Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘religion’ Category

In the beginning, humanity hunted, humanity gathered, and they did so in family groups.  These groups were the earliest and most basic human social structure.

As time advanced, these groups grew larger through natural processes at work even today.  This natural increase was furthered and quickened by humanity’s growing knowledge and technology which allowed them to die less often and live longer.  And to support more people.

lepenskivirart2Larger groups had several advantages. With more people, some could be spared to become craftsmen or tradesmen – pottery, weaving, knapping, trade, etc.  This benefited the now enlarged family group.  Another important benefit is that having more people meant that it was harder for other, often competing, family groups to force you to move from favorable locations.  Or take away your resources and access to needed and important minerals and water.  Or, to just wipe you out.

And, being bigger meant that if felt it necessary, you could do that to them!

However, as primarily a hunting and gathering society, there were limits to how large your group could grow.  But, then along came agriculture.  Suddenly, those limits were gone.

But, as with most advances, there were problems too. Now a society could grow larger, but family groups could only grow so far and so fast. However, several family groups working together could grow quite quickly and with fewer limits.

But, you knew there was going to be another but, there was another problem.  How to hold these different family groups together when one family group became upset and mad at another. After all, their primary loyalty had been and was to their family.  Family feuds back then were often deadly.

The answer – Religion.  Well, really, the answer was to create a new identity that E0702 KLENZE 9463transcended  family loyalties so  that even when family groups got pissed at each other the society stayed whole and the conflict was largely worked out within the new, larger society instead of tearing it apart.  But, an essential part of that identity was religion.

This was a religion grown from the beliefs of these family groups but organized and made bigger.  And then used to create a new identity and to not only resolve potentially societal suicidal disputes, but to provide a means and motive to redistribute resources (even though abused, a necessity too – for example, irrigation).

For the most part I do not think this was consciously done, although at times I am sure that aspects of it were. But, rather, this was a natural growth.  Also, I would imagine that the attempt to create this new unity with religion failed often and the nascent society fell apart. But, some succeeded and when they did, well they were bigger with all the benefits mentioned above.  Further, they were more organized and able to have people do things not related to just providing food – arts, trades, trading, soldiers, etc

Religion was a success.  And nothing else worked as well.   It is why you never find an early civilization in which religion was not an essential part of its structure.  It had to be for such structures to exist.

Nothing human is static.  We change and grow and react in response to the non-static world around us. This holds true for religion too.  Religion started to move beyond largely societal commands and strictures and assume a more and more moral aspect to it. Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad and others are aspects of this changing nature.

One other aspect of this use of religion as national identity: those who were not of the same religion were then not a part of us, and thus dangerous and suspicious.  Reading the history of England as it switched from Church of England to Catholic and back again is an interesting read and an illustration of this truth.  It is why I say it is not so much religion that is the cause of so much violence, but its wedding to the state.

Which brings us to the gradual divorce of that married couple, once joined as one.  As Religious-Affiliationhumanity was more able to easily travel to other countries with other beliefs, and as humanity became better able to communicate about those other peoples – the printing press being the biggest boost to that – people within countries started to question their beliefs.  Which was a threat to the state – as mentioned earlier.

This warfare and violence though was abhorred by many good men, including some very religious believers.  And the idea started and grew and was developed that religion and state should be divorced, and then kept separated in order to control and lessen the violence and hatred.  Interestingly enough, the earliest proponent of a complete separation of religion and state was a Puritan theologian and founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams (he also founded the state of Rhode Island with that principle in mind).

A couple of hundred of years later a country was born in which the state and church were explicitly separate and forbidden to join together.   Note, by state I mean government.  And that is not the same as a society and culture.

Now, this was such a good idea that over the next two hundred years (a bit over actually) this idea spread and became the norm, or at least given lip service.  Secular non-religious institutions also grew that provided the same functions that only religion used to provide – education, healthcare, providing for the poor, etc. Abulcasis-blistering

However, a bit over two hundred years is a very short period of time. I imagine the transition from family groups to cities with religions took considerably longer.  Which is why we still see the remnants of the older attitude of identifying the state with a specific religion rise up.  It is why Buddhists in Myanmar are persecuting and committing genocide upon Muslims there.   Or why Muslims in many Islamic countries do not allow conversions.  Or why religious people in communist and officially atheistic countries were persecuted (what is the issue here is the identification of one religious view with the state, no matter what that view might be).

And why we still see it rear its head here in the United States.

Immediately after 9/11, the city of Fort Worth decided to hold a grand meeting of city employees to allow a sense of grief to be shared and supported by our shared unity. However, this meeting or ceremony was decidedly Christian, complete with the police Chaplain giving a prayer in the name of Jesus Christ amen.

My wife, who is an atheist, and a Buddhist friend of hers  were left with a sense of betrayal, of being left out. Were they not Americans too?  Did they not feel shock and grieve?   Instead of unifying all Americans, it divided.

It was just after this that God Bless America became a traditional 7th inning stretch song at baseball games.   A way to provide unity and show you were a true blue American. My wife and I, as atheist, refused to sing it, and even refused to stand for it because it came to symbolize the United States as a Christian nation.

Last Thursday was the National Day of Prayer, itself a relic of the old religion as national identity. Many presidents in the past have worked to offset that by trying to include other faiths in these prayers.  But, it still is a relic of the old identifying of the state with one religious view. 170x170bb

More recently our government has been more and more influenced and pandering to one specific religious group. Towards that end, they are working to make it easier to use religion as a justification for discrimination and injustice

I mentioned culture and society earlier and how they are different than governments.  But, while they are different, they do influence it.  This is especially true in a democracy and cannot be any other way.  It creates a bit of tension at times a lot of tensions at others, and it provides a challenge in regards to politicians and government workers at times.  For the most part though, the government has managed to stay secular and maintain that wall of separation. However, I believe that we are now undergoing one of those times when that wall will be attacked, and will be cracked.  Not destroyed, but cracked.

What this shows though is that the replacement of religion as a glue holding people together, as a way of providing a national identity and unity still exists and is still a powerful force.  However the difference between today and the past is that the population is diverse whereas in the past is was largely homogeneous.  That means instead providing a national identity and unifying us, it provides an identity for some and serves to divide us.

I do not think that religion will ever disappear (after all, the family has not disappeared, that primal beginning of all human societies) – nor should that be our goal (very far from it). But, I do think that our secular government with its secular institutions needs to be protected.  It is a necessity for the continued growth of a more peaceful and just world.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Today I took my wife’s car in to get the oil changed.  They told me it would be about an hour before they could get to it, which I expected, and was properly prepared for, having brought a book to read.  However, the woman sitting across from me who was also waiting for her car had other ideas.  She talked to me.  Even when I was reading.  Even when I was texting.  And having been raised to be polite, I every now and then responded, especially when she asked direct questions about me.

worry-distress.jpg

However, from this frustrating experience (if Dante had experienced this he would have created another circle of Hell just for such people) I wound up making a couple of interesting observations that are now in the process of becoming the subject of this blog.

My epiphanies occurred when the mechanic came out holding the cabin air filter of her car.  It was absolutely filthy.  The mechanic asked the woman if she wanted to have it replaced.  When asked how much, he said 75 dollars.  The woman almost freaked.

She said she could not afford 75 dollars. That due to Hurricane Harvey she was already having to live in a Motel 6, that she had no extra money to pay for anything, couldn’t he just wash it and put it back in, that she had asthma and her medications were expensive, why was it so expensive, couldn’t see go and get it from someplace cheaper and have them put it in (the answer was no), if she paid for that she would wind up sleeping on the streets, and on for a bit more.  Upshot was that she told him to clean it off as best he could and put it back in since she couldn’t pay for it to be replaced.

Afterwards, she just sat there for a few moments.  While studiously reading I watched her; she looked as if she were about to cry.  Then she composed herself, and started talking to me again.  This time though it was about God and Jesus and how they control everything.  About how she knew she did not need to worry as they would look out for her and provide her what they thought was best for her, even if she may not always understand.

She went on in this manner for quite a while, mixed in with how could that small filter cost 75 dollars and about her medical issues .  What was interesting here is that also mixed in all of this is the fact that she came up with a way to take care of the problem.  She found out the cost of the filter at an auto parts store (I think 20 dollars) and, after a quick veer into human greed and it couldn’t be that hard to put the part in, she talked about a friend she had who was a shade tree mechanic who would put it in for free.

My first observation is that her religion allowed her to maintain control.  A loud and talkative and complaining control, but control nonetheless.  And, unlike what many atheists like to claim, despite her talk about God and Jesus controlling everything and being in charge, she took actions and formulated a plan to take care to the problem.   I would say that her beliefs allowed her to calm herself and not get caught up in a loop of worry and despair.  And, because of that, she was able to come up with a plan that sounded to me as if it should work.

Now I know many atheists would like to say that we should all be strong and not need the “crutch” of religion,  I am not one of those.  People are different.  Even strong people need crutches at times.  This, along with other reasons I have talked about elsewhere, is another reason why religion will never totally disappear.

My other observation came about as she continued to talk and talk and talk to me. This time about her religious beliefs.  About how God and Jesus were in control of everything.  We humans just think we are in control, but we are not   Satan and his demons (the fallen angels, one third of all angels) also had a role to play, but they were not in control.  They too often controlled our behaviors, but only because we let them and do not call upon God.

upload2She related this down to even everyday tasks and decisions.  While she was doing so, at great length, I had a flashback to a paper I wrote while getting my MLA.  It was about the Iliad and the role the Greek gods played in it.  More specifically, did the Greeks actually believe that the gods took over and controlled people in the manner written in the Iliad.

 

What most attracted my attention during my reading of the Iliad is the prominent and varied roles of the gods in the story.   They are active in the activities of the war and often are the initiators of those actions; they act upon men for both good and evil; and they are used to explain sudden fortunes and misfortunes.  They also are the ones who make the final decisions on who wins and who loses, who lives and who dies, and on whether Troy will be overthrown and destroyed or not.

In reading the Iliad one gets the feeling that the Greeks did not believe that they controlled their fate, that instead larger forces determined their destiny.

When I wrote this paper I had no thought of applying this to modern times, considering this a relic of ancient thinking.  However, from what this woman said, which many religious people would also agree with, I saw that such thinking had not died out.  Her beliefs are a close relative to the same sort of thinking seen in the Iliad and the Odyssey.   Not the same, but close.  And both though arose from the same sources- that so much of life is a mystery, that we want one thing but behave another way despite ourselves;  and the realization that much of life is also beyond our control, which can and often does create great hardships on us.  Thinking in this way, whether it involves many or a single god, allows us a way to control our response, at least on an emotional level, to such events beyond our control.  As I noted in my first observation above.

 

One final note.  She quite often said I was a nice person and talked about the importance of God in people’s lives, that without God they are adrift and helpless.  Somehow I managed to avoid mentioning that I am an atheist.  And by doing so confirmed that I must be a nice guy after all.

Read Full Post »

My last blog, “We Are All Born Theists” generated a great deal of gratifying discussion, even though most of it was in disagreement with me.  Which, though, was what I expected.  What I did not expect was that most of the discussion and disagreement was on something I had thought the minor point of the  blog:  whether a person who does not even have the concept of God is an atheist, as per the meme in my blog, which had stated babies are born atheists. rf_detail_174_0

So, given the number of discussions this topic on atheism generated, and the fact that I did not really get to fully explain my position (and, indeed, until I had seen all the arguments against it, did not really know how to do so), I am continuing it in this blog.

Now, for my position – I do not believe that a person, in this case a baby, can be called an atheist if they do not have even the concept or idea of God.  And by God, I mean any sort of supernatural entity invoked to explain natural and/or human events.  This includes nature spirits such as water and wood entities, ancestors, pantheon of Gods, our own solitary God, etc.

Now, let me be clear what I am not saying.  I am not saying that:

  • Atheists have to be materialists and/or naturalists. A person can believe in life after death, in ghosts, in psychic phenomena, in reincarnation and karma, etc.  and still be an atheist.
  • I am not saying a person cannot be ignorant and still be an atheist. An atheist can be a flat earther.  An atheist can believe contrails are chemicals being sprayed down by the government to better pacify and control us.  An atheist can believe all sorts of irrational and ignorant things and still be an atheist.

I think this covers the main areas of misunderstandings of my position.  Which is, again, F16-SEP-do-nothing-borderthat a lack of knowledge about even the concept of God does not make a person an atheist.

Those who disagreed with me argued that it is only a lack of belief in God that defines an atheist, not the cause. dark

To a point, I agree.  Why a person became an atheist is immaterial.  It could be trauma, rational thought, rebellion, or just finding the whole idea silly.  Whatever  the reason, if they lack a belief in God, then they are an atheist.

However, to me, to not even have the concept of God, is different.  The why of this hinges on the word “belief”.  To believe or not believe something you have to first know of it.  For example, can you say that a person who has never heard of or seen pictures of dragons really does not believe in dragons?   I guess you can, but I think a much more accurate statement would be that they are ignorant of the idea of dragons. A lack of knowledge of is not the same as a lack of belief in.

The same holds true for atheism.  Ignorance of God would be a much more accurate description of a person who has no concept, never heard or read of God than would be atheist.

And then I look at who this definition of atheism as including even those totally ignorant of the concept of God would apply to in real life. Babies.  Do you really want to say that babies who lack the ability to understand anything or reason at that age are atheist just because, along with everything else, they have no concept of God?

Or what about persons with severely intellectual and developmental handicaps?  So severe that they cannot talk and understand little to no words?  Do you really want to call them atheists?

15-ask-polly.w710.h473

Sorry, this does not pass my silly test.  And sorry  for how dismissive that might sound, but it really does describe my initial reaction to this. To put this another way,  I mean it does not make logical sense to say that they are atheists.  Ignorance and belief/lack of belief are not the same.

To equate ignorance of even the concept of God to being an atheist is, basically, equating ignorance and atheism.

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

“I know everyone who gave their life that day, some of which were my best friends and my daughter. And I guarantee you, beyond any shadow of a doubt, they are dancing with Jesus today.”

 

The above quote from Pastor Frank Pomeroy of the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs Texas captures one of the reasons why religion will never die.  It may diminish some.  It will certainly continue to change greatly. But die, no.

1523825_676819802407744_3727677954574392566_o

This quote is from a sermon he preached on Sunday, Nov 12, 2017.  A week before this sermon a gunman had entered his church and murdered  26 members of his congregation, including his 14 year old daughter. He preached this sermon in a tent. At the front of the tent were the few remaining members of his congregation.

Many atheists say that religion will one day die out and be no more.  Some say it is already happening, that it is shrinking and will continue to do so until it no longer exists.   I believe that the number of atheists will continue to grow for awhile, but do not think it will ever become the dominant religious view of the planet. And by atheism, I mean the variety that does not believe in God or the supernatural.  Instead, I think some variety of religious belief, including in a God, will survive and still be the most common view.

The reason I think this is because I realize that humans are more heart than mind.  And, by the way, that is not a bad thing. While the heart can and has led to many evils, it is also the source of our morality and most of what is good too.  It is also an essential part of what gives our lives joy and happiness. Evidence, logic, reason all have an important role, but they are not the basis of what is good and right in our lives.

David Hume put it well when he said, “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”

Many atheists may be surprised at this quote from Hume. After all, he is a one of the pre-eminent empirical and skeptical philosophers in history.  However, Hume realized that we do not use our reason to determine our morality and our goals, but rather, they are chosen through our passions and emotions. And reason is then used in aide of them (which can include modifying them to if needed) and, to justify them (unfortunately).

Consider, did you reason your way to loving your parents and siblings?  Did you use logic and evidence and rational thought when meeting people to determine your friends?  Did you reason your way to loving your children?

In moral decisions, do you use abstract moral principles and reason from them to determine if a given action that you have to make now is moral or not?  And do you use reason to determine whether to get angry or not when you see a man knock down an old woman and steal her purse, a woman slapping a child hard enough to mark them, a child tormenting a cat?

Reason has a role to play, but it is in aide and support of, not in substitution of.

Which is why religion will never die away.

What arouses more passion than both the idea and reality of death.  Not only our own death, but, often more importantly, the death of your loved ones – parents, spouse, friends.  Children.

171105151324-04-sutherland-springs-church-shooting-super-169

171105195446-14-sutherland-springs-church-shooting-super-169            For most people, such losses need more than what reason and logic can provide.  I wrote a blog a few weeks ago, “There is No Immortality, But There Are Times I Chose to Believe Anyway”, about why I find traditional atheist platitudes on death unsatisfactory, and  why, on an emotional level, I find myself vested in the belief in the rainbow bridge and will continue to happily be so vested.

This is even though I have been an atheist for over 43 years now.  And this is despite my love of science, my commitment to rational thought, my being a member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry since its first day when its journal was called the Zetetic, and my highly analytical nature.

Consider Martin Gardner, one of the founders of the modern skeptic movement, and a founding member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (called Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal at first). Even though a skeptic of the first order, he believed in God and immortality, even though he knew there was no evidence and that such a belief was irrational.

We are not rational creatures. We can harness rationality and use it, but the great majority of our pleasures and desires and goals are not the result of rational thought.  I did not sit down and say and make a list of things that I might like, put reasons by each of them, and then made a conscious choice.  I like to write because I love to read. And my love of reading did not come about by rational reflection but from emotional response.

And there is nothing wrong with this. It is an essential part of what it means to be human. Change it, and you are dealing with something that is something else than human.

So, when I see what atheism has to offer for comfort and support – atoms returning to the universe to last as long as the universe within the hearts of stars or in enormous gas clouds, living on in the memories and lives of others we have touched, living on in our memories and being one of the ones touched by the deceased, and so forth – and compare that to my friends and loved ones “dancing with Jesus” and waiting for me to join in when I eventually die….well, I know which one resonates more strongly.

One final thought.  While I enjoy discussing and disagreeing about various ideas and issues relating to religion – and do feel there is much that deserves strong condemnation – the most important thing is not religious beliefs per se, but an individual’s views towards choices.  Pastor Frank Pomeroy said this well in his sermon too;

“Folks, we have the freedom to choose, and rather than choose darkness, as the one young man did that day, I say we choose life. “

Read Full Post »

I just recently came across this blog that perfectly highlights one of the reasons I eventually became an atheist – the philosophical and moral problems in believing in an omniscient, omnipotent, moral being, especially one who is concerned about our welfare and well being.

images

In “No This Isn’t All Part of God’s Plan So Lets Stop Blaming It on Him”, by Dr. Benjamin L Corey, Dr. Corey tries to salvage the moral part of that description of God.  Unstated, and, perhaps, unrecognized, is that he does so at the expense of an idea of a God being all knowing and all powerful.

Dr. Corey starts off by discussing why he has a problem with those who, in the face of a tragic loss, say it is all part of God’s plan.  This bit here does a good job of summarizing this problem:

Not only does that line fail to bring me comfort, it also seems to impugn God’s character. The idea that a loving God would have a “plan” that involved wiping out thousands in earthquakes and tsunamis, giving people cancer, parents losing children, car accidents, trauma, abuse, and all manner of pain and suffering, is an insane idea.

Think about it: if this is all “according to God’s plan” and every life event is being directed and controlled by him, he’s really bad at making plans.

In some of my saddest seasons of loss, people have come along side of me and said, “Well, we’ll never really understand God’s plan.”

And every time I hear it, through my tears and suffocating sadness I just want to reply, “No shit, Sherlock.” How could a plan that involves so much heartache be understood?

………

Sometimes we’ll say God planned the suffering for our benefit. Other times we’ll be tricked into believing that God planned the suffering to chastise us for not measuring up. Yet, no matter how we try to rationalize or explain it, we end up at the same spot: if this is all part of God’s plan, God is the author and cause of evil and suffering

 

I agree with Dr. Corey on this. I have never understood how a good God could cause evil and suffering and still be considered a good God. However, I will say that the Old Testament writers had no problem in doing so.  God afflicted Saul with madness. He hardened the pharoah’s heart. He sent plagues to punish. He sent disasters to punish. As with Job, God could take away a spouse, children, wealth and home and health…and yet was still good and moral.

I believe that there were three reasons that these ancient writers thought this.  One was the mystery bit that God hits Job with at the end – were you there when I made the morning, shut the door to the seas, laid the foundation of the earth.  In other words, God is so great and we so small that we will never be able to understand his reasons. But, take his word for it, he is a Good God.

Another is that many ancients believed that those who suffered somehow deserved it. That is still another answer that many still believe, although I do not think as many as in these ancient times (during early Christianity, doctors did not look for physical causes of diseases, but, instead, looked for how that person had sinned and so called down this affliction from God, and what they could do to appease God – it is one reason that Muslim doctors became the more trusted.)

Finally, I think that the ancients believed that whoever had the power had the right to say what was good and what was wrong.  A more primitive version of the modern position that God is morality.

Over time though, societies and cultures grew and changed.  Ideas were tested and ideas discarded.  Among those were ideas about morality.  Today, the idea of might makes right is abhorrent for most people.  And the idea that all people who suffer deserve it is likewise seen by most as absurd (birth defects anyone).

Which leaves only the mystery one still surviving – that God has a reason that would make what seems evil into good and right. But, unfortunately, we are too limited in our understanding to ever be able to see this.

 

Dr. Corey quite rightly rejects this. But, in doing so he has also rejected the ideas of an all knowing and all powerful God, and either doesn’t realize it or chooses not to acknowledge this.  Here is his answer to the problem of evil and a moral God.

 

Instead, when we acknowledge that really hard and sad life events did not come from the hand of God, and were not in any way planned by or ordained by God, I believe we’re invited to get to know a God who joins in our suffering instead of causing it.

………………………………………………………………………………

Instead of trying to rationalize our suffering as being from the hand of God– thus making God an agent to be petrified of instead of a creator to be loved, I think we should be quicker to acknowledge that, no, a lot of what we experience in life isn’t God’s plan at all.

……………………………………………………………………………….

Because you see, if it’s outside of God’s heart and desires, God grieves that loss and brokenness with us– because it’s his hopes and dreams for our lives that end up getting smashed as well.

…………………………………………………………………………………

Instead of this idea of God having a master plan that meticulously dictates and controls what happens in our lives (often referred to a blueprint theology), I believe that God has hopes, dreams, and desires for our stories. When those things come true, he rejoices and celebrates with us.

But when those hopes and dreams get smashed to bits, instead of saying “Oh, by the way– I actually did that,” I believe God sits in the dark and mourns those broken dreams with us.

And when the tears have subsided long enough to begin to hear his voice clearly, I’m convinced he’s also whispering, “And I know this can’t replace your loss, but when you’re ready I’d love to partner with you to try to make something good come out of all this.”

 

First off, notice that God no longer knows what is going to happen: “…his hopes and dreams for our lives that end up getting smashed as well” and “were not in any way planned or ordained by God”.  In other words, God is not all knowing.

Next off, not all powerful.  God cannot stop these events from happening and once happened he cannot “replace your loss”.

So, Dr. Corey gets to keep the moral part of the descriptor of God, but at the expense of God not being all powerful and all knowing.  And that’s fine. If you want to define God like that then our discussion should be on how limited is God, and when do those limits approach describing a being who cannot be described as God any longer.

alien___god_of_doom_by_areigam

And , truth to be told, if you want to have an all-powerful and all knowing God who does not care about morals and morality, I think you have a stronger case too.

 

Take your pick.

 

Read Full Post »

I confess. My title is misleading.  The Gospel of Judas (not Iscariot) has not been lost at all, just well concealed and its knowledge revealed to a carefully selected few. For example, Cardinal Richelieu had read the Gospel of Judas (not Iscariot) and successfully absorbed its lessons. However, today, with more and more Christian leaders having read this once secretive gospel and following its teachings, as is evidenced by so many of them endorsing and supporting Donald Trump and his subsequent election, the time for such secrecy is past.

Now, I do not intend to post the whole of this Gospel (it is the longest of all the gospels), only parts. My intention is to make Judas (not Iscariot) well known and force the publication of a new, revised Bible with this Gospel, the most influential of all the Gospels, taking its rightful place before Matthew and Mark as the first of the gospels.  So, without further ado, here are some select passages from the hitherto hidden Gospel of Judas (not Iscariot).

books-of-the-holy-bible

JnI 1:1 – 21

And certain of the Pharisees and certain of the Herodians were sent to Jesus to lure him and catch him in a trap of his own words.  And when they came they said unto him, Master, we know that you are true, and care for no man over that of God for you teach the way of God in truth.  So teach us Master so that we should know the way of God, is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not? But Jesus, knowing their hypocrisy and deceit said to them, bring me a penny that I may see it. And they brought to Jesus a penny.  And Jesus said, Whose is this image and superscription?  And they said unto him, Caesar’s. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. And they outwardly marveled while their hearts were filled with anger.

After the questioners of Jesus and the crowds had left, Judas (not Iscariot) approached Jesus and asked him, Lord, is not Caesar God’s too?  And Jesus smiled at Judas (not Iscariot) and said, Truly, God has given you the discernment to see this.  And Jesus took Judas (not Iscariot) aside and said to him, Listen well most favored disciple, and learn these secret teachings of God. And I charge you to listen and learn and only reveal these to those whose discernment is the equal of your own and who can make Godly use of this wisdom.  And Judas (not Iscariot) listened well and followed the words of his Master, the Lord.

JnI 2:1 – 4

Jesus said that mankind is foolish and in their foolishness they follow their own thoughts and desires over that of God’s. For the glory of God and the furtherance of his will use those thoughts and desires against God’s foes. Sow confusion among those who oppose God’s will by using the confused minds of one against the desires of another so that neither can speak the same language, so that neither have the same cause, and so that both will fall when confronted by those following the way of God.

JnI 2:16

The ways of Caesar are not the way of righteousness and justice. Therefor when working with Caesar to bring forth the intent of God, your ways too do not need to be righteous or just.

JnI 2:20 – 22

While the meek shall indeed be one of the inheritors of the kingdom it is the rich and the powerful, the loud and the boastful who control the things of Caesar’s. Such men act upon their own desires, even to choosing to believe lies as truth and ignorance knowledge.  Let such men grab the secret parts of women and cheat the weak and powerless, so long as they listen to your words and so do God’s will.

JnI 4:14

When necessity calls, promises made in the past are of the past.apostle-saint-jude-thaddeus

 

JnI 4:24

When a man is harmed to advance the glory of God, then harm him severely such that his vengeance need never be feared.

 

JnI 6: 20

Faith need only be kept with god. Mankind is too fickle, weak, and greedy to expect or deserve faith. Keep faith with God and break faith with others when it serves your cause or God’s.

JnI 6:31

Do not hesitate to sin if it furthers God’s will. God will forgive such sins.  He will not forgive those who do not so sin and so fail to further God’s will.

JnI 7:3-8

For the things of Caesar, what is right is what those who have power say. Work hard to be the ones with power, for the furtherance of God’s kingdom.

JnI 9:1

Men are deceitful creatures.  Because of that they are easily deceived. Use that to bring about God’s glory.

JnI 9:3-5

Men are nothing compared to God, only fools braying into the night, concerned only with what will get them through from moment to moment. Use that and you will always be able to deceive them for the glory of God.

 

JnI 12: 3

Only God commands both love and fear.  For man, if one cannot be both, then be feared,

 

 

I thought it apt to close with JnI 12:3 above because today we have every cause to be fearful as those of God and the followers of this gospel work through an immoral fool concerned only with his needs and his desires.  When Godly men to the devil turn, tis time for all good souls to be concerned

Read Full Post »

I see in the news that the Trump administration’s Health and Human Services is about to promote the pro-life belief that life begins at conception.  However, I cannot help but wonder if they have thought this out all the way.  I mean, if they had, they would realize that “life begins at conception” is way too liberal. Science, after all, tells us that both sperm and eggs are alive too.  And the Bible tells us that God knew us before we had even formed in the womb. In other words, life instead of starting at conception, is started before conception.

I have heard many religious groups, the same ones who Trump wants to allow full reign on imposing their morals on the country, citing Jeremiah 1:5 for their pro-life beliefs.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Now, it seems to me that if you are going to use this verse as a Biblical justification for being against abortion then you are also going to have to go much further than merely picketing abortion clinics and passing laws against abortion.  Much, much further. After all, before being “formed in the womb” you were an egg and a sperm.

If you are for life and take this verse seriously as a justification for being against abortion then you must also start a campaign to save the sperm and eggs that are being murdered in their millions every day.

After all, since God knew Jeremiah before he was formed in the womb then that means he knew and had selected which sperm was going to unite with which egg to form Jeremiah.  If this verse then is the basis for being against abortion it is only logical to then be against losing sperm and eggs.  After all who knows what God has planned for each individual sperm and egg that was lost.  A man irresponsibly spilling his seed or a woman who menstruates recklessly need to be stopped and stopped now.

images

Obviously this is going to change things quite a bit.  For one thing the Catholic Church is far too weak and wishy-washy in their stance against birth control.  Not only should embryos and fetuses be saved but sperm and eggs need to be saved too.  It is, after all, Biblical – from God to us.

Now, in order to save the sperm and eggs the following, as I see it, will have to be done:

1)     All males past the age of puberty would have to wear sperm catchers while they sleep lest they have a nocturnal emission.  Should they have one it will have to be immediately put in the refrigerator until it can be safely and quickly transported to an appropriate Sperm Collection Hospital.

2)    Males with hair triggers will be required to always wear a sperm catcher.

3)    Immediately after intercourse the insides of a woman’s vagina and uterus would have to be swabbed and any excess sperm saved.  Again this would have to be put in the refrigerator until transport to the Sperm Collection Hospital.

4)    If the couple engages in either oral or anal sex the man would again have to wear the sperm collector just as he does during sleep.  Those men with hair triggers who would be required to always have wear sperm collectors would have an advantage in that no annoying interruptions would occur during sex play.

5)    Women would have to wear egg catchers during their menstrual period to collect the eggs that would otherwise be lost.  Like the males these would have to be refrigerated and then safely and quickly transported to an Egg Collection Hospital.

6)    Probably both the Sperm Collection Hospital and the Egg Collection Hospital should be physically connected in some manner since eventually both egg and sperm would have to be united to form a new baby.

7)    Women would also have to wear egg catchers when they urinate – especially after having engaged in intercourse.  Scientists have been finding that there are many fertilized eggs that do not implant and are lost when peeing.  After being caught the same procedures are followed in regards to storage and transport.

8)    Of course laws would have to be passed to ensure that men and women followed these common sense Ultra Pro Life practices.

9)    Since we are talking about human lives here and a Biblical directive, a well funded crash research and development program needs to be initiated to resolve some rather pressing problems and issues.

  1. Since there are roughly 6 to 10 million sperm produced during each ejaculation and each woman only produces about 400 eggs during her lifetime it is obvious that there is going to be much more sperm than there are eggs.  Because of this we are going to have to develop an artificial egg in order not to let any sperm go to waste and thus spoil God’s plan.
  2. Since the number of sperm vastly outnumbers the number of eggs it is obvious that sperm will be driving how many babies will be born.  And of course how many women will be needed to incubate the united sperm and egg.
  3. In doing a bit of research I find that men between the ages of 20 to 29 ejaculate on average 15 times a month.  That number (sadly) declines by age 80 to an average of 5 ejaculations a month.
  4. According to the 2007 census there are over 19 million men in the United States falling into the 20 to 29 age range.  At 15 ejaculations per month that means there are 285 billion ejaculations per month.  Over a 10 month period (have to allow a woman at least one month recovery between pregnancies) we will need 2,850,000,000,000 women to host all of that sperm.  And that is just sperm from the 20 to 29 age range.  The number obviously becomes much higher when you factor in all of the post puberty males; both those younger than 20 and older than 29.
  5. There are only 143.5 million women in the United States of all ages from 0 to death.    Obviously we have a problem with not enough women for all of this sperm.
  6. I believe that in order to correct this several actions will have to be taken:
    1. We need to find a way to shorten the gestation period from 9 months to 4 months.  This will allow for a quicker turnaround of pregnancies.
    2. We need to find a way to allow pre-pubescent girls to become pregnant too.  And of course we would need to have all women, regardless of how old they are – including post menopausal women – being sperm hosts.
    3. We will have to freely allow immigration of single or separated women from other countries.
    4. We should immediately start research on how to create an artificial woman who can host sperm and produce babies.  Preferably of the Stepford type – the wives that is.

Now I know that some unthinking person is going to ask why not just make all males past the age of puberty take some sort of medication to prevent erections and in that manner control the killing of sperm.  That way we can limit the living sperm to the numbers of available women.  I am sure that some especially vindictive and short sighted women who hate God might even suggest electro-shock aversion treatment instead of chemicals as a way to prevent erections.

However this would be wrong.

For just as the Bible tells us to save the sperm and eggs so too does it tell us to go forth and multiply.  And since God gave us all it is up to us to give God all we can to fulfill his commandments… no matter how difficult it seems.

So this suggestion is a no go.  And that’s not even considering the other bits in the Bible about woman being the helper of the man and having to bear the pain of childbirth.

Now I know that this may seem radical to some, but is it really?  After all we are talking about human life here.  It doesn’t matter that they, the sperm and the egg, are small and do not look like us.  Life is life and God knows it all.

God said so when he spoke to Jeremiah.

 

 

Note: This is a revision and update of a blog I originally posted on October 4, 2011.

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »