Friday, August 20, 2010

Good Book, Evil Book

As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.

Beliefs are terrible things, since they're very often wrong, and even when they're right the world goes and changes on them and they never, ever adjust to that cold, hard fact.
-Saint Brian the Godless

Is it possible that the Good Book, the Bible, Old and New Testaments, is in reality an Evil Book, the source for much of the ills of society?

The Bible is hailed as the Word of God in Christianity, and many believe in it as such. The literal Word. From His mouth to your ears.

Er, eyes.

Presented for your convenience, in case you’re ever tempted to think on your own. No need; it's all in the Book. In fact, right there in the Book it clearly says not to think on your own, not to believe anything that even hints at contradicting the Holy Word in the Holy Book. Unless of course the thing that's contradicting the Bible is also something written in the Bible; then it's fine and dandy. You just hafta believe both in such cases. Good luck.

Obviously I think the Bible is a heavily flawed work, both technically and morally. One of the main ‘evils’ that I see in it is its internal inconsistencies, its self-negating paradoxical and illogical statements or sets of statements, all of which are expected to be believed; nay, demanded that they be believed at the cost of your Immortal Soul and entrance tickets to the Big Amusement Park in the clouds.

The Bible presents contraries, statements which utterly contradict each other, together in one book, and demands that they both be believed at the same time, or else. It does this again and again, over and over, which causes believers to eventually slowly lose their minds, and never suspect a thing.

That's how we get Republicans.

Allow me to illustrate:
-God is love; He loves you more than anyone else does, and He'll send you straight to hell if you don't believe that.
-An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but turn the other cheek while you're doing it.
-Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild, 'Love Thy Neighbor' Jesus, Lamb of God, returning with a Sword in His mouth and a fiery halo or something like that, come back as the Lion to slaugther off the evil ones. (More on this one below)

The depths to which all this mindbogglingly stupid self-negating (in more ways than one!) religious programming affects (distorts, even) our society at the most basic levels is not always obvious, either. We're mostly pretty much blind to it. Heck, it's been going on practically forever, so most folk just accept it as the way it is.

Take the confusing dichotomy of God the Father (OT) versus God the Son (NT). The first is an authoritarian super-hypocritical murdering genocidal misogynistic hateful over-reacting all-powerful and all-knowing Father Figure, the Ultimate Father Figure in fact. Our Father Who Art In Heaven. So, we think of him as Dad, the ultimate Dad, a really strict and mean Dad, who loves us (somehow; we can't realy understand that part, 'cause it's a *mystery* and all) but will fry our asses forever in a heartbeat if we give him one iota of crap. A fearful Father Figure indeed. An archetype, in fact.

An archetype designed to scare the shit out of people. As was needed at the time.

Embedded firmly in our group psychology and thus in our society as a result, from this how many wives and children over the centuries were beaten and abused by fathers (small 'f') who were only acting like their archetypal Ultimate Father Figure Himself (Big 'F') would act, indeed DID act, over and over again, in the Bible? How many were just following God the Father's Divine Example that He set in the Bible (and then said not to follow?) (heh heh)

A lot of them, I assure you. It's not like it's done consciously.

God is the hypocritical Father who says "Do as I say, not as I do, OR ELSE!!!" but just like all defective fathers who say such absurd things to their children, *their examples are far more often followed than their words.*

So thus we have God the Ultimate Bad Example of what a Father Should Be. Or God the Ultimate Good Example of what a Father Should Not Be.

Amen. Just what society ordered.

But wait! Not enough confusion yet!

Let's introduce God the Son, Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild! Who in fact, is credited with *many* great words and statements. Many poignant examples. Many good works. Much real Truth with a Capital ‘T.’

He sounds a bit nicer. More approachable. A decent sort. And He did say a lot of 'good words' in that book there.

And yet, are these ‘good words’ in the Bible which are attributed to Jesus Christ, the very person that Christians named their faith after, at all *prioritized* over all of the other horiffic mishmash in that so-called Good Book? Does one ever hear the Christian say "Well, Jesus Christ Himself said to be gentle and loving, so that must trump Vengeful God in the Old Testament where he smites everything in sight all the time' so I'll ignore that part and live by Jesus' words of peace and love."

Hardly ever happens. Unfortunate, that.

So we have crazy hypocritical Old Testament Yaweh God with his Gentle, Loving Son, *but they’re both God!* No difference. Canya dig it?

What a mindfuck.

How to know then, whether to be severe, or gentle? Vengeful and wrathful and jealous, or loving?

One can and should follow Jesus, of course. His path seems more correct somehow, than that of His sadistic Father in Heaven. I mean, any real God should be, at the very minimum, good, no? Or why bother?

But then again, *which Jesus?* Ahh, dilemma.

Most of the New Testament is all about "gentle Jesus meek and mild," but hold on a second! Just in case you were thinking that one should obviously choose Jesus' path, that of peace, since after all, the religion's named after Him, hold your horses! As previously mentioned, we also have Revelations Jesus tacked on at the end of the Book, coming back to smite about the place with a sword depending from his mouth and fire and death and punishment and the Final Conflict, and all that great horror movie fodder at the end times. Just in case you were starting to think that Jesus was a non-violent, loving God.

How rapturous! Can't forget about Him, now can we? I guess we saw shades of Him back when gentle Jesus cursed that fig tree to die for not happening to be in fruit at the time, or telling his followers to bring those who do not bow to Him before Him and kill them. What seemed so out of character at the time makes sense at the end after all, apparently.

How conveeeeenient, too. Now we're free to just choose being an asshole.

Are we confused yet, my droogies?

To reiterate, we have the Mighty God of Gods, Yahweh, mean and nasty and an immortal all-powerful psychotic maniac God who loves us with eternal torture, along with his polar opposite all-loving non-judgmental hippy tree-hugger boozing and carousing son, who is nonetheless completely identical to His Father Yahweh (nevermind how,) but who WAIT, has yet another polar opposite psycho 'version' of Himself who will come back at the end times, and He won't be the Lamb anymore but will return as the Lion and basically beat the everloving crap out of evil, including of course, people like me, because He’s tired of taking our shit, and besides, that lamb schtick only got him killed.

This means that if a Christian is a mean, selfish bully by nature, not a problem, he can simply justify it with Gods #1 and #3, can't he? No need to even read the parts about 'love thy neighbor' when all that mushy stuff isn't really what Jesus/God was all about. That Jesus is a pussy. Macho Jesus Rules! Now where's my glock?

(I’ve actually heard ‘good Christians’ maintaining that Jesus wasn’t really about loving all others; that such is just a common misperception)


Let's examine the 'fruits' of the Book for a minute.

Is the Christian religion a true religion of *peace?* Absolutely and emphatically not. Constantine introduced the idea of a 'just war' and ever since then, why, any old ruler can get the Christians to fight, to kill, to even embrace cruelty and the torture of others, and to give their lives for the cause not of God, but of the ruler. It's easy; all the ruler has to say is "I am inspired by God" or whatever variation of that is appropriate to the audience. And demonize those who they need the flock to hate. That's how it was designed, after all. And looking back through history, we have bloodbath after bloodbath to thank the religion for. Over and over again, the Religion of peaceful Jesus found it necessary to slaughter.

It's an evil Rorschach test, that Bible. One can see whatever one wants to in it. It's way too cloudy, too unclear, and since it tells you right there in it that it's the word of God and that you must believe every last damned word of it as if The Burning Bush had whispered it right into your cockleshell ear, the result is a schism from reality in the minds of the believers.

Their brains break, in other words.

They lose their minds, lose all touch with reality, and pursue happiness in a selfish delusional ego-world wherein they’re practically the Master Race, chosen by God, and destined for paradise, while all others are evil and deserve the hell they’re destined for

Halleluiah. How nice.

And we wonder why there are so many nutcases and idiots in this country? They’re being manufactured on an ongoing basis, by belief in a self-contradictory and hypocritical philosophy; A philosophy whose Good Book, is anything but.


  1. Completely off-topic, I'm watching Rachael Maddow reporting from Iraq. It turns out that she's a woman, and NOT a wimpy guy with a girly name.

  2. Very funny.

    She's one of the best journalists out there. So you're focused on her butchiness. Nice.

    Sometimes I wonder about my audience.

  3. Huh? Oh, sorry. I knew that. I guess my answer sounded serious and severe, when I was only joking myself.

    Should I have 'LOL'ed? This medium is sadly lacking in ability to convey emotion.

  4. Brian, good post,and I'll have to go through it in detail to give you any kind of decent response.

    But to start off, I guess it goes back to what we debated over and over again. To be considered evil, you have to show intent in my opinion. Does the Bible in it's entirety convince the reader to do harm or evil to others?

    You saying that the ending up believing in something you don't believe is not evil. It's a difference of belief or lack thereof.

    However, without hesitation, just like any religious doctrine, there are those who seek to institutionalize it. Their is to not just get rid of individualism, but to imprison the mind by using selective language, out of context and misinterpreted in these books.

    They see the immense power in the writings, and use that to their advantage.

    But if the reader was the one who did his/her homework on his/her own, would the Bible influence that person by it's own merits to be an evil person and to do evil things?

    I say the answer is no. The Bible isn't evil, but people certainly can be.

  5. To be considered evil, you have to show intent in my opinion. Does the Bible in it's entirety convince the reader to do harm or evil to others?
    Oh, it does even worse, my friend. If you note the case I'm making here, I'm saying that it actually causes psychoses directly, by both presenting simultaneous self-negating statements and then demanding absolute belief in the irreconcilable contraries, demanding that one believe both statements, at once. (brain death ensues rapidly)
    God loves you, but He's perfectly willing to damn you for even doubting that... Instant psychosis, just add Bible!

    Now I KNOW that YOU'RE not 'one of those' christians that takes the bible literally; far from it. However, enough do. One hell of a lot of them (literally!) do. More importantly, those that do, are the selfsame ones that want this country to become a theocracy and are doing all that they are capable of in order to realize that goal.

    You're saying that evil requires intent. The intent was Constantines, two plus millennia ago. He was evil, for one. (He had a lot of evil friends who had input as well)
    The intent was his.
    The book is constructed to program the masses. Still works like a charm. It tells the believer that it's the very word of God, and then proceeds to make paradoxical and mutually exclusive statements throughout, demanding of course that all of it be believed AT ONCE. In order to do so, one must learn to disregard *reality* itself. One becomes delusional. It's the price of admission, in order to believe in it literally, and that is the type of believer to whom I am referring here. The Bible Literalist. The Dangerous Kind.

  6. Scripture even directly tells the reader that they shouldn't believe *anything* over the scripture itself, Botts! You know this. And the world is full of simpletons who buy into it. If you were simple, you would too. You have a mind, but you can't seem to imagine that there's any way that the Bible is not a good book. It is to the point of irrational behavior, how you defend it in spite of surely being able to see it's 'fruits' as expressed in your fellow christians.
    Who are a bunch of real whackos punctuated with an occassional sane person like you, and not the reverse, my friend.

  7. Does the Bible in it's entirety convince the reader to do harm or evil to others?
    I really thought about this, Botts. I really did. And I concluded that even if I knew absolutely nothing about the real world, and indeed perhaps ESPECIALLY if I knew absolutely nothing about the real world, and all I had to read was the Bible, and I just pored over and over it for years and years and really *internalized* all of it, OT and NT and Revelations, word by word, sll by meself, that at the end of it I would, providing of course that I bought into it all, (and why wouldn't I, knowing no better?) be just about the shallowest, most self-centered, self-righteous holier-than-thou jerk (I'm being kind here) that one could imagine. Really, that's how I see it. I think that any impartial rational being would see it that way, if they could acheive that level of actual detachment from their cultural biases. (I practice this shit)
    But what do I know, eh? I'm only a Saint, not a God.


    I'm practicing, just in case I get elevated or something.

    Smite you. Just kidding.

  8. See, the reader never 'does his homework,' botts. They only read the one book. And only listen to people and things that agree with their opinion of what it says.

    At least, not the average reader. The average reader who knows no better, takes the Bible literally. No? And the average reader has no interest in knowing any better, now do they?

    And taking the Bible literally, can only lead to evil things, and broken minds.

  9. Well Brian,

    Interesting post. Flawed, very flawed in fact, yet a salient point about Republicans, though of course not all.

    Just say no to the fallacy of composition.

    My counter argument would be to a large assumption, one that wasn't put up for contention.

    I've stated it before.

    I've even explicated, to the best of my meager ability, about it before.

    There is no such thing as the bible. It doesn't exist.
    Never has.

    Let me put two chapters of Atlas Shrugged in with a chapter of the Communist Manifesto, various ones from Mark Twain, just for kicks a few lyrics from Jay Z and then end it with a heterosexual confession from Ani Difranco.

    I'll call it The Clammersmackypoopdabeezer after it's codified at a political rally where people who think like me, and won't add in anything by Sun Tzu or Monty Python, will support not only that name but the entire concept of its wholeness.

    The bible, not dealing with the writings themselves, is complete bullshit.

    We've compared Genesis with evolutionary theory (what's claimed without reason, and what's claimed with reason and science) and found it severely lacking.

    Why not accept the examinations of these writings from cultural anthropology and literary criticism? Are they such putzy activities and disingenuous lines of study that they should count for nothing?

    Even my best counterargument to apologists (referring to Ryan's question) presupposes that this thing called the bible actually IS a book: with continuity, a purpose, a narrative or deliberate lack thereof etc.

    At best the bible could only be called a book if it were written by post-modernists trying to fuck with the very notion of continuity for the sake of politics.

  10. "We've compared Genesis with evolutionary theory (what's claimed without reason, and what's claimed with reason and science) and found it severely lacking. "

    And that's the problem. It's the problem both Atheists and Literalists have. Both do the same things, but come to their different conclusions.

    Of course it's lacking. The Bible is a spiritual account with some physical historical accounts as well. But it is supposed to be interpreted in a literal spiritual way.

    God created all. And it looks to me as if He used system of Evolution to do it.

    Literalists take it.....literal, Atheists take it .......literal, and there is the problem. Atheists such as Brian don't have an argument towards Christians. It's toward a sect of Christianity. And that's all.

  11. Hilarious stuff Harry!

    But to get to the nitty-gritty of the difference between what Botts seems to think versus what Brian(with a big b) thinks.


    Seems to me that anyone indoctrinated into Christianity is intent on projecting the 'goodness' of this work(these works), and intent on demonstrating the spirituality of the writers.

    I think that spirituality itself is not demonstrable(demonstratable). It is meaningless. You, Botts, can, with ease, slip into a conversation with another Christian, or Muslim, about spirituality and 'know' exactly what you are talking about.

    And that is a huge difference between you and I, Botts.

    To me, it's drivel, it's meaningless.

    YOU, cannot explain it to me, without referencing the thing that you're trying to explain, which is circular at that point, right?

    It's like saying, "Feel the Force, Luke! Reach out with your feelings, Luke! Nothing is impossible, Luke!" (but it is impossible to lift objects with your thoughts, except in movies!)

    The intent of most of the Bible is to chronicle the Hebrews Godly land claim.

    It's so obvious that the story of the last few chapters CHANGES from the Hebrew tribal GOD to the 'awesome, everywhere, all the time' GOD.

    But there's a logical, reasonable reason for this. The influence of the Romans, Greeks and Persians.

    You are in denial. Your 'spirituality thing' is set up to deny this easy, factual answer, with the 'funny language'(some morons believe that 'they spoke like that', it's the 'Godly way to speak'), the 'roots'(my pa and grandpa were great 'believers' kind of thing), the 'awesomeness of the World and Universe', the 'need to percieve a purpose' etc. etc.

  12. We've been through all the 'apologies' for Christianity, and I wonder what is the 'thing' that you, Botts, think to apologize(in that sense) for your belief in the supernatural?

    As far as I can tell, all you do is simply put the supernatural in terms of the spiritual. But that's like defining water as wet. The definition of wet IS 'covered by a thin layer of water'. You're basically defining your belief as your belief and telling us that it's not your problem if we can't 'see' that.

  13. "Hilarious stuff Harry!"

    Why thank you sir, and a good argument against Botts' response you have there.

    To counter though, at least one brief assertion about 'the bible,' I would say that the writings become disparate way before the New Testament, and the idea of a land claim is so overarching it would be like gathering together the writings of any country's zealots no matter how opposing their other world-views, as long as they agreed about 'that one thing.'

  14. Not only that, the Bible contains sneaky ways to try to change unbelievers beliefs.

    The idea that we are all sinners presupposes the 'spiritual', yet it's not as though(sarcasm) we can see animals being bullies sometimes and sharing at other times, is it?

    To turn these social actions into a question of spirituality is cheating because it asks people to consider the real and project the unreal onto it.(projecting 'Moral Law' on to feelings about whether some actions are 'good' or 'bad', for example)

  15. Seriously Harry, if they're not explaining how that land belonged to them 'cos God gave it to them, they're chronicling their travails to get there, chronicling their wars to take the land, chronicling their attempts to govern the land then chronicling their reasoning why they lost the land.

    Saying, "Of course, any zealots would couch things in those terms!", is a moot point, because the O.T. we read is picked over to underline the point of ownership of land.

    I don't get why saying the 'any zealot' thing even refutes in any way what I said.

  16. Stupid 'blonde' joke.

    Why did the blonde go to the drive-in in December?

    She wanted to see "Closed for the winter"

  17. Telling me that the bible isn't even a book because it's composed of disparate writings, is an excellent way of explaining all those self-negating statements. Of course the bible is so self-contradictory because it's a collection of writings by different authors at different times.

    However, the fundamentalist believers either don't know that, or don't care.

    Plus, in one, or perhaps several of those disparate bible stories, it says 'all scripture must be believed' and 'neither a tittle nor a jot' etc. So this *collection* says to the simpletons, "believe ALL of this book, every word" even if that wasn't the original intention.

    The effect is still as I've described. Enforced belief in disparate and self-negating statements causing psychological schism.

  18. Exactly Brian, and it's not as if they don't know this. Not wanting to admit that there are contradictions they explain away any 'apparent' contradictions through 'harmonization' and such.

    That's like saying, "There's certainly not a problem here, but we're fixing it."

  19. They see the immense power in the writings, and use that to their advantage.
    Yes. They see the immense power of it's nebulousness and contradictions and illogic, coupled with the fact that so many sheeple believe in it all utterly, even over plain facts and raw data. That, is power. Immense power. The raw power of human stupidity is an amazing thing.

  20. And honestly, the obviousness of the effort that the compilers and editors put forth to create a continuity between the OT God Yahweh and the NT God Jesus (where none existed) is practically larcenous. They just 'elmer's glued' the NT onto the OT and pretended that it's all one story. A weak and obvious thing, too, except to the sheeple of course, who believe anything.

  21. Another angle on the "Jesus existed before the foundation of the world" and "that God had a plan for the messiah all along" assertions we're always subjected to by Christians defending the "coherence of the Biblical narratives" is the obvious problem of why Adam and Eve were set up to fail.

    There can be no justification for anything happening in human history before Jesus' arrival from God's point of view, if Jesus was the plan "all along". And the flip side of that is that if Jesus was "planned", then Adam and Eve were pawns without choice or free will.

    Oh, yeah, I forgot.

    "God works in mysterious ways."

  22. And of course, speaking of mysterious ways, techically a woman couldn't be made from a man's rib, because women have a couple of thousand genes MORE than men.(I know, I know, God can 'do' anything.)

    But that puts the story in the realm of analogy or allegory which is THEN mysteriously left unexplained. A mystery religion.

    A mystery religion combined with a traditional tribal god religion.

    But that is just cheating. If you attack the 'mystery' portion they counter with the historicitiy part and if you attack the historicity part they counter with the mystery.

    How 'shit' is that???

  23. Just say no to the fallacy of composition.

    As in, I didn't do that, even though that's how it looks.

    I always refer to the fundamentalist bible-literalists as 'the problem' as I've done again here. And they are. So there.


    So it's harmful to ALL CHRISTIANS.

    Even Botts. To the extent that he's been blinded to the negative aspects of the Book that he loves so very much. Blindness is blindness, even if it produces a 'good' individual. All blindness is a negative. So, even Botts' rare type of open-minded christian, is affected to some extent. To the precise extent that one believes, one is affected. So, all believers are affected.

    No fallacy here.

  24. Can you not see the, "I can't win!", part of Christianity just watching 'The Life of Brian', where he is denying his 'messiahnes' and they say, "And the Messiah will deny his messiahness!", boxing him in.

  25. And, THERE is the evil in the Bible! When you are reading it and it explains that non-believers ARE evil! Non-believers are simply not believing IN God so that they can continue their evil ways. Non-believers, in fact DO believe in God, they just hate HIM! THEY are the source of EVIL, according to the Bible, the very reason why we're all in this predicament of having to believe through faith that God made it all, used to speak with us but now kind of lets us 'suss' HIM.

    Wow, what a guilt trip!

  26. See, I'm always on about the CONDITIONING in the Bible, and there it is. Right there in Genesis, with Adam and Eve.

    What was their crime?

    Seeking knowledge.

    That's a bad thing. If you believers seek your own knowledge, you won't be believing all of OUR DOGMA. So, no knowledge for you! Cut that shit out. Or else.

    Just for that, you're punished FOREVER, unto your most distant descendents...

    What a crock of crap. Anything to keep the people satisfied with their silly illogical 'knowledge' of the world, and not look to reality for the straight dope on it.

    So, two messages in one. Don't EVER seek real knowledge, and FEAR GOD A LOT and OBEY HIM AT ALL COSTS.

    Nicely done.

    How obvious does this shit need to be?

  27. What was Lot's wife's crime? Looking back at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah against God's wishes... so she's instantly turned into a pillar of salt. Cool.

    Her 'crime' was curiosity!!!

    Can't be having any of THAT, now can we?

  28. Oh, another really obvious one, is the story of Job.

    Without going all through it again, let's summarize the conditioning message embedded in the story:

    "No matter what shit reality throws at you, no matter how bad your luck is, do not lose faith in God, for He might just be using you as an example of a faithful believer. Or whatever.
    The point is, have faith in God no matter how cruel life is to you, no matter how much terrible luck you happen to have, no matter if your whole family dies off and you lose everything... it's just not God's fault, so don't go blaming Him for your troubles, just keep the faith, even if it *seems* that God doesn't give a flyspeck of crap for you, even if your prayers are NEVER answered, etc.

    This is very simple stuff, actually. One only needs OPEN EYES to see it.

  29. Jonah and the Big Fish:

    "Even when it seems that all is lost, faith in God will get you through..."

    As if. It's a neat idea though, since only those who SURVIVE their ordeal, whatever it may be, are around to thank God and spread the 'word' about how God 'saved them' because they prayed to Him in their time of need. The rest are dead. So they're not a problem to the religion anymore. It's a 'win-win.'

  30. Let's go over to the New Testament now...

    "Doubting Thomas"
    -We know that YOU THE READER have never seen the Risen Christ in the flesh, never have had the opportunity to verify His resurrection for yourself, touch His wounds, etc, SOOOOOOOOO we have this guy Thomas who DID doubt in the risen Christ and DID verify it for himself, DID touch the wounds, etc, SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO you the reader, shut the fuck up about it now. It's been handled. Christ was verified, right there in the Bible! We've covered that base... next question!

    It's all such obvious bullshit.

  31. Her 'crime' was curiosity!!!

    Nope. It was nostalgia, which is equally as ridiculous as a condemnable offense.

  32. Incidentally, if Jesus wasn't 'actually there' to let Thomas touch His wounds and verify for himself that the Risen Christ was legit, if Jesus was just a mirage or a guy in costume, then Thomas would have been what exactly? The first atheist? It would appear so...

    Isn't this all we atheists are asking? To have real verification, like Thomas did? Why then is our demand considered such a SIN??? I don't recall Jesus damning Thomas for his curiosity and doubt...

    Just a tangential pondering.

  33. curiosity if she was just interested in the light show; nostalgia if she was 'pining for the good old days in Sodom', as the text implies.

  34. Nope. It was nostalgia
    How so? 'Looking back' might be nostalgia, but isn't that just another word for 'curiosity' in this context?

  35. Well, either way it's a real over-reaction by God.

    (Incidentally I edited my prior post which is why it now appears *after* your answer to it...)

  36. How did my comment get above yours?

    It's a sign from His Noodley Holiness, I tells ya!

  37. Then I guess I am the FSM! Since it was me that did the deed....

  38. Pining for the good old days in sodom, so she looks back, is still curiosity, no? Just saying, since when I read that story many years ago that's what I took away from it...

    God said 'don't look' and she did. So when God says 'don't look' you don't. Still conditioning. Obey at all costs, no matter what.

  39. The two main lines of conditioning in the book seem to be 'obey at all costs, no matter what, even if it means your son dies or whatever' and 'fear God.' Oh, and there's also 'love God' which when considered beside the 'fear god' creates another schism, since loving that which you fear is insane right there on the surface.

  40. And in that story it really fine-tunes the message 'obey at all costs' because even a glance, just a tiny glance, caused her death. So even the tiniest disobedience is punishable by a fast death.

  41. Oh, and in my opinion, causing the believers to love God even more than they love their own children, is evil. Kids sense that sort of thing, and I personally know people that were traumatized by their parents actually declaring the fact to them when they were kids. It's sick to say to a little girl or boy 'Yes of course I love you, but I love God more than I love you, and you need to love God even more than you do me!' Sick, sick, sick.

  42. Also, since God obviously knew beforehand that Lot's wife would look back, He should have killed her off with the rest of the city, not right there in front of her husband while they're escaping. Unless that was a test of faith for her husband of course. Which also would have been un-necessary, since God knows if you're faithful beforehand too...

  43. Another question that arises when reading the bible is, 'why is satan so stupid?'

    I mean, he's the father of lies, so he's supposed to be a really good liar, and that takes intelligence, plus he's an ex-angel, with direct knowledge of god, and yet he keeps on *making bets with an omniscient being which he always loses.* What a surprise! And before that of course, he decided to rebel in heaven, knowing full well that god already knew all about it, and that god is all-powerful so putting down the rebellion would to god be as simple and easy as batting his eyes...
    What a fucking dunce!

  44. I mean, if you KNOW that the boss is both omniscient and omnipotent, *there is no rebellion.* You know you're fucked, so you don't even try. Who would? Only a real moe-ron.

  45. And of course, there's always the most flawed of all biblical stories...

    'Ark Ark!'

    'Who's there?'

    'Only a treasure trove of biblical error, that's who!'

    Heavy on the 'fear God' and 'trust in God' conditioning of course. And just look at how it appeals to the ego, that all of us who are left on this earth today are by definition descendents of the Chosen Few that God let survive the deluge... More Purina Ego Chow for the masses. Being 'chosen' and 'special' is a great lure, a great boost. Keep the egos inflated and the eyes never open...

  46. So that's another line of conditioning present throughout the book. The Ego Chow.

    The 'you're chosen and special and holy and God's Children and saved and are going to that exclusive club in the sky and others who are not like you are *different* and *evil* and to be reviled, and isn't it so incredibly lucky that we're like us and not like them?
    The sin of separation, of building walls rather than breaking them down if you will, is rampant throughout the pages of that unholy book. It's why so many christians are so quick to hate. They practically were raised to have an enemy and to hate that enemy, and so even when there really isn't an enemy they have to fucking make one up so they can bond over all the common hatred. All to the better, from the perspective of the religion.

  47. (And you all know that the message 'fear and obey god' is so easily translatable to 'fear and obey the emperor' or just 'fear and obey authority in general...)

    I think that naming the faithful a 'flock' and having Jesus as the 'good shepherd' and having pastors and all that sheep imagery is really a great, secret joke. On a par with Rush Limbaugh actually getting his fans to call *themselves* 'DITTOHEADS!'

    It's a very funny joke. I'm sure Eusebius laughed his ass off.

  48. OOH! OOH!

    (A la Arnold Horschach)

    I forgot a good one!

    The Tower of Babel!

    Do not strive for wisdom, again.
    (A common theme)
    Plus, do not try any shortcuts to knowledge of God or heaven!

    It's useless; God Himself forbids it, and so if you even try you're destined for disaster. God'll fuck you up, royally. (Deistically?)
    There's only ONE PATH TO HEAVEN, and that's the one that we're telling you to take here, or else. There's only ONE KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW, and that's the one we tell you to believe, which is of course the one God insists that you believe. So don't be stupid. Get with the program(ming)...

  49. Then there's the obvious disconnect between the original Yahweh saying to the ancient Hebrews through Moses:

    "And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good LAND and a large, unto a LAND flowing with milk and honey: unto THE PLACE of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites."

    -- Exodus 3: 8 (KJV)

    Seems the aim was an earthly kingdom, and only for the Hebrews. Then, when Yahweh Jr. shows up, it's

    "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

    --Matt. 6:19-21

    Now, we're told, earth doesn't matter, for ANYONE.

  50. I don't think that Botts' point of view is that these stories necessarilly have to be 100% literally true. I think he said that he sees the obviously silly ones as allegorical or analogous.

    This is the point I have to dispute with him. He seems quite happy to accept, and encourages us to accept any story that seems reasonable BUT, compare a story to reality and have it come up short on the science, then Botts is willing to give ground, admit that perhaps it's not true when looked at in the cold light of reality but that there's a 'spiritual truth' to it that us poor skeptics just ignore.

    Without even having to state what any 'truth' in any particular story might be, I think that Botts is trying to persuade us that since he has a majority of believers on his side, that we're at least bordering on cynicism.

    This seems to be an easy 'out' for him considering that he is not only under no obligation to 'rewrite the Bible' for us explaining exactly what the 'truth' that he supposely CAN see is, he's also under no obligation to set Christians, that he regards as misunderstanding the 'Word', 'straight' either!

    It's all a matter of opinion and interpretation when it come to 'spiritual truth'.

    Was 'GOD', in the Sinai desert, was 'GOD' actually a volcano, with a pillar of smoke in daytime and a pillar of fire by night?

    If that 'floats your boat', YES!

    Is evolution consistent with the stories in Genesis?

    If that 'floats your boat', YESS!

    But matters of fact are decidedly NOT a question of 'floating your boat', so pawning off scientifically ridiculous stories, walking on water and such, as simply a matter of opinion is obviously ludricrous from my point of view, yet 'arguable' from Botts' point of view.

  51. I had not even thought of that disconnect, Ed. There as just so many, it's hard to keep track.

    Pboy, I agree with your assessment.

  52. Ditto Harry at 1:59

  53. Really, Ryan? Ditto that? I answered Harry as to why I was not making a fallacy of composition a few posts later, and as to the bible being a mishmash of different pamphlets and not a book, so what? Same effect... the christians all believe that it's a book and the more deluded of them also believe that it's an infallible one at that. The very fact that it IS INDEED not a book but a mix of different authors etc. which is mislabeled a book only adds to it's evil effect in the world, since it tells you right there in the colection of mishmash that it's all infallible scripture, all the very Word of God, and you can't even change a single letter of it; all of it must be believed. Er, or else.

    And they do. So what the bible actually is to the cognoscenti makes no difference in the real world, where it's generally believed to be not only a book, but the Good Book, the one you are supposed to live your life modeled upon.

  54. Here's a 'fun' thing that happened just now. Earlier today Emma complained that there was a beetle in the house. I went out for a look and there was a cricket at the bottom of our television.

    Sure enough it crawled under the telly and into the corner behind. I didn't want to move the television 'cos Emma has all kinds of photos and stuff on top which could be knocked over and smash and stuff.

    No problem, what harm could a cricket do?

    Well, a few hours later it started chirping. Twreet-twreet-twreet, twreet-twreet-twreet. If you've heard them outside through your window, you can imagine how loud they are inside the house.

    Silly thing picked the heaviest chair in the house, an electric lazy-boy to hide under and sing to us.

    I got the little bugger in some toilet tissue and evicted him.

  55. Proud of you pboy. You didn't commit insecticide...

  56. Considering the title of this post, I feel it incumbent upon myself to present this interesting website.
    I agree with most of it.

  57. Brian Really, Ryan? Ditto that?

    Should have been more specific, just Ditto on the mismash part.

  58. It's a matter of expedience: when the Hebrews left Egypt (forget for a minute that there's no physical evidence that the exodus ever took place), they were on a territorial conquest, to establish a kingdom on earth. When Jesus was preaching, the kingdom of the Jews was basically over, and thus they wished for some OTHER realm to call their own where the Romans didn't rule, hence the immaterial kingdom.

  59. Well, yea, but I think that that's the point, isn't it?

    The O.T. is chock full of claiming the land and controlling the population in an effort to gain control of the land.

    You know, basic religious stuff. A basic template for how, with the notion that God is on your side, you can defeat 'them' and take their stuff which God gave you and they just have 'some nerve' hanging onto as if it belonged to 'them'.

    Along comes the likes of Botts and says that all this stuff, this collection of war stories couched in terms of 'my God's better than yours', is not what it's REALLY all about.

    But, it seems, that that is only to fool the poor into accepting the world the way it is, and let the rich/powerful play their war games with real bullets and real real estate and such.

    D'Souza's insistence that no wars at all are or were religous really, conveniently forgetting that every war fought is and was couched in terms of 'whose side is God on?'.

    How disingenuous is it to say that if we take out the religious factor there is a core 'greed for territory' there? It is the territory of the hated non-believers/wrong-believers that they attack.

    Might as well say, "When we simply take the religious element out of it, we can see that there's no religion involved!"

    Same with Botts explanation. If he takes the population control and war out of contention we can see that religion has absolutely nothing to do with population control and war.

  60. Great website Bri,

    Gotta love the 'Retard of the Month' category. Which reminds me they should have a 'Nigger of the Week' or a 'Whore of the Hour' category too.

    "'Let's play, which pejorative for a large group is most acceptable!'

    'I know! It's the one we don't even think about!'"

    Evil "bible."

    On what grounds?

    I'd say partly it's the marginalization of groups of people: foreigners, the unclean, women and other so-called inferiors, by genocide, punishment, enslavement etc.

    But marginalizing the disabled, that's alright. If "the bible" were just that I'm sure the people who run the website would love it, perhaps even call it the 'Really Cool Bible.'

    Retards are soooo... well retarded aren't they?

    We should compare people we don't like, or immoral people to them.

    I'm so glad we have retards to marginalize. They deserve it. Best part is, they'd never know it.

    Stupid retards. They're dumb. Really dumb. LIke stupid dumb. Like retards!

  61. You know that website should add a 'Gimp of the Month' category too.

    For people who can't quite make it to reason!

    "Well buddy, ya almost did it but you were too damn gimpy!"

    Fuckin gimps, they can't get around as well as other people.


    My favorite would be the 'Fore-eyed person of the Month'

    The one who was too blind to have the appropriate foresight!


    Fuckin four-eyed people. They don't see as well as other people.


    How dare the evil "bible" marginalize! How dare it!

  62. Gotta love the 'Retard of the Month' category.
    Didn't see it, sorry you're offended there. I just found the site and read the basic parts. Haven't had time to really scour it.

    However I ask you, when you look at their 'retard of the month' is it about the learning-disabled, or down's syndrome people? You're reacting as if it is, so I thought I'd ask...

  63. I have to say that I couldn't resist and went to the 'retard of the month' page. This month is Fred Phelps, as vile a man as is on this earth.

    Ya know, I'm *almost* ashamed to admit that I've always liked the word 'retard' when it's NOT BEING USED to actually slur the learning-disabled, and is being applied to some idiot like Phelps. Now, I suppose there are those who say that the learning disabled had to hear that word all their lives as a slur etc so it's really insensitive of me to ever use it. I suppose. I'm not even sure that's right. Something seems off about it. But okay, I suppose I'm a dinosaur and this is my bigotry that I've found here. I can't see it, sorry, so it must be me, right?
    I'd never use it with someone who is disabled. I don't even think of THEM as retarded! In my mind, the ONLY retards, are those adult supposedly normal members of society that are just *incredibly stupid.*

    It seems to me that if you want to not use 'retarded' anymore due to sensitivity, then what about the poor stupid people who are just stupid? They've been called stupid as a slur, too, and it's no doubt hurt their feelings... so shouldn't we, out of sensitivity to the genuine stupid people, eliminate the word 'STUPID' from our public discourse entirely as well? It's the only way to be fair, after all...

    Stupid, the new 'S' word! Let's never say it again!

    (Now this is just me being retarded, sorry...)

  64. Ooh, another reason never to say the "S" word again!

    The learning disabled were also often slurred with it, too! I forgot about that.

    NO more saying s_ _ _ _ _ !!!

  65. Although I must admit that had it been me, I wouldn't have called that page 'retard of the month.' It's a little too blatant even for me. I tend to more like humorous uses of the word, such as 'shit, how retarded am I?' or some such thing...

    So people, you've heard the evidence. I ask you, your verdict? Am I wrong for liking the word when used in limited manner as described? Or is it my bigotry not wanting to die here? I'm not sure myself. However, I really do see a parallel with the word 'stupid,' like I said. At what point do we stop? When it's socially unacceptable to even use the word 'unintelligent?'

  66. I mean, I'm really thinking here, and while it would certainly be a huge, ignorant insult to call a down's patient 'retarded,' wouldn't it also be a huge, ignorant insult, almost as bad, to call such a person 'stupid?'

    Isn't the real meaning of the r-word 'stupid' in all it's usages? Now I know that the r-word has special significance due to it once actually being used to specifically mean 'learning-disabled' in a negative manner. I get that. However that word never meant EXCLUSIVELY the learning-disabled. It always doubled as just 'stupid' and to 'retard' something is to slow it down. A slow learner would also be technically 'retarded.' So it's very hazy. I need enlightenment on this manner immediately here, Harry!!! Do your stuff!

  67. A few things Brian.

    1. Why do I love putting satire on your blog? Because almost every single regular here is whip smart, and has the decency to give as good as they get, more so, or the temerity to question the whole thing.

    "Am I wrong? Is Harry/whomever wrong? WTF is he on about? Maybe he is on about something but it's not quite..."

    Et cetera.

    May George Carlin give all a Lenny Bruce blessing for that.

    2. If you're actually throwing the 'stupid' word out for debate, then I would just respond that stupid is an ly less adverb as much as an adjective, but both of those more so than a noun, much less a group of people.

    The Stupids(?)

    Retard is the above as well (adj, adv [with the -ed], noun) but significantly a permanent state, something that the intelligence impaired could presumably do nothing about.

    So, I think my barbs mainly rested on the theme of 'marginalization of groups,' which, and I'm not just saying this, concerning stupid, no memory neurons are firing at all for.

    If there actually were a group of people marginalized/stigmatized by that word, in so much that they and the word became synonymous I'm not aware of it.

  68. *Is Harry/whomever wrong?*

    By whomever I apparently mean my other personality oneblood.

  69. I see your point about the group of people. It's a shame though, because when I think of a 'bunch of retards' the group that comes to mind is the republican/tea party.

    I guess it's that since I never even thought of actually using the word to describe the disabled, and most people that I know wouldn't dream of it either, it feels to me like the word has lost its original deleterious meaning in a way, and that the type of person *today* that is most deserving of the word is actually pretty much the type who *would* still use it to denote the disabled.

  70. 2. If you're actually throwing the 'stupid' word out for debate, then I would just respond that stupid is an ly less adverb as much as an adjective, but both of those more so than a noun, much less a group of people.

    The Stupids(?)
    So then, cretin is out too...

  71. I strongly suspected your satire but it still begged a response. I was curious.

  72. Despite all that, I think there should be more sites dedicated to the study, and rebuttal of "books" as authorities.

    The Bible, the Q'uran, the Vedas, the Communist Manifesto, the Federalist Papers.

    Authority is a tricky tricky tricky epistemic dilemma. Debate concerning it, is a good, imho.

  73. I can see it happening to the web soon.

    Googlepedia is the authority on everything.

    And neither, Google nor Wikipedia, is an authority on anything, for that we look to the people who contribute to them (hits or articles).

    Who are they?
    What do they know?
    How do they know it?

  74. Obama being the anti-Christ is very funny of course. What makes it a little more peculiar than crackpot fundies would want, is the usage of anti-Christ in 'the bible.'

    One definition is famous, the other is more pedestrian something a pedant like myself would know, er, almost know.

    Anti-Christ: Someone who denies that JESUS is the Christ. When he/she does that they deny the Father and the Son.

    That's so circular, about Jesus, with the use of the word son and its corollary.

    Anti-Christ: Someone who denies the Son of God is the Son of God. When he/she does that they deny God and His Son.


    Very cute John, come up with that all by yourself?

    Oh, you did?

    My that's honest of you.

  75. Yay! I found out my favorite comedian became an atheist a couple years ago.

    Mr. Eddie Izzard

  76. Eddie playing himself and God.

    Eddie to audience: If there was a god don't you think he would've flicked Hitler's head off... don't you think? You know...

    God:Oh, I'm not allowed to do anything.

    Eddie: Well fuck off then! If you're not allowed to do anything then what's the use? Just piss off. Stop asking us to mumble things on Sundays.

  77. Of course there's always Mithras and Tammuz...


  78. Now about Mithras and Tammuz...

    Ya know how the fundamentalist christians explain why those two gods had so much in common with Jesus, as in birthday, born of virgin, etc.? (Those two and some other gods, too)

    They pretty much believe that the *previous religions which have similarities or overlaps with christianity and jesus, are copycats. Beforehand copycats.* See, the PERFECT RELIGION was off there still to come, still in the future, but somehow I guess it sent 'reverse echoes' or something *back* through time so that the previous religions sort-of unknowingly copied christianity, way before it even happened.


  79. I like that comedian. I'd only heard his name before. Thanks. I'll look about for him.

  80. hi every person,

    I identified after previous months and I'm very excited much to commence participating. I are basically lurking for the last month but figured I would be joining and sign up.

    I am from Spain so please forgave my speaking english[url=].[/url][url=].[/url][url=].[/url]

  81. Why do we call it spam anyway?

    I mean spam's disgusting and all but why not vegemite, or anchovy?

  82. Dejalo.

    Wikipedia, I mean God, has answered my question.

  83. So, Mithras is not all that similar to Jesus, if you give it an honest look at what we actually know about Mithras.

  84. Brian said,

    the christians all believe that it's a book and the more deluded of them also believe that it's an infallible one at that.

    Not all Christians believe that Brian, Many of us know there are 66 books compiled into what is known as the Holy Bible. There is a difference.
    I second the infallible remark.

  85. Anonymous, we'd love you to join and be a regular contributor to the discussion... that's if youre real purpose isn't to spread your own websites around. So stop posting links, get a name, and let's have a discussion, y si prefieres podemos hablar en espanol quando tienes problemas en ingles.

    El pregunta es, eres amigo o spammer?


  86. I second the infallible remark.
    So instead of you believing that one book is infallible, you're telling me that you believe that a collection of 66 books by various authors collected and compiled by politicians and bishops under duress (they couldn't disagree with the politicians under penalty of banishment) IS INFALLIBLE.

    Just wanted to get that strtaight.

    Now, how is that, your position, even worse, even less informed, even more ignorant, than those who just believe that it's one continuous book? They don't have the knowledge that YOU DO, so it's understandable that they're ignorant enough to believe in it, but YOU DO KNOW, and you're just gonna believe it all infallible anyhow.

    Sounds reeeeeally silly to me, dude. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

  87. Here's what I think is the Ultimate and Salient Ignorance of the Baptist Faith, and indeed of all Protestant faiths:

    It's a Catholic Bible. Always was, always will be. They compiled and edited it for THEIR PURPOSES, all of which was about accruing secular power. You're all still basing your religion on it. Why is that?
    The Book was compiled by very, very, VERY biased catholics, way before any kind of fact-checking was possible. They controlled EVERYTHING that is in that book, and all that was LEFT OUT. And you SAPS are still buying into it? Why exactly is that? Enlighten me here. I just don't get it. You all still pretty much dislike, if not hate, catholics, but YOU'RE STILL BELIEVING THEIR PROPAGANDA BOOK AND PROPAGATING IT AS YOURS!

    Wow, is all I can say. Not smart.

  88. Protestants hated the catholic church because they saw that it was so incredibly corrupt so they rebelled against it, but SAVED THE OWNER'S MANUAL???

    Not getting it here, sorry. Why'dja do THAT? You already had a clear example of WHERE IT LED. You saw the corruption and wanted it for your own? You were jealous of all the power and perks? That's all I can come up with here.

  89. I mean, if it were me back then, I'd be looking at all the material the council of nicea *discarded* for the real message of Jesus Christ. The apocrypha and all that. I'd be looking at the philosophies of those other types of christians that the church *massacred* such as the Knights Templar and the Cathars and the Gnostics, for real spiritual truth. Since that's why the church massacred them; because they couldn't have the competition for the human soul, couldn't have *other truths* out there. What I certainly WOULDN'T DO would have been to just adopt the book pretty much as-is, and call it mine, when it isn't.

  90. And let's not forget the Arian Heresy that was stamped out at Nicaea 325...

  91. Brian said,

    I mean, if it were me back then, I'd be looking at all the material the council of nicea *discarded* for the real message of Jesus Christ. The apocrypha and all that. I'd be looking at the philosophies of those other types of christians that the church *massacred* such as the Knights Templar and the Cathars and the Gnostics, for real spiritual truth. Since that's why the church massacred them; because they couldn't have the competition for the human soul, couldn't have *other truths* out there. What I certainly WOULDN'T DO would have been to just adopt the book pretty much as-is, and call it mine, when it isn't.
    Brian this is complete and utter BS… ALL known books were studied for harmony and accuracy. The Gnostic books were discarded because they were not inspired, after reading some of them my self it was very evident that they were not God inspired.

    And by the way, the Catholics DID NOT write the original manuscripts as you and some of them may claim. They were written by the original followers of Christ of whom were not catholic. The Catholics are accredited however with canonizing the Bible after the false books were rejected by their scholars They done a good job too I might add. Your research on the Baptist church is incorrect… The Baptist were NOT part of the Protasant movement… They had nothing to protest because they were not part of the catholic church to begin with.

  92. Mike said Brian this is complete and utter BS…

    I have to partially agree, mainly because I don't think there's any compelling reason to believe there ever was a "real message of Jesus Christ" and if there was, one can not say with any certainty that this "real message of Jesus Christ" ever got recorded accurately to begin with. There’s no reason to believe that the apocrypha is any more legitimate than the canonized Gospels. I would imagine that reasoning that "because it was suppressed means it must be true" is some sort of fallacy...

    As for Mike's idiotic statement "...the Catholics DID NOT write the original manuscripts..."

    Paul was instrumental in founding the Catholic Church, is buried in a Pope’s Palace and wrote one third of your New Testament.

  93. Mike The Baptist were NOT part of the Protasant movement… They had nothing to protest because they were not part of the catholic church to begin with.

    Can you provide any evidence that your sect existed prior to 1650?

  94. I think that it's hilarious that Mike expects us to imagine that there was this completely different sect, the Baptists, who can trace their lineage back to the Council of Nicea.

    It is YOU who is full of shit here Mike. First off the Catholics would not have put up with it. There's no record of some 'real' church paralleling the Catholics because every church was either brought in line or fought against.

    Are we to imagine Baptist churches dotted through Roman Europe and Middle Age Europe, presumably using King James Bibles transported, by God, back through time and their adversaries minds being clouded by God?

    It's ridiculous.

  95. Or are we to imagine a core 'real' church which hid within Catholicism until the Protestant movement took hold and then adopted the King James Bible when THAT became available?

    An entire sect of Christians hiding the truth of their heresy(of the Catholic faith) from the Catholics?

    It's so easy to imagine that there were a few flocks of core believers who never did subscribe to any sect but yours down through history, but it doesn't make sense, it is anachronistic as far as their 'scripture'(which is entirely Protestant because you use the KJV).

    Did you guys just not bother with Scripture until King James commissioned his new Bible then?

  96. "because it was suppressed means it must be true" is some sort of fallacy...
    Oh ryan, I'm not saying this all as me here; I'm saying it as if I were one of those early protestants, what I would have done, where I would have looked for more of Jesus' philosophy, and since it was REJECTED by the church then chances are there is some fairly interesting stuff in there, and since it was hated by the church it might well constitute a valid spiritual path, like gnosis for instance. (When I say a valid spiritual path, I'm simply meaning allowing the people to look within themselves. The church didn't do that; christianity is not a valid spiritual path in that sense)

  97. The Gnostic books were discarded because they were not inspired, after reading some of them my self it was very evident that they were not God inspired.
    See, I guess that was the problem. Baptists like to think they're different, but they even agree as to what is 'inspired' when this was just how constantine justified basically burning books. Or eliminating them at any rate.
    I guess it's hopeless. Mike has answered me. Why did the baptists and all the other protestant sects still ust the bible in spite of how stupid that sounds?

    They were still too conditioned NOT TO.

    Thanks mike.

    Oh, and what's it like being a protestant that thinks he's not? From where I sit, it's pretty funny stuff.

  98. The Catholics are accredited however with canonizing the Bible after the false books were rejected by their scholars They done a good job too I might add.
    So when Constantine got all the bishops together representing many different beliefs within the religion, and told them that if they did not all agree with HIM, they would be summarily BANISHED, which back then was pretty much a death sentence, you're saying that what they then all agreed upon under duress, constantine's vision of the religion ONLY, and nobody elses allowed, that somehow that roman politician who hadn't even converted to the religion himself yet, DID A GOOD JOB?

    Are you retarded?

    (Sorry, harry)

  99. The baptists were not part of the protestant movement? Then you're still catholics?

    Too funny. Mike, do you EVER divert from what you're told to believe?


    Didn't think so.

  100. Mike, you're judging the gnostic texts etc from the viewpoint of someone that is already conditioned in constantine's version of christianity. So naturally you reject them. You haven't got the imagination to look into them with YOUR eyes. You can only use the eyes of your conditioning. And your conditioning will only accept what it's conditioned to accept. Heck, you're not even involved in the decision anymore.

  101. In a way Mike's right. Those other texts were not 'inspired' enough to fit in with a religion of control which went on to dominate humanity with it's corruption, greed, and authoritarianism.

    But I was under the impression that that's precisely what the protestants were 'protesting' against.

    So yes, those gnostic texts absolutely do not fit in with the 'world-domination' type christian theology at all. They tell you to look for god within yourself. Can't be having any of that. Nope, god is the sole property of the holy church. No competitors allowed.


  103. Interesting li nk, Jerry.

    Will it never end? (sigh)

    And I love how the northern ireland catholic church is denying any conspiracy. That's like a conspiracy denying a conspiracy.

  104. I wonder which inspired scriptures inspired that priest to plant car bombs?

  105. Luke 17:20-21 (King James Version)

    20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

    21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
    Here Jesus is promoting practically the gnostic viewpoint.

    I guess this 'uninspired' quote just got in there by accident, then.

  106. Oh, come on Brian, this is 'out of context'. Jesus is obviously talking to the masses here, and priests/pastors/anyone-who-imagines-himself-a-spokesman-for-any-group-of-Christians KNOW this, because this is what they'd tell THEIR flock to believe.

    But Jesus isn't refering to the church leaders or the top 2% of the wealthiest, no.

    The masses are encouraged to believe that there is a separation of the physical things in life, a separation of their money from their wallets!

    Church leaders are the beneficiaries of this 'bounty' and know that it's purpose is to increase their influence over more and more masses, because it's a business, like any other.

    I mean, they can't be just giving away that money to strangers and stuff. What? Are you nuts?

    At the very least, our Mike is into anti-socialist 'influence peddling'.

    They imagine themselves heroic for doing it, to boot!

  107. All true pboy, yes, it's about separation between the 'earthly' realm in which you the believer has a shit lot in life, and the 'spiritual' realm in which you will live as kings, basically... only of course, ya hafta die first, and in the mean time we'll just continue screwing you as god intended, thank you very much...

    However, and perhaps even coincidentally, it DOES in fact also happen to agree with the gnostic viewpoint of looking for god within one's self, which the church considered anathema.

  108. Getting back to mike,

    The 'good job' comment again, sorry. And sorry for the 'r' word there, I only said it because if you read back it was a topic of conversation.

    Good job. I kept thinking about that.

    Why would you see the chosen 'inspired' texts as all a 'good job?'

    You're judging them *by* the bible that you already know. And gee, look at that, they fit!

    Good job, mike. Good job.

  109. Brian said,

    "...I wonder which inspired scriptures inspired that priest to plant car bombs?"

    From this:

    "Book of Armaments, Chapter 2, verses 9-21:.

    “ ...And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, "O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade that with it Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits, in Thy mercy." And the Lord did grin and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats and large chu... [At this point, the friar is urged by Brother Maynard to "skip a bit, brother"]... And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceedest to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it." Amen.

  110. Ahh yes, the venerable Book of Armaments. How did that slip my mind?


  111. Although one of the things I loath most of all in the universe is Leonard Pinth-Garnell's, "Bad Evolutionary Metaphors", I feel drawn to one like the doomed moth to the flame.

    Supreme irony warning: Much like our own genome, the Bible looks not like a system that was created in whole at one time but rather like the various bits and pieces that evolved over time into what we see today.

    The various denominations of Protestantism look a lot like genetic drift where most minor mutations accumulate over time with little effect on the greater whole. (Was the Reformation a speciation event ;)?)

    Genesis is much like a dormant section of DNA that is a hold over from an earlier time but not subject to natural selection because its presence or absence was until recently of little real importance to the Bible as a whole.

    Now of course it is important in the natural selection of the Bible since competing memes exploit the vulnerability of the whole through the mechanism of absurdism created by its existence.

    The metaphor of course also pokes a hole in the notion of Biblical exceptionalism since along the way many events might have taken place to make it a very different composite than the one of today.

  112. So it's like a natural accretion of code with the only governing stipulation that it be good for the survival of the organism. The organism being of course, the religion. It could have ended in many other ways, but random factors give us what we know today.