So today, I will be tackling the still controversial issue of abortion. Though, first I would like to say thank you to the late Reverend Jerry Falwell and his calvary for refusing to surrender after the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973. Now, here are some reasons why pro-lifers would say that abortion is wrong.
1. Abortion offends god (in this case, Yahweh).
If an action offends god, then the action is wrong.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.
This is not sound because this is the same god who gets offended by people eating pork and shellfish. However no one is about to shut down Long John Silver and Arby's just yet. Also, this implies that everyone is a Christian, or adhere to the Abrahamic theology. That is not the case for everyone. I am personally not a Christian, or Jew, or Muslim. Therefore, to tell the people who are not Christian, or Jew or Muslim that an action that their doing offends god, it's like one of my neighbors saying to me, "My mother is going to be pissed if you sleep tonight." I will sleep soundly under my covers.
2. Abortion punishes innocent people.
If an action punishes innocent people, then the action is wrong.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.
Usually, this argument follows the rationale that abortion is punishing the fetus for the parents' irresponsibility. Unfortunately, when said parents go through with the pregnancy, the child still ends up suffering. There are parents who think that video clips of their children being 4-year-old pottymouths, trash talking, and shooting guns are funny. These images are on the Internet, and will actually come back to haunt the children for years to come. Thus, the children will be punished for their parents' gross incompetence.
3. Abortion can harm women.
All actions that can harm women are wrong.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.
It seems sound, however there is an event that all mothers to be must undergo in order to become mothers-childbirth. Childbirth is very painful. If you want an idea of how painful childbirth is, have a kidney stone, and imagine that pain persisting for 8-18 hours. Not to mention, in certain countries like Peru, there are girls as young as nine giving birth. That is some excruciating pain for a child to endure to bring life in the world at the risk of the little girl dying. Therefore, if we wish to say that all actions that can harm women are wrong, then we must add childbirth to that list of actions.
4. Abortion kills fetuses.
Fetuses are human beings.
Therefore, abortion kills human beings.
It would be unsound to consider a fetus a human being. Because unlike human beings, fetuses cannot feel. Fetuses are unable to learn different languages. Fetuses cannot learn. Fetuses cannot form a culture. Fetuses cannot become bipedal. Fetuses will never have sex, let alone be able have sex in any season. Because fetuses are unable to perform these human actions, fetuses are not human.
5. Abortion creates new problems.
All actions that create new problems are wrong.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.
This is definitely not sound. Do you know what else causes new problems? Parenthood. When you become a parent, you have more challenges than ever before. You thought you were broke when you were 21 in your own apartment? You're definitely broke now that you have a child. After all, it costs over $240,000 to raise a child for 18 years. You thought you were a butterball when you were 24? Being a parent to even one child will cause you to gain weight, and if you're not careful, that weight will become more and more. You did not have time to take a nap when you were younger? You definitely do not have time now. And that's just raising a baby. Wait until your child(ren) become teenager(s). For many parents, raising teenagers have them on their knees praying for strength, and for parent patients. Therefore, this argument is not sound.
Monday, June 20, 2016
Friday, June 17, 2016
My Project
First, I would like to thank Dr. Nobis for giving me this undertaking in light of the callous sermons and speeches given by Rev. Steven Anderson and Rev. Roger Jimenes in the wake of the Orlando shooting. I will take eight of the arguments against homosexuality and assess whether or not they are sound. When I talk about homosexuality, I will be talking about the sexual and relationship component.
Homosexuality is anti procreation.
If it is anti procreation, then it is wrong.
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.
Anti procreation, in this case, seems to mean that it does not result in reproduction. Would one suggest that oral sex, which is enjoyed by both homosexuals and heterosexuals is wrong because it cannot reproduce. A lot of of people would object to that because oral sex is very pleasurable, even among heterosexuals. Also, there are couples who love sex, and are either unable to have children or just don't want children. For these couples that are heterosexual, it would be outlandish and absurd to say that they are wrong for having sex without reproduction being the result.
Here's another argument:
Homosexuality does not offer the stability of a traditional family.
All relationships that do not offer the stability of a traditional family is wrong.
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.
Today, the so called traditional families are rare. There are more single parents raising households. However, just because a family does not fit the cookie cutter traditional family model does not necessarily mean that it is wrong. Also, the traditional family does not always mean perfect. The John List family murder is an example of that. Also, when couples have children, a number of those couples end up divorcing in the future and divorce hurts the stability. Therefore, it is not sound.
Homosexuality is not condoned in the Bible.
All actions that are not condoned in the Bible are wrong.
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.
True, homosexuality is not condoned in the Bible; however filicide is condoned. Yes, if your child is rebellious, the Bible says that the child is worthy of death. The Bible also condones rape victims, if they're single, marrying their attackers. The Bible requires interpretation and to try to follow it literally is the surest way to madness.
Homosexuals have a shortened life span.
If an act results in a shortened life span, then it is wrong.
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.
It is not sound because studies show that TV viewers have a shortened life span. However, not too many people are getting rid of their TV sets. Not even Christians who love to watch The 700 Club and old reruns of Praise the Lord with Paul and Jan Crouch. Also, people who eat red meat have a shortened life span. However, the bulk of the population is not willing to stop eating hamburgers and meatlovers pizza.
Homosexuality injures the fabric of society.
If an act injures the fabric of society, then it is wrong.
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.
This is not sound for this same argument was and is still in some circles, used to debate interracial marriages. The idea is that if we condone relationships that are not monogamous heterosexual relationships, then society would breakdown. However, this is unlikely because in ancient China, there were monogamous heterosexual relationships, and even homosexual relationships. Yet, China thrived during this period.
Homosexuality is dangerously unhealthy.
Any action that is dangerously unhealthy is wrong.
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.
This is not sound because there are people who love Little Debbie snacks, I'm a pastry person and a 90s baby. I love Pop Tarts, Honeybuns, bear claws, chocolate cake, and even cookies; although I'm very strict about not eating them often. It's not healthy, but to call it wrong would be extreme.
Homosexuality is not genetic.
All actions that are not genetic are wrong.
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.
This is not sound because of two reasons: 1. There is phenomena in our everyday life that is not genetic, but they are not wrong. 2. There is phenomena that is genetic, but before we can say that it's permissible, there must be a provided that clause. Example of number one: I am left handed, yet both of my parents are right handed. When I was growing up, someone had suggested to my mother to beat me and make me write with my right hand. I can only be glad that my mother had enough sense not to do that. Being left handed for me is not genetic, as far as my parents go,but that does not make it wrong. Example two, there are mental illnesses with a genetic component, such as borderline personality disorder and schizophrenia. While we must treat those with mental illnesses with much care and compassion, it is required that they take their medication in order to abate the symptoms and maintain clear thinking.
Homosexuality is unnatural.
If it is unnatural, then it is wrong.
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.
This is not sound because there are a lot of things that are not natural such as toilets, refrigerators, clothing, etc. Also, medications are not natural. If we were to adhere to this argument, then we would have live like early humankind: defacating behind a tree, heaven forbid you wipe your butt with poison ivy, at odds with one another and all the other animals, and the only essential source of survival is fire. Those who have Type 1 diabetes, letting nature take its course, would die from either diabetic ketoacidosis or kidney failure. Therefore, I doubt that we are willing to say that our modern day conveniences and amenities are wrong.
Homosexuality is anti procreation.
If it is anti procreation, then it is wrong.
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.
Anti procreation, in this case, seems to mean that it does not result in reproduction. Would one suggest that oral sex, which is enjoyed by both homosexuals and heterosexuals is wrong because it cannot reproduce. A lot of of people would object to that because oral sex is very pleasurable, even among heterosexuals. Also, there are couples who love sex, and are either unable to have children or just don't want children. For these couples that are heterosexual, it would be outlandish and absurd to say that they are wrong for having sex without reproduction being the result.
Here's another argument:
Homosexuality does not offer the stability of a traditional family.
All relationships that do not offer the stability of a traditional family is wrong.
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.
Today, the so called traditional families are rare. There are more single parents raising households. However, just because a family does not fit the cookie cutter traditional family model does not necessarily mean that it is wrong. Also, the traditional family does not always mean perfect. The John List family murder is an example of that. Also, when couples have children, a number of those couples end up divorcing in the future and divorce hurts the stability. Therefore, it is not sound.
Homosexuality is not condoned in the Bible.
All actions that are not condoned in the Bible are wrong.
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.
True, homosexuality is not condoned in the Bible; however filicide is condoned. Yes, if your child is rebellious, the Bible says that the child is worthy of death. The Bible also condones rape victims, if they're single, marrying their attackers. The Bible requires interpretation and to try to follow it literally is the surest way to madness.
Homosexuals have a shortened life span.
If an act results in a shortened life span, then it is wrong.
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.
It is not sound because studies show that TV viewers have a shortened life span. However, not too many people are getting rid of their TV sets. Not even Christians who love to watch The 700 Club and old reruns of Praise the Lord with Paul and Jan Crouch. Also, people who eat red meat have a shortened life span. However, the bulk of the population is not willing to stop eating hamburgers and meatlovers pizza.
Homosexuality injures the fabric of society.
If an act injures the fabric of society, then it is wrong.
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.
This is not sound for this same argument was and is still in some circles, used to debate interracial marriages. The idea is that if we condone relationships that are not monogamous heterosexual relationships, then society would breakdown. However, this is unlikely because in ancient China, there were monogamous heterosexual relationships, and even homosexual relationships. Yet, China thrived during this period.
Homosexuality is dangerously unhealthy.
Any action that is dangerously unhealthy is wrong.
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.
This is not sound because there are people who love Little Debbie snacks, I'm a pastry person and a 90s baby. I love Pop Tarts, Honeybuns, bear claws, chocolate cake, and even cookies; although I'm very strict about not eating them often. It's not healthy, but to call it wrong would be extreme.
Homosexuality is not genetic.
All actions that are not genetic are wrong.
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.
This is not sound because of two reasons: 1. There is phenomena in our everyday life that is not genetic, but they are not wrong. 2. There is phenomena that is genetic, but before we can say that it's permissible, there must be a provided that clause. Example of number one: I am left handed, yet both of my parents are right handed. When I was growing up, someone had suggested to my mother to beat me and make me write with my right hand. I can only be glad that my mother had enough sense not to do that. Being left handed for me is not genetic, as far as my parents go,but that does not make it wrong. Example two, there are mental illnesses with a genetic component, such as borderline personality disorder and schizophrenia. While we must treat those with mental illnesses with much care and compassion, it is required that they take their medication in order to abate the symptoms and maintain clear thinking.
Homosexuality is unnatural.
If it is unnatural, then it is wrong.
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.
This is not sound because there are a lot of things that are not natural such as toilets, refrigerators, clothing, etc. Also, medications are not natural. If we were to adhere to this argument, then we would have live like early humankind: defacating behind a tree, heaven forbid you wipe your butt with poison ivy, at odds with one another and all the other animals, and the only essential source of survival is fire. Those who have Type 1 diabetes, letting nature take its course, would die from either diabetic ketoacidosis or kidney failure. Therefore, I doubt that we are willing to say that our modern day conveniences and amenities are wrong.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
A Time to Step Down
I have not put out any secular posts since the Kim Davis event. However, certain events in the wake of the horrible carnage of 49 patrons of the gay club in Orlando has motivated me to do this blog. Pastor Steven Anderson and Pastor Roger Jimenez decided to use this tragedy to score brownie points for their depraved interpretation of the Bible and go as far to say that the killings were justified because according to them, the victims were sodomites (gays), and according to Steven Anderson, pedophiles. Now, Steven Anderson's assertion is absolutely erroneous. However, according to both of these men, the carnage was justified because in the Old Testament, killing people who engaged in homosexual sex was obligatory. Their main idea of this tragedy "killing all the right people" is very similar to a 1987 episode of Designing Women where Imogene Salinger made the remark that AIDS was "killing all the right people".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW5-IErNxuM
Now, I could go into detail about how the Old Testament had a problem with mixing fabrics, eating pork, eating shellfish, etc., but I will leave that to other bloggers to do so if they wish. What I am going to say is that it is time for fundamentalist Christianity to step down off of their high horse as being the pinnacle of morality and being the true form of Christianity. Enough of your leaders have too many times, used horrible tragedies to finger point, blame the victims or blame the leftwingers and say, "Now don't you think it's time to come back to Yahweh and the conservative Christian life?" While the supposed "evil" world reacted with compassion and understanding in times of tragedy, you all love to rub salt into people's wounds, and level condemnation: like Jerry Falwell did the day after 9/11 when he said that the lesbians, gays, feminists, abortionists, secularists, ACLU, and People for the American Way contributed to the 9/ll attacks; like Pat Robertson did in the days after a grievous earthquake ravaged Haiti in 2010 when he claimed that the Haitians had made a pact with the devil for independence, and that is why the Haitians deal with poverty and a devastating earthquake.
Allow me to say that while we don't interpret the Old Testament literally, or wish to follow it literally, we are better off because of it. We are better off not following the writings of desert wandering barbarians who had to kill others in order to somewhat create a somewhat thriving civilization of its own. If we really followed that part of the Bible, feminism would still be a fleeting thought for women. Rape victims would be forced to marry their attackers. Women on their periods would be subject to much indignity as they would have to announce when they are on their rag and as they would have to be avoided. Slavery would still be a practice. Killing someone for being another religion would be condoned. Everyone would be forced to observe the Sabbath under the penalty of death.
Given that many secularists (atheists, agnostics, secular humanists), many other Christians, many Buddhists, etc. have proven to exude more dignity, compassion, and humanity time and time again while you have decided to resort to denigration and promoting escapism, it is time that fundamentalist Christianity realizes that it is not all that and a bag of chips; and it is actually the religion of modern Pharisees whose sepulchres are clean on the outside and filthy on the inside. And if that does not drive the point home, maybe this parody will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk9AFv7W3OQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW5-IErNxuM
Now, I could go into detail about how the Old Testament had a problem with mixing fabrics, eating pork, eating shellfish, etc., but I will leave that to other bloggers to do so if they wish. What I am going to say is that it is time for fundamentalist Christianity to step down off of their high horse as being the pinnacle of morality and being the true form of Christianity. Enough of your leaders have too many times, used horrible tragedies to finger point, blame the victims or blame the leftwingers and say, "Now don't you think it's time to come back to Yahweh and the conservative Christian life?" While the supposed "evil" world reacted with compassion and understanding in times of tragedy, you all love to rub salt into people's wounds, and level condemnation: like Jerry Falwell did the day after 9/11 when he said that the lesbians, gays, feminists, abortionists, secularists, ACLU, and People for the American Way contributed to the 9/ll attacks; like Pat Robertson did in the days after a grievous earthquake ravaged Haiti in 2010 when he claimed that the Haitians had made a pact with the devil for independence, and that is why the Haitians deal with poverty and a devastating earthquake.
Allow me to say that while we don't interpret the Old Testament literally, or wish to follow it literally, we are better off because of it. We are better off not following the writings of desert wandering barbarians who had to kill others in order to somewhat create a somewhat thriving civilization of its own. If we really followed that part of the Bible, feminism would still be a fleeting thought for women. Rape victims would be forced to marry their attackers. Women on their periods would be subject to much indignity as they would have to announce when they are on their rag and as they would have to be avoided. Slavery would still be a practice. Killing someone for being another religion would be condoned. Everyone would be forced to observe the Sabbath under the penalty of death.
Given that many secularists (atheists, agnostics, secular humanists), many other Christians, many Buddhists, etc. have proven to exude more dignity, compassion, and humanity time and time again while you have decided to resort to denigration and promoting escapism, it is time that fundamentalist Christianity realizes that it is not all that and a bag of chips; and it is actually the religion of modern Pharisees whose sepulchres are clean on the outside and filthy on the inside. And if that does not drive the point home, maybe this parody will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk9AFv7W3OQ
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Kim Davis's Not So Heroic Stand
Lately, Kim Davis' refusal to administer marriage licenses to same sex couples has brewed up a storm of controversy. There are fundamentalists on her side who are saying that she is just exercising her religious freedom. It does not help that she has the likes of Mike Huckabee and Franklin Graham on her side saying that we should be a nation under "God's law". When they talk about "god", they are talking about the god of the desert. You know. The one whose most famous pick up line is "have a relationship with me or burn for eternity".
Usually, I can remain calm, but with all this support she is getting from the religious right is starting to enrage me. Not because they are right. But because what they stand for. These Christian groups and individuals are hypocrites. They claim that they are for religious freedoms, yet all the while wanting to Christianize America. As someone who went to a private school for 8 years, I know all too well about how those with power will go so far as to infuse history with lies and Christian propaganda.
Christians love to purport that this is a nation under "god". However that is not true. The "nation under god" segment of the pledge of allegiance was added in the midst of the Cold War. That Cold War contained a lot of propaganda where anything that was not considered American was considered Communist and associated with Russia, things like (atheism, homosexuality, anti-capitalism).
When the Founding Fathers ratified the First Amendment, it was not so Christians could behave as the elitist bullies they had been for centuries. It was to prevent the witch trials, Inquisitions, and persecutions that many faiths suffered under for centuries. If you want to know what Christian theology without pagan influence would be like, here's a clue:
No Halloween
No Christmas
No birthdays
6 work days and 1 day of incumbent worship
Authoritarian rule
Patriarchy
Having children being a mandate, not an option
No freedom to explore spirituality
This is a portion of what Christianity would like in its raw form.
Kim Davis, you are not a hero for the Christian faith. You are a woman who should have relinquish her responsibilities. You may be under your god's law, but I personally am not, and should not be treated as though I am. You are not a modern Civil Rights leader for Christianity. You are the former governor George Wallace who literally blocked the door to the Foster Auditorium of the University of Alabama to keep two black students from enrolling. You are the superintendent who chose to shut down the public schools rather than allow one black student to attend a predominately white school. You are not Ruby Bridges. You are every teacher who refused to teach Ruby because of the color of her skin. You are not for human rights. You are for the right to be a Christian bigot.
Usually, I can remain calm, but with all this support she is getting from the religious right is starting to enrage me. Not because they are right. But because what they stand for. These Christian groups and individuals are hypocrites. They claim that they are for religious freedoms, yet all the while wanting to Christianize America. As someone who went to a private school for 8 years, I know all too well about how those with power will go so far as to infuse history with lies and Christian propaganda.
Christians love to purport that this is a nation under "god". However that is not true. The "nation under god" segment of the pledge of allegiance was added in the midst of the Cold War. That Cold War contained a lot of propaganda where anything that was not considered American was considered Communist and associated with Russia, things like (atheism, homosexuality, anti-capitalism).
When the Founding Fathers ratified the First Amendment, it was not so Christians could behave as the elitist bullies they had been for centuries. It was to prevent the witch trials, Inquisitions, and persecutions that many faiths suffered under for centuries. If you want to know what Christian theology without pagan influence would be like, here's a clue:
No Halloween
No Christmas
No birthdays
6 work days and 1 day of incumbent worship
Authoritarian rule
Patriarchy
Having children being a mandate, not an option
No freedom to explore spirituality
This is a portion of what Christianity would like in its raw form.
Kim Davis, you are not a hero for the Christian faith. You are a woman who should have relinquish her responsibilities. You may be under your god's law, but I personally am not, and should not be treated as though I am. You are not a modern Civil Rights leader for Christianity. You are the former governor George Wallace who literally blocked the door to the Foster Auditorium of the University of Alabama to keep two black students from enrolling. You are the superintendent who chose to shut down the public schools rather than allow one black student to attend a predominately white school. You are not Ruby Bridges. You are every teacher who refused to teach Ruby because of the color of her skin. You are not for human rights. You are for the right to be a Christian bigot.
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
War on "Pagans"
When Halloween rolls around, you hear Christians criticize it vehemently. Some go as far as to dub it "Satan's birthday". For those us who grew up in the church, we attended the church alternative to Halloween, "Holy Ween".
However, Halloween isn't the only holiday that is criticized for pagan origins. So is Christmas. Certain Christian sects and Nation Of Islam criticize Christmas for its pagan origins. Well I must concede. It is true. Everything that is associated with Christmas, Christmas trees, Christmas lights, Santa Claus, presents, Christmas wreaths, Christmas stockings are pagan originated.
Now before you start trashing your Christmas accessories, consider another pagan holiday-birthdays. That's right. Birthdays are of pagan origin. Do you want to stop celebrating your birthday? I sure as hell don't want to stop celebrating my birthdays.
This article from Restored Church of God criticizes celebrating birthdays because of its pagan origins
http://rcg.org/articles/abcc.html
I don't know about you all, but I will not stop celebrating my birthday, Christmas or Halloween. If this should indicate any damn thing, it's that we owe a lot to pagans. Pagans brought a lot of things that we enjoy. What did Christianity bring? A fable, a religion that praised masochism, subordination of women, a history of enslavement, genocide, and killing freethinkers, homosexuals, Jews (sometimes), independent women, etc. All this in the midst of the philanthropic Christians who tried to improve our world.
So for those of you who want to go all out and celebrate these holidays (ethically, legally, and fiscally responsibly), I say let's do it. Let's celebrate them with no compunctions whatsoever. Let's live and be happy. When most people die with regret, they don't regret not being holy enough, or righteous enough, or obedient enough to their religious dogma, they regret not having the courage to live a life true to them. So let's live our true lives.
However, Halloween isn't the only holiday that is criticized for pagan origins. So is Christmas. Certain Christian sects and Nation Of Islam criticize Christmas for its pagan origins. Well I must concede. It is true. Everything that is associated with Christmas, Christmas trees, Christmas lights, Santa Claus, presents, Christmas wreaths, Christmas stockings are pagan originated.
Now before you start trashing your Christmas accessories, consider another pagan holiday-birthdays. That's right. Birthdays are of pagan origin. Do you want to stop celebrating your birthday? I sure as hell don't want to stop celebrating my birthdays.
This article from Restored Church of God criticizes celebrating birthdays because of its pagan origins
http://rcg.org/articles/abcc.html
I don't know about you all, but I will not stop celebrating my birthday, Christmas or Halloween. If this should indicate any damn thing, it's that we owe a lot to pagans. Pagans brought a lot of things that we enjoy. What did Christianity bring? A fable, a religion that praised masochism, subordination of women, a history of enslavement, genocide, and killing freethinkers, homosexuals, Jews (sometimes), independent women, etc. All this in the midst of the philanthropic Christians who tried to improve our world.
So for those of you who want to go all out and celebrate these holidays (ethically, legally, and fiscally responsibly), I say let's do it. Let's celebrate them with no compunctions whatsoever. Let's live and be happy. When most people die with regret, they don't regret not being holy enough, or righteous enough, or obedient enough to their religious dogma, they regret not having the courage to live a life true to them. So let's live our true lives.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
An Abrahamic Religious Parents' Worries
When many parents hear that their child is happier and find more peace of mind after discarding a childhood religion, it may be hard to take, but the parent marvels that their child is happier. Unfortunately, that's not the case when the parent is of the Abrahamic religions and strongly adhere to the dogma. The latter parent's concern is whether or not their child will do Yahweh's will one day. If one is looking for a reason to say that the Abrahamic religions are pro slavery, one needs to look no further than this.
The Abrahamic religious parent is more concerned with their child doing someone else's will as opposed to being happy. It does not matter if the child wants to do it. All that matters is that the child is obedient and submissive. Last time I checked, slavery is the condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude.
Let me paint you a scenario to illustrate my point. A pimp with money, power, and political connections approaches you to try to persuade you to enlist your 15-year-old straight-A, happy
daughter to be his hooker. He has enough money to bribe you, and enough power and connections to cost you your job, your reputation, and even your life. Would you give over your daughter to this man? Most parents would say no, and do whatever it takes to protect their child from this monster. However with Yahweh, for the religious parents, there is no refusal. It is total compliance.
When I was a believer, I remember atheism being demonized, and for the time I bought into it. I remember in private school, non Christians were demonized, however it was atheism that received the worst denigration. I remember that Madalyn Murray-Ohair was the poster child of atheism.
Once I left Christianity and Nation Of Islam, and threw out the idea of Yahweh, I understood why. Atheism poses a threat because it liberates people from blind submission. It causes people to become uncontrollable. In atheism, there is more potential to progress the world in the right direction. In atheism, people get to make their own choices and choose their own purposes. It is quite antithetical with the Abrahamic religions whose main rule is, "Do what you're told, regardless of what's right and wrong,"
For those who think that I am just blowing smoke up your asses, consider the story of Abraham. Yahweh told Abraham to sacrifice his son. Even though Yahweh was just testing Abraham's obedience, and even sent an angel to stop Abraham, one cannot ignore that the experience scarred Isaac, like it would any child. For his obedience, regardless of the cost, Yahweh blessed Abraham with many descendants. Most parents would, and should, be appalled at the idea of killing their child, and thank heavens our society frowns upon that.
Back to my topic, I find it hypocritical that people of the Abrahamic religions desire freedom, and when someone finds freedom outside of religion, the religious people tell nonbeliever, "You must/need to/ought to/should/will submit." I am dealing with this with my mother, who is a Nation Of Islam member. When I asked, "Why must I submit?", the response was because Allah (same monster of the desert as Yahweh, just different name) had power over my life.
Sorry, but might does not make right with me. Even if Allah was to show himself to me, he may get my acknowledgement, but he would not get my respect. I don't respect people or things that use their power to torture people or extort people for favors. If you cannot earn someone's respect without harming anyone or anything, then you don't deserve respect. I'm not one of Ms. Honey's students, and I don't submit to the Agatha Trunchbull theory of "I'm big; you're little. I'm smart; you're dumb. I'm right; you're wrong, and there is nothing you can do about it."
The Abrahamic religious parent is more concerned with their child doing someone else's will as opposed to being happy. It does not matter if the child wants to do it. All that matters is that the child is obedient and submissive. Last time I checked, slavery is the condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude.
Let me paint you a scenario to illustrate my point. A pimp with money, power, and political connections approaches you to try to persuade you to enlist your 15-year-old straight-A, happy
daughter to be his hooker. He has enough money to bribe you, and enough power and connections to cost you your job, your reputation, and even your life. Would you give over your daughter to this man? Most parents would say no, and do whatever it takes to protect their child from this monster. However with Yahweh, for the religious parents, there is no refusal. It is total compliance.
When I was a believer, I remember atheism being demonized, and for the time I bought into it. I remember in private school, non Christians were demonized, however it was atheism that received the worst denigration. I remember that Madalyn Murray-Ohair was the poster child of atheism.
Once I left Christianity and Nation Of Islam, and threw out the idea of Yahweh, I understood why. Atheism poses a threat because it liberates people from blind submission. It causes people to become uncontrollable. In atheism, there is more potential to progress the world in the right direction. In atheism, people get to make their own choices and choose their own purposes. It is quite antithetical with the Abrahamic religions whose main rule is, "Do what you're told, regardless of what's right and wrong,"
For those who think that I am just blowing smoke up your asses, consider the story of Abraham. Yahweh told Abraham to sacrifice his son. Even though Yahweh was just testing Abraham's obedience, and even sent an angel to stop Abraham, one cannot ignore that the experience scarred Isaac, like it would any child. For his obedience, regardless of the cost, Yahweh blessed Abraham with many descendants. Most parents would, and should, be appalled at the idea of killing their child, and thank heavens our society frowns upon that.
Back to my topic, I find it hypocritical that people of the Abrahamic religions desire freedom, and when someone finds freedom outside of religion, the religious people tell nonbeliever, "You must/need to/ought to/should/will submit." I am dealing with this with my mother, who is a Nation Of Islam member. When I asked, "Why must I submit?", the response was because Allah (same monster of the desert as Yahweh, just different name) had power over my life.
Sorry, but might does not make right with me. Even if Allah was to show himself to me, he may get my acknowledgement, but he would not get my respect. I don't respect people or things that use their power to torture people or extort people for favors. If you cannot earn someone's respect without harming anyone or anything, then you don't deserve respect. I'm not one of Ms. Honey's students, and I don't submit to the Agatha Trunchbull theory of "I'm big; you're little. I'm smart; you're dumb. I'm right; you're wrong, and there is nothing you can do about it."
Saturday, August 1, 2015
The Abrahamic God: Loving?
Yesterday my mother told me that she was okay that I practiced Buddhism, but she did not want me to dismiss her god, which was the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. She said that I needed him because he could protect and affect people's hearts to me. And also because she believes that connecting with him would be connecting to the god part so that I could be able to reach my potential.
I personally find all that to mean nothing. Not just because of my experiences with Christianity and Nation Of Islam, but also because of what I know. I know all too well the lies and deception that Christianity and Nation Islam use to convince people to be more obedient and more submissive; if you love god, you would obey him; full and complete freedom is freedom to be everything god wants you to be; there is peace in submission; happiness comes from submission; there is freedom in submission. I know that both of them are critical of pagans when it is them who should be criticized.
Now about the god of the Bible, I don't want to be ANYTHING like him or ANYWHERE near him. He is jealous, callous, capricious, petty, misogynistic, homophobic, tribalistic, Fascist, genocidal, filicidal, infanticidal, and unjust. He is a narcissist, a sociopath, a totalitarian, and driven by his ego. Read your Bible for what it has to say. And before you think that I am just talking shit about the Bible like an atheist, consider the patriarch of your belief system: Abraham. He is extolled for his act of faith which was when he was willing to stab his own son out of obedience to Yahweh or Allah. Even though Abraham did not successfully stab his son, one cannot deny that the experience more than likely scarred Isaac and possibly destroyed the relationship between Isaac and Abraham. Besides, if the tale had not been written in third person, Abraham would be considered the male caricature of Andrea Yates.
Now back to god, the Bible is riddled with his atrocities. Not just with Abraham. Look at the Tower of Babel story. The people were trying to build a tower that stretched to heaven, possibly so they could see god. And he gave them different languages so they would cease their project.
Look at the story of Moses and when he told Pharaoh, "Let my people go." No doubt after turning the Nile River into blood for a week (which killed the fish and left a horrendous odor), Pharaoh would have had a change of heart and let the Hebrews go. (The Nile River was a source of irrigation and trade for the Egyptians. Blood does not cause crops to grow, and no one is going to go within spitting distance of a river of blood unless they're into vampirism). However god hardened pharaoh's heart so that he would continue to refuse and god could wreak havoc on Egypt from the annoying frogs and lice, to the flies that carry germs, to killing off the Egyptian animals, to giving them boils, to destroying their crops with hail and locust, to taking away their light for 72 hours, and finally the Passover which claimed the firstborn children and animals of the Egyptians.
I think the most damning evidence is the story of Job. Satan makes a bet with god saying that if god was to take away Job's hedge of protection and let Job's life go awry,, Job would curse god to his face. Well, god accepted Satan's bet and allowed Satan to wreck Job's life. This bet cost Job his 10 children, servants, livestock, wealth, and Job's health. Through it all, Job never cursed god, even when his wife suggested it. However, Job began to cry, "Woe is me!" and wonder "What have I done to receive this?" His friends were constantly condemning Job saying that he must have done something wrong. And when god finally breaks his silence, it is not to explain about the bet between him and Satan. It was to berate and belittle Job, and to say in essence, "I am big and mighty and I can do whatever I want, and there is nothing you can say or do about it." And even though god did replace Job's 10 children with 10 more children, they could never replace the original, And ask any parent who lost a child.
These tales truly highlight god's narcissism, egotism, callousness, and bloodthirst. And it does not stop there. Look at some of the laws he gave to the Hebrews in the wilderness: anyone who does not observe the Sabbath Day should be put to death; women on their periods are unclean and should be avoided for a week; those sleep with the same sex should be killed; rebellious children should be killed; anyone who suggests apostasy should be killed; if a woman who is single is raped, her attacker should pay her father and marry her; Hebrews can enslave other people; Hebrews can enslave each other for some time (and there's even a clause where circumstances will allow a slave to remain enslaved forever); Hebrews can rape single women who were of the "heathens".
I don't know about you, but I know for a fact that I am a hell of a more moral than this god, and my life got better when I threw him out of my life.
I personally find all that to mean nothing. Not just because of my experiences with Christianity and Nation Of Islam, but also because of what I know. I know all too well the lies and deception that Christianity and Nation Islam use to convince people to be more obedient and more submissive; if you love god, you would obey him; full and complete freedom is freedom to be everything god wants you to be; there is peace in submission; happiness comes from submission; there is freedom in submission. I know that both of them are critical of pagans when it is them who should be criticized.
Now about the god of the Bible, I don't want to be ANYTHING like him or ANYWHERE near him. He is jealous, callous, capricious, petty, misogynistic, homophobic, tribalistic, Fascist, genocidal, filicidal, infanticidal, and unjust. He is a narcissist, a sociopath, a totalitarian, and driven by his ego. Read your Bible for what it has to say. And before you think that I am just talking shit about the Bible like an atheist, consider the patriarch of your belief system: Abraham. He is extolled for his act of faith which was when he was willing to stab his own son out of obedience to Yahweh or Allah. Even though Abraham did not successfully stab his son, one cannot deny that the experience more than likely scarred Isaac and possibly destroyed the relationship between Isaac and Abraham. Besides, if the tale had not been written in third person, Abraham would be considered the male caricature of Andrea Yates.
Now back to god, the Bible is riddled with his atrocities. Not just with Abraham. Look at the Tower of Babel story. The people were trying to build a tower that stretched to heaven, possibly so they could see god. And he gave them different languages so they would cease their project.
Look at the story of Moses and when he told Pharaoh, "Let my people go." No doubt after turning the Nile River into blood for a week (which killed the fish and left a horrendous odor), Pharaoh would have had a change of heart and let the Hebrews go. (The Nile River was a source of irrigation and trade for the Egyptians. Blood does not cause crops to grow, and no one is going to go within spitting distance of a river of blood unless they're into vampirism). However god hardened pharaoh's heart so that he would continue to refuse and god could wreak havoc on Egypt from the annoying frogs and lice, to the flies that carry germs, to killing off the Egyptian animals, to giving them boils, to destroying their crops with hail and locust, to taking away their light for 72 hours, and finally the Passover which claimed the firstborn children and animals of the Egyptians.
I think the most damning evidence is the story of Job. Satan makes a bet with god saying that if god was to take away Job's hedge of protection and let Job's life go awry,, Job would curse god to his face. Well, god accepted Satan's bet and allowed Satan to wreck Job's life. This bet cost Job his 10 children, servants, livestock, wealth, and Job's health. Through it all, Job never cursed god, even when his wife suggested it. However, Job began to cry, "Woe is me!" and wonder "What have I done to receive this?" His friends were constantly condemning Job saying that he must have done something wrong. And when god finally breaks his silence, it is not to explain about the bet between him and Satan. It was to berate and belittle Job, and to say in essence, "I am big and mighty and I can do whatever I want, and there is nothing you can say or do about it." And even though god did replace Job's 10 children with 10 more children, they could never replace the original, And ask any parent who lost a child.
These tales truly highlight god's narcissism, egotism, callousness, and bloodthirst. And it does not stop there. Look at some of the laws he gave to the Hebrews in the wilderness: anyone who does not observe the Sabbath Day should be put to death; women on their periods are unclean and should be avoided for a week; those sleep with the same sex should be killed; rebellious children should be killed; anyone who suggests apostasy should be killed; if a woman who is single is raped, her attacker should pay her father and marry her; Hebrews can enslave other people; Hebrews can enslave each other for some time (and there's even a clause where circumstances will allow a slave to remain enslaved forever); Hebrews can rape single women who were of the "heathens".
I don't know about you, but I know for a fact that I am a hell of a more moral than this god, and my life got better when I threw him out of my life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)