. X for giving me an opportunity to share some of my thoughts. I'll just jump right in.

Why do theists - usually those who reject evolution - consider god to be the default condition? A recent commenter asked whether man can create life from dirt (only the Bible says it did); so to prove evolution dirt has to be made. I assume that this means he'll keep his god belief until such time, but why? Why is god belief the default for theists? If science has an unanswered question, is it god? This is fallacious reasoning surely?

To address this specific example, we know how the Earth formed - which has nothing to do with evolution. Why is this not enough? Should forensic scientists have to kill someone in the lab to prove that a murder happened? Of course not, so why should scientists have to re-create the universe in order to prove that the Earth isn't 6000 years old?

Noah

I said I'd get to this sometime. When Noah was SIX HUNDRED YEARS OLD God told him that, although the rest of civilization were full of sin, Noah was perfect; thus, Noah was instructed to build a 450-foot boat. With eight people.

When the Ark was ready, two of each species were loaded on. (Where he got penguins in Israel I don't know. Presumably he took the smallpox virus with him as well.) Then God made it rain for forty days and forty nights. Which would make quite a puddle. Whether the entire Earth would be swallowed up by that is doubtful. Where Noah got water for all the animals I don't know either.

My point is that the Bible shows large marks of human creation. Although hardly anyone believes this story, my question is why anyone believes the other ones.

Chance

Here's a gem I found on a Christian website:

"Cancer is not wasted when it is healed by God. He gets the glory and that is why cancer exists."

God?

If God doesn't mean there to be starvation then he's not omnipotent; if God does mean there to be starvation then why worship the bastard; if only man is made in the image of God and only man sins then why is there so much pain, starvation and suffering in the animal kingdom?

If God only sends those who acknowledge him to paradise then why create those who are prone to infidelity and why so much evidence against himself? Why send one Jewish person to tell the 'truth' when he could've just made everyone Jesus. A whole planet full of Christs.

See how he never exerts his wrath on the gentiles anymore? We had a bit of rain down in England but "two cats soaked" hardly compares to "everyone except Noah." They didn't even think about abortion in Gomorrah. They weren't even that liberal three thousand years ago.

I think God's given up and moved somewhere more conservative. When they stopped stoning people in Alabama that was it for Jesus.

Sheep

Maybe this is a bit obscure, but has it ever came to your attention how many sheep metaphors there are in the bible: the Lost Sheep, the Sheep and Goats, the Good Shepherd; Christians are often referred to as 'the flock'. Now as much as it pains me to take advantage of such an easy point, sheep are dumb, lazy animals that blindly follow each other toward what is desirable to them - a place in paradise, for example - without thinking it through.

I checked this out on some biblical sites, and they don't dispute it. They even patronise atheists as being 'unable to find the flock again'. Then they go further and praise qualities such as 'lack of direction' and 'defenseless':

"Even the fowls of the air have some type of defensive mechanism. Not so with sheep!"

And on that profound thought I'll finish.

The Devil

According to Fox, 71% of Americans believe in the devil. A big red monster with sharp horns that punishes bad people. I suppose that if you believe in Jesus you must believe in Heaven, and Hell, and so by that line of reasoning you can't ignore Satan.
But seriously.

Apparently, he is responsible for all evil in humans; which is strange, because that makes Jesus a bit redundant, really, in 'cleansing us of our sins' - it isn't his responsibility. Besides which, if all sin is down to Satan - who God created - then God is to blame.

And, by the 'holy trinity' rule, God is Jesus as well. So when Jesus takes the crap for all our sins on the cross, he is, in effect, taking his own medicine. It's all very confusing.

PS: Simon Peter says he has a stick as well.