Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
A Response to Pat Robertson
Televangelist Pat Robertson tried to deflect the blame for tornadoes away from God, saying people shouldn’t build houses in the Midwest and could prevent the deadly storms by praying. “God doesn’t send tornadoes to hurt people,” he said. “We call them acts of God, but they’re not. All I can say is, why do you build houses in a place where tornadoes are apt to happen?”Recently, early spring tornadoes in the Midwest and South have killed 39 people. “If enough people were praying He would’ve intervened, you could pray,” Robertson continued. “Jesus stilled the storm, you can still storms.” “But the hurricane for example is a release mechanism that God set in to take the heat out of this world and to transfer heat around various parts of the globe,” he added. “It’s very necessary. The fact that people want to build houses on the edge of an ocean is their fault, it’s not God’s… So don’t blame God for doing something foolish.”
Telling people who have just lost their homes, family members and communities that they are at fault for this because they didn't pray enough-- and that they are fools-- is hardly what they need right now. The entire family who all died were seen praying seconds before the tornado sucked them out of their house. Pat Robertson is an asshole, and he always has been.
Furthermore, he doesn't even make sense. He says that tornadoes are NOT an act of god, but then he says they are "a release mechanism that God set in to take the heat out of this world and to transfer heat around various parts of the globe" ... which WOULD make them an act of god (forgetting for a moment that what Robertson just said right there is complete and utter nonsense). If god could make the earth rotate backwards then he would not need to use such crude mechanisms as hurricanes and tornadoes that kill his children. And then Roberson says that if people would only pray more (as if they already don't) that god would have 'intervened', which again means it was an act that god could have prevented. But he'll be quick to thank god that some people survived-- he gives god the praise but not the blame.
Well, by saying that god does not send tornadoes to hurt people, Robertson is actually committing heresy. "When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?" Amos 3:6. Robertson is implying that there are things that god either cannot do, or does not know.
I feel very saddened by the death of that family. It's a horrible tragedy. But they were seen on the floor praying and holding hands by a neighbor moments before their deaths. Christians say that "God answers all prayers, but sometimes the answer is no". Or else they will say: "God answers prayers three ways; yes, no and wait." But these excuses as to why God does not answer prayer are contradictory to scripture. John 16:23 has Jesus saying "I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name." In Matthew 21:22, Jesus tells his followers:
"If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." And Mark 11:24 says the same. Matthew 7:7 continues the bribery by attributing this unfulfillable statement to Jesus: "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you", and so does Luke in 11:9. How does this compare to reality?
Matthew 18:19 goes further by saying: "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven." Can anything be more absurdly false than this? Let us see christians come together and pray for the end of all tornadoes everywhere, for all time.
Telling people who have just lost their homes, family members and communities that they are at fault for this because they didn't pray enough-- and that they are fools-- is hardly what they need right now. The entire family who all died were seen praying seconds before the tornado sucked them out of their house. Pat Robertson is an asshole, and he always has been.
Furthermore, he doesn't even make sense. He says that tornadoes are NOT an act of god, but then he says they are "a release mechanism that God set in to take the heat out of this world and to transfer heat around various parts of the globe" ... which WOULD make them an act of god (forgetting for a moment that what Robertson just said right there is complete and utter nonsense). If god could make the earth rotate backwards then he would not need to use such crude mechanisms as hurricanes and tornadoes that kill his children. And then Roberson says that if people would only pray more (as if they already don't) that god would have 'intervened', which again means it was an act that god could have prevented. But he'll be quick to thank god that some people survived-- he gives god the praise but not the blame.
Well, by saying that god does not send tornadoes to hurt people, Robertson is actually committing heresy. "When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?" Amos 3:6. Robertson is implying that there are things that god either cannot do, or does not know.
I feel very saddened by the death of that family. It's a horrible tragedy. But they were seen on the floor praying and holding hands by a neighbor moments before their deaths. Christians say that "God answers all prayers, but sometimes the answer is no". Or else they will say: "God answers prayers three ways; yes, no and wait." But these excuses as to why God does not answer prayer are contradictory to scripture. John 16:23 has Jesus saying "I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name." In Matthew 21:22, Jesus tells his followers:
"If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." And Mark 11:24 says the same. Matthew 7:7 continues the bribery by attributing this unfulfillable statement to Jesus: "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you", and so does Luke in 11:9. How does this compare to reality?
Matthew 18:19 goes further by saying: "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven." Can anything be more absurdly false than this? Let us see christians come together and pray for the end of all tornadoes everywhere, for all time.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Catholic Child Molesters, again
So the Catholics have released a report that they spent a million dollars on to ultimately say that it was the loose morality of the 1960's and 1970's that is the cause of the unfortunate business they are experiencing right now. Oh. I see. The 60's. Did hippes rape little kids in the 1960's? I don't remember hearing about that. That must have been at Wookstock. Is that why the Church heirarchy is protecting these criminals?
They also said that it shouldn't be taken as an indication of homosexuality that it's mosly little boys being molested and not little girls... it's just that there are more boys around the priests, and it's just about opportunity. Oh. I see. So if I look around the bar on Friday night and I don't see any women, I'm going to start 'smokin' the pole' all of a sudden? Seriously?
And they said that the child-raping priests shouldn't be considered pedophiles. Oh. I see. Thanks for the clarification.
Really, did we expect any better?
They also said that it shouldn't be taken as an indication of homosexuality that it's mosly little boys being molested and not little girls... it's just that there are more boys around the priests, and it's just about opportunity. Oh. I see. So if I look around the bar on Friday night and I don't see any women, I'm going to start 'smokin' the pole' all of a sudden? Seriously?
And they said that the child-raping priests shouldn't be considered pedophiles. Oh. I see. Thanks for the clarification.
Really, did we expect any better?
Monday, May 16, 2011
Is God Above Morality?
This article was moved to the main page of bibletrash.com, under "The Bible is Immoral" section.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
I Eventually Had to Write About This...
Now I know this is going to be a hotbutton issue. It's probably not even possible to bring up the topic of abortion without angering people. I know that not only religious people but non-religious people object to abortion. What I am going to attempt to do, in as non-inflammatory way as possible, is state my beliefs on the subject (because I was asked where I stand). I realize that you may not agree, and I am not insisting that my view is the only view. These thoughts are my own, and I can offer no evidence for them, and therefore you will now see me use a word I use very reservedly and with extreme precision: these are 'beliefs' of mine.
Those who are against abortion use the phrase "right to life", and this idea forms a part of their premise. We need to start by asking "What are rights?" Is there a such a thing as a 'right to life', and what makes you think so?
A right can be described as a fundamental freedom or entitlement; it's something that we are entitled to. Where do rights come from? Here, right at the start, is where I am going to differ strongly from most anti-abortionists. Rights come from human beings. We give ourselves rights. Non-religionists may say that rights come from nature; they do not. Nature does not confer upon any creature a right to life. In the system of nature, you are alive-- until something else kills you, or you die of starvation. Life is a condition, not an entitlement. Religionists will say that rights come from God. I deny this outright. I do not believe such an entity exists.
First, in order to establish that rights come from God, you must establish that God exists. This has never been done, and there are many obstacles to doing so. There is not a general agreement on this question. Since there is no consensus among the citizens on this question, laws should not be passed that are based upon the assertion that there is a god. Why should I be bound by a law based on the mythological proclamations of a god I don't believe in?
Second, even if you could establish the existence of God, you would then have to establish which god it is. How could you prove it is not Zeus, for example, or something of which you have no conception? Again, rather difficult.
Thirdly, even if you could establish that it is the God of the Christian Bible who does in fact exist, you would have to establish that He actually has stated that humans have a "right to life". The bible furnishes no proof of this. In fact, it supplies a vast quantity of material that suggests the opposite. There has never been a more flagrant and prolific destroyer of human life than God. In the bible story, He provides a Commandment against killing people-- but this only a directive that requires obedience, and it does not establish a person's inherent and self-evident right to be alive. There are dozens of instances in which God orders his followers to slaughter innocent people by the thousands. He killed a man who whose only crime was to touch the Ark of the Covenant to prevent it from falling into the dirt. He Himself even killed everyone on the planet at one point. The bible establishes that humans don't have the right to anything... only the obligation to obey God or suffer the consequences.
So where to rights come from? People, collectively, grant rights. We decided (because we value being alive) that we have a right-- an entitlement-- to life.
Someone stated to me that the mother does not have more rights than the fetus. Let's think about that. The mother is sentient. Sentience means being able to perceive, or to have a subjective experience. We humans grant rights to other sentient beings (animal rights); we collectively agree that we should not abuse animals. We do not grant rights to non-sentient beings, however. An embryo in its early stages is a collection of cells without sentience. Also, the mother is autonomous; that is, she is physically self contained and does not rely on another human being for the biological processes of her own body. A fetus, for most of the time inside the womb, is not sentient, nor is it autonomous. It is an organism that lives inside a host organism, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. Undeniably, a fetus has a parasitic existence; it is inexorably connected to the woman for sustenance. So, why shouldn't the woman have more rights than a fetus?
Certainly there is a point at which the fetus is both sentient and autonomous while still within the womb. At this point, when the fetus no longer needs the body of its mother, killing it would be killing a autonomous, sentient human being, and as such would be immoral. In fact, late term abortions are banned, and rightly so.
Nowhere in the bible does it say that a woman shall not end her own pregnancy. According to the bible, a fetus is not equivalent to a human life. "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth." Ex. 21:22-25 [From the New American Standard Bible {NASB}, considered by scholars to be the most accurate]. This is one of the Laws of Moses, given to him by God. This law says that if a fetus dies and is expelled from a woman's body as the result of being struck by a man, then the man who struck her is fined a sum of money that he must pay to the husband. But, and here is the important part, if the woman dies, then the man who struck her shall be put to death (life for life). Therefore, according to the bible, a fetus is not a human life, clear and unarguable. Indeed, Jewish Law states that life begins at birth. Where did "Jewish Law" come from? From Moses. Where did Moses get his law? From God. What was Jesus' position on the laws given by Moses? Jesus said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished." Matthew 5:17-18. Jesus says that the laws of Moses shall not be excused or ignored while the earth exists.
Those who are against abortion use the phrase "right to life", and this idea forms a part of their premise. We need to start by asking "What are rights?" Is there a such a thing as a 'right to life', and what makes you think so?
A right can be described as a fundamental freedom or entitlement; it's something that we are entitled to. Where do rights come from? Here, right at the start, is where I am going to differ strongly from most anti-abortionists. Rights come from human beings. We give ourselves rights. Non-religionists may say that rights come from nature; they do not. Nature does not confer upon any creature a right to life. In the system of nature, you are alive-- until something else kills you, or you die of starvation. Life is a condition, not an entitlement. Religionists will say that rights come from God. I deny this outright. I do not believe such an entity exists.
First, in order to establish that rights come from God, you must establish that God exists. This has never been done, and there are many obstacles to doing so. There is not a general agreement on this question. Since there is no consensus among the citizens on this question, laws should not be passed that are based upon the assertion that there is a god. Why should I be bound by a law based on the mythological proclamations of a god I don't believe in?
Second, even if you could establish the existence of God, you would then have to establish which god it is. How could you prove it is not Zeus, for example, or something of which you have no conception? Again, rather difficult.
Thirdly, even if you could establish that it is the God of the Christian Bible who does in fact exist, you would have to establish that He actually has stated that humans have a "right to life". The bible furnishes no proof of this. In fact, it supplies a vast quantity of material that suggests the opposite. There has never been a more flagrant and prolific destroyer of human life than God. In the bible story, He provides a Commandment against killing people-- but this only a directive that requires obedience, and it does not establish a person's inherent and self-evident right to be alive. There are dozens of instances in which God orders his followers to slaughter innocent people by the thousands. He killed a man who whose only crime was to touch the Ark of the Covenant to prevent it from falling into the dirt. He Himself even killed everyone on the planet at one point. The bible establishes that humans don't have the right to anything... only the obligation to obey God or suffer the consequences.
So where to rights come from? People, collectively, grant rights. We decided (because we value being alive) that we have a right-- an entitlement-- to life.
Someone stated to me that the mother does not have more rights than the fetus. Let's think about that. The mother is sentient. Sentience means being able to perceive, or to have a subjective experience. We humans grant rights to other sentient beings (animal rights); we collectively agree that we should not abuse animals. We do not grant rights to non-sentient beings, however. An embryo in its early stages is a collection of cells without sentience. Also, the mother is autonomous; that is, she is physically self contained and does not rely on another human being for the biological processes of her own body. A fetus, for most of the time inside the womb, is not sentient, nor is it autonomous. It is an organism that lives inside a host organism, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. Undeniably, a fetus has a parasitic existence; it is inexorably connected to the woman for sustenance. So, why shouldn't the woman have more rights than a fetus?
Certainly there is a point at which the fetus is both sentient and autonomous while still within the womb. At this point, when the fetus no longer needs the body of its mother, killing it would be killing a autonomous, sentient human being, and as such would be immoral. In fact, late term abortions are banned, and rightly so.
Nowhere in the bible does it say that a woman shall not end her own pregnancy. According to the bible, a fetus is not equivalent to a human life. "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth." Ex. 21:22-25 [From the New American Standard Bible {NASB}, considered by scholars to be the most accurate]. This is one of the Laws of Moses, given to him by God. This law says that if a fetus dies and is expelled from a woman's body as the result of being struck by a man, then the man who struck her is fined a sum of money that he must pay to the husband. But, and here is the important part, if the woman dies, then the man who struck her shall be put to death (life for life). Therefore, according to the bible, a fetus is not a human life, clear and unarguable. Indeed, Jewish Law states that life begins at birth. Where did "Jewish Law" come from? From Moses. Where did Moses get his law? From God. What was Jesus' position on the laws given by Moses? Jesus said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished." Matthew 5:17-18. Jesus says that the laws of Moses shall not be excused or ignored while the earth exists.
Monday, April 25, 2011
An Open Letter to All Christians
Christians just don't seem to get it. Let me spell it out in a new way. This will require you to use your imagination.
Imagine if I was elected dictator of the United States, with absolute power. I know, that's your worst nightmare-- an outspoken atheist in charge of this country, but just imagine it for a moment. I have the power to do anything I want.
I have the power to make all children who go to public schools recite an 'atheist prayer' every morning that says "There is no god". But, and this may surprise you, I wouldn't do it. Because I believe, like Thomas Jefferson, that government's power should extend only to people's actions, not their opinions. The government has no power to tell citizens what their religious beliefs should be. How would you, a christian parent, feel if your child was forced to say such an atheistic prayer every morning? Well that's how I feel right now.
For the same reason, I would not insert the phrase: "One nation, WITHOUT a god, with liberty and justice for all" into the Pledge of Allegiance. How would that make you feel? Really, I want you to take a few seconds and imagine your child standing in a public school classroom, saying THAT alongside all the others. You feel pretty angry, I imagine. Marginalized-- pushed to the side. But instead of making kids say that, I would remove the reference to "God" altogether, and restore the Pledge to its original form as it existed for most it's history.
How about if I put the statement "There aren't any gods" on brass plaques on the walls of courthouses and city halls? How would that make christians feel? Think about that one for a moment. You would feel that you've entered a building that is not on your side, that doesn't represent you, that's hostile to you and what you believe. You guessed it... I wouldn't do that either. I would remove religious references from government buildings. They simply have no legitimate reason for being there.
I would also have the power to stamp "In God we Doubt" on all the money of our country. I wouldn't do that either. Every time you hand a dollar bill to someone else, the government makes that statement on your behalf. Do you really think that's right?
When Christians have the power, however, they take advantange of it. They see no problem with pushing their beliefs, forcing everyone else in this country to pretend that they are christian too. They act like they are the only ones in this country and only their beliefs matter. A few centuries ago (yes, on this soil) they even outlawed beliefs other than their own, punishing people with branding, boring through the tongue and death! People were being punished for "blasphemy", a religious crime, well into the 20th Century.
Some Christians just don't give a damn about the feelings of non-christians-- not just atheists, but jewish, muslim, hindu, native, etc. They think that just because they are in the majority, they get to have it all their way. Well, no, that's not how our country works. The First Amendment to the Constitution requires that our government (and all of its entities, like public schools) stay out of the business of promoting religion.
Someday, Christians will not be in the majority in this country. They will be the ones calling on the protection of the First Amendment. Think about that.
Imagine if I was elected dictator of the United States, with absolute power. I know, that's your worst nightmare-- an outspoken atheist in charge of this country, but just imagine it for a moment. I have the power to do anything I want.
I have the power to make all children who go to public schools recite an 'atheist prayer' every morning that says "There is no god". But, and this may surprise you, I wouldn't do it. Because I believe, like Thomas Jefferson, that government's power should extend only to people's actions, not their opinions. The government has no power to tell citizens what their religious beliefs should be. How would you, a christian parent, feel if your child was forced to say such an atheistic prayer every morning? Well that's how I feel right now.
For the same reason, I would not insert the phrase: "One nation, WITHOUT a god, with liberty and justice for all" into the Pledge of Allegiance. How would that make you feel? Really, I want you to take a few seconds and imagine your child standing in a public school classroom, saying THAT alongside all the others. You feel pretty angry, I imagine. Marginalized-- pushed to the side. But instead of making kids say that, I would remove the reference to "God" altogether, and restore the Pledge to its original form as it existed for most it's history.
How about if I put the statement "There aren't any gods" on brass plaques on the walls of courthouses and city halls? How would that make christians feel? Think about that one for a moment. You would feel that you've entered a building that is not on your side, that doesn't represent you, that's hostile to you and what you believe. You guessed it... I wouldn't do that either. I would remove religious references from government buildings. They simply have no legitimate reason for being there.
I would also have the power to stamp "In God we Doubt" on all the money of our country. I wouldn't do that either. Every time you hand a dollar bill to someone else, the government makes that statement on your behalf. Do you really think that's right?
When Christians have the power, however, they take advantange of it. They see no problem with pushing their beliefs, forcing everyone else in this country to pretend that they are christian too. They act like they are the only ones in this country and only their beliefs matter. A few centuries ago (yes, on this soil) they even outlawed beliefs other than their own, punishing people with branding, boring through the tongue and death! People were being punished for "blasphemy", a religious crime, well into the 20th Century.
Some Christians just don't give a damn about the feelings of non-christians-- not just atheists, but jewish, muslim, hindu, native, etc. They think that just because they are in the majority, they get to have it all their way. Well, no, that's not how our country works. The First Amendment to the Constitution requires that our government (and all of its entities, like public schools) stay out of the business of promoting religion.
Someday, Christians will not be in the majority in this country. They will be the ones calling on the protection of the First Amendment. Think about that.
Friday, February 18, 2011
State Firearm, Utah
According to Yahoo News, Utah lawmakers easily passed a resolution through the initial hearing that would make the Browning M1911 the official state gun of Utah. Whatever. That's unnecessary, and the only point to it is pro-NRA grandstanding.
The reason for my post is that Republican Representative Carl Wimmer said that the semi-automatic pistol: "defended American values and the traditions of this country for 100 years".
Here's my problem. The moment I read that, I immediately thought: you don't defend values with guns-- you defend borders and people with guns. Values are ideas. You don't enforce ideas at gunpoint! Well, you do if you're Christians, just ask the Native Americans. Ideas are attacked with reason, and defended with words. This guy just illustrated what's wrong with this country.
I have values-- lots of them, and they are very well thought-out because I think about them constantly. But I guarantee you that when someone like him says "American values", he's talking about something very different from my values.
And traditions aren't defended with guns either. Traditions either stand the test of time or they don't; in a kind of Darwinian evolutionary process, traditions fade away if they don't reflect the current values of society. Tradtions, to conservatives like him, mean all the wrong things. Traditions should not defended. They should be able to survive on their own. If they can't, the sooner they die, the better. That's what I have to say to representative Wimmer.
The reason for my post is that Republican Representative Carl Wimmer said that the semi-automatic pistol: "defended American values and the traditions of this country for 100 years".
Here's my problem. The moment I read that, I immediately thought: you don't defend values with guns-- you defend borders and people with guns. Values are ideas. You don't enforce ideas at gunpoint! Well, you do if you're Christians, just ask the Native Americans. Ideas are attacked with reason, and defended with words. This guy just illustrated what's wrong with this country.
I have values-- lots of them, and they are very well thought-out because I think about them constantly. But I guarantee you that when someone like him says "American values", he's talking about something very different from my values.
And traditions aren't defended with guns either. Traditions either stand the test of time or they don't; in a kind of Darwinian evolutionary process, traditions fade away if they don't reflect the current values of society. Tradtions, to conservatives like him, mean all the wrong things. Traditions should not defended. They should be able to survive on their own. If they can't, the sooner they die, the better. That's what I have to say to representative Wimmer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)