Friday 29th of March 2024

in the beginning...

elections

As more US presidential hopefuls are coming to the fore, and pandering shamelessly to the religious Latinos, one has to wonder about all the various Christian sects, churches and denominations in that country, as well as the various schisms in the Muslim religion of the Middle East and in smaller numbers across the globe. 

We need to inspect the multiple origins of modern beliefs since 4000 years ago in the human brain, including that of the people and their excellently recorded delusions as being exclusively chosen by god.



One should note vigourously that despite affirmation of knowing god precisely "since the beginning", religious beliefs are affected by major evolutionary processes and, of course, suffer from many contradictions, importantly in the killing someone department. 

All I see here is the refinements and diversification of several belief systems that have melted, then split and then developed into impossible affirmations such as "at the beginning..." 

It is the stuff of which one has made legends, polished incomplete turdy assumptions, rewritten, translated, adapted, erased, in a process of religious belief "evolution" that makes Darwinian evolution theory simplistic in its proposition. 

The origins of beliefs has always been subjective to the meddling of its keepers and raconteurs, orally and written, and there is plenty of scope that all religious dictum are swimming in deceit — including deceit to themselves and about their origins. The bible has been rewritten many times, under various guises and to say the least, this state of affairs should actually be a worry for popes and other scholars, such as rabbis and imams. This is why the Vatican keeps the contradictions and the bad bits that do not fit the chosen narrative under lock and key in magnificent libraries, if they had not burnt the contrariant manuscripts in the first place.

Most of what the Abrahamic three religious mobs believe presently is recent adaptations of various legends from the Romans, the Greeks and the Egyptians, all melded into shifting sands of various scribes who re-concocted hear-say as well as badly translated confusing and already manipulated manuscripts. 

At least in the scientific theory of evolution, one can strengthen the proposition by experiment, research and verification through genetic sciences as well as direct observation and, of all things, the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacterium in medicine.

The last standing bastion of religious evolution — through the cloaca of these uncertain origins of lies, fairy tales, legends and interpretation of events — is "faith". 

Believe ! Belief is the last refuge of religious fervour, since most of its origins and creative definitions are nebulously false and subject to dogmatic errors... in evolution, including "modernisation" through Vatican II and beyond crystal palaces. 

Religion does not wash, despite the theatrics, the magnificent art, the brainwashing and the importance of the hats. 

Well, it should not...

But the product is strong, strong enough to sway many people by priests, like snake oil to cure ingrown toe-nails is sold by con-men. Religion is sold mostly through spruiking fear, tradition, narrow minded mono-culture, politics, fanaticism that leads to war and some love. God loves you though he will kick your arse into Hell. 

The human mind is too easily captured with simplistic illusions and flickers of greed, including greed of the "afterlife"— and our laziness is far too easy to lure away from natural curiosity. We are the poorer for it. 

The war of religions are still prominent today as they were in the middle or dark ages, or as they were in "biblical times": 
"And God told them to go and fight the shit out of those non-Believerites..." to which the result is such added: "If you win, praise god for his guidance... If you loose, you're a bunch of sinners that needed to be smacked on the head..."

So we go and fight some Islamic State in Iraq, which we messed because we did not like the quasi-secular bloke ruling there against various religious extremism. And we are doing the same in Syria... We participate in this gory Middle-east affair under various excuses, but mostly this is a war of religion in which various Muslim sects are fighting each other — and we support one more than the other because of oil supplies.

The religious war excuses are somewhat complicated by various mechanisms such as money, energy and the most common currency — hypocrisy. We are very good at this. Peace and the "do not kill commandment" are mentioned a lot by "religious" people, but they keep a gun under their bed or go to war at the drop of a hat. Well "they" don't go to war themselves. They would not dirty their own hands as they pray god for peace. No, they send their armies to fight somewhere else where the spilt blood is unseen from afar, except for modern selected communications showing us the sad details. 

And the religious mobs have developed a thin skin on subjects in which they should know better, especially organised procreation — mostly to prop up their numbers of devotees.

Religious conviction speedily becomes infectious zealotry when it climbs into bed with politics. Most countries are under the thumb of religious pressures, though there are some where state and religion are under the same roof, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, holding back intellectual and human development, maintaining its "subjects" into an archaic social environment. 

Despite a separation of church and state in the USA, the illusion of god is still prominent. 

One of the religious fear and to a point anger revolves around gays, lesbians and transgenders. Most modern Western philosophical thought is now more accepting, not just because of some good policies but social unrest — designed to regain some lost ground of acceptance, against a quite recent Victorian puritanical tight arse religious infected political system — has shaken the apple tree. But despite some advancement, there is still a lot of resentment under the banner of belief that smell of rejection rather than understanding the vagaries of humanity. God people choose his salmons.

At the last count there is probably a minimum 700 million homosexual in the world, plus possibly as many bisexuals on top of this. 

These numbers rival the official numbers of Muslims and Christians, but in real terms, the flotsam and jetsam of already meddled beliefs also mixes with the sexual orientation of some very religious people. In most Muslim countries, gays, atheists and other worshippers are chastised, imprisoned and even put to death for being "different". Love is often "illegal" and procreation is set by arranged marriages for a price, in gold or camels.

Religious and political freedoms clash here like they always clashed even in the most "advanced" social context. The mindset of religious people is set in these false hardened archaic evolved tradition to which they cling to like straws. 

"I am not going to bake a cake for a gay wedding" would say the religious baker, not realising his flour is already genetically modified — or "god is our saviour" would cry the mother of a teenager who committed suicide because he discovered he was gay. We should grow up. We should understand the degrees of difficulties in this existence and not be so rabid.

This is where we need to look at the bible and its "interpreters" who according to some serious scholars were fraudsters or fancifullers. The bible was very "fragmented" and never was a true continuum. Nor was it ever set in concrete. That's why the connect the bits with numbers like wagons to a train.

Most written continuum only appeared later, such as in the 10th century AD, having been rewritten and adapted to suit the times and the growing needs to keep the populace underfoot: Such was the Leningrad Codex.

Moving on till tomorrow next year, other interpretations would show that the elections of a new pope (er sorry) PRESIDENT of the USA is attracting a lot of religious zealots to the fore. One atheist like me can only hope that no biblical nor any other "good books" would influence rationality, or override secularity. 

But the religious illuminated mob feels persecuted before having had a feather tickle under their arms... Poor petals.

Dear Churches in America: Prepare to Be Treated Like 1st Century Christians in Rome

BY WALLACE HENLEY , SPECIAL TO CP


The United States Supreme Court may soon liberate the biblically conservative church from old "prejudices" that should have long ago been "jettisoned," forcing it into "rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity," in the words of a recent writer in The New York Times.

Homosexuality must be removed from the "sin list" and, according to an MSNBC commentator, traditional marriage proponents must be forced "to do things they don't want to do." Sadly, this crusade will be like the Marxist "liberation" movements that promised to "free" people, but really were about control and suppression.

The culmination may come as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on same-sex marriage cases beginning April 28. By July 1 the Court possibly will issue an official ruling regarding the constitutional right to homosexual marriage.

The Court's decision may impact the form of biblically based churches dramatically. Churches that hold to a strict and conservative interpretation of the Bible's teaching about gender and marriage may find themselves "Romanized".


Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/dear-churches-in-america-prepare-to-be-treated-like-1st-century-christians-in-rome-138025/#fDE5xozip5kG73We.99
------------------------
Martyrdom beckons. Meanwhile some arseholes of an extremist Muslim outfit will kill 200 Christians and other believers for just being there... The Christians are preparing for tickle-persecution in the land of freedom. And they are not baking a cake for a gay wedding...  Enters Huckabee:

Huckabee specifically cited Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of a bakery who found themselves faced with an over $130,000 fine for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

"People have scorned and ridiculed what I am about to say, when I have said that the faith is being criminalized. I stand by it," said Huckabee.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/huckabee-christianity-is-on-brink-of-becoming-criminalized-138479/#A53vl1j71hforyyg.99
------------------------
Former Florida governor and potential Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush stated that Christians in America and abroad should have protection to act upon their beliefs.

In a speech at a major Hispanic evangelical gathering, the former Florida governor shared his thoughts on religious liberty and other issues.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/jeb-bush-christians-acting-on-faith-is-liberating-influence-they-need-freedom-to-do-that-138418/#XzfaUkHmIStjZ8Cv.99
------------------

Of course both Huckabee and Bush spruiked to lure the Hispanic community to the fold of the Republicans. Being generally poorer, the bulk of Hispanics would "traditionally" vote for the donkeys — the Democrats. So I am waiting for the Democrat contenders to start hustling and bustling the religious conservatives on the value of evolving the faith beyond rejection and that god would like that...

So what does the church tells us about marriage? And homosexuality? And camels? And gold?: 

... there is some debate about the fact David took all of King Saul’s former wives (Saulie-boy was a polygamist as well).  It was common practice among kings to take the wives of other kings they had conquered.  David does this, but was this an event where he made them his own wives and had sex with them or did he just assume responsibility for them because of Johnathan.  Were they his wives or just his responsibility?  The Bible does not say but the idea behind it would be they became his wives and that means sealing the contract with sexual intercourse.  David getting more tail and getting to be a man after God’s own heart in the bargain – Damn.

The sad thing about all these wives is that David never seems to have a one flesh/covenant type relationship with one of them exclusively.  It seems that way briefly with Michal, Abigail and Bathsheba, but no one keeps David’s full attention.  When it came to his wives and concubines, David seems to be content with contract relationships for the purpose of creating descendants or pleasure, but he seems to have no interest in becoming one flesh with a single woman exclusively.  David seems to be a man who simply had a large sexual appetite and had the ability to fulfill it because he was both prosperous and had power.  He also had the rational that because he was king, he had to insure he had a son to take throne after his death.

 

Next: Solomon: Extreme Polygamist:


Solomon
He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray [not to mention his ticker might give up on the "job"]. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
So how many is too much and how small amounts of gold is one allowed...
Well, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.... That's what they tell us in one version of the good book. Other versions mention sixty queens and eighty concubines, and virgins beyond numbers... 

No wonder the poor fellow was turning away from god... Where could he find the time to cherish the narcissist in the clouds above ?
-----------------------------------

The mention of the first century Christians in Rome by Henley (see above) is of course relevant to the cause of homosexuality and martyrdom. Who are the martyrs? The Christians or the homosexuals? 
Constantine, the Roman Emperor in the fourth Century AD, became a Christian, Thus helping himself to a divine given throne. Though he became "Christian" and helped rationalise Christianity, he was still a warmonger, a conqueror and a killer as such (like Mohammed was later on, when he invented Islam). 

Constantine also continued the worship of Roman gods AT THE SAME TIME as being a "Christian". For Constantine, it was a great political ploy to subdue the masses and minimise unrest. Freedom to believe what you will as long as you obey the Divine Emperor. Hurray ! 

From then on, kingdoms and Christianity lived in each others pockets to carry on conquests and crusades in the name of god (like in the old testament biblical times beforehand). The con-trick was clever and it evolved through murders, denials and ruthlessness till things got a bit too comfy and some people demanded the separation of church and state. 

Most present royal families of Europe, including the Haplessburgs of Pommyland, which has just added another kid, Charlotte, to the line for the throne, are also very very religiously connected. Queen Liz II is the Archbishop's boss. 
So Christianity in its variants and other religious beliefs have strong holds on the politics of the land. Australia was on the way to proper freedom when warmonger Howard and Deus Abbott put a stop to that. Now the ridicule has set in, the embarrassment is daily, the buffoonery is uninterrupted, the burlesque is out of hand and our little turd always is in search of a new chest on which to pin an Anglican kingdom's Knight or a Dame medal — while he is a "Catholic". Pompous ecumenical turdy idiot. And homosexuality "frightens" him...

One has to look at the depiction and rejection of homosexuality in the bible. It only really exists in what Paul wrote to the Romans and as such is not the direct preaching from Christ nor is it coming from the Old Testament. And there is some mighty criticism as to whom Paul was.
It is understood by some serious scholars, that the works of Paul were written in Greek by several "forgers" and translated in Latin then in whatever — but also did not come from a single fellow called Paul. Some crafty bastard had to invent Paul's existence and conversion to simplify and collate the texts.

In regard to homosexuality, if one reads through the Pauline lines, one can see that god Himself/Herself/Itself GAVE "them" (disbelievers) over to shameful lusts. Basically god placed a curse on "them" — a curse, a sin "they" could not escape from. God was revengeful for not being "adored". The narcissist by excellence. The all-forgiving god had decided to force them to "sin" and then punish "them" for it? crap. Go away. 

At the time of Paul writing such crap in "his" interpretation of what Christianity meant to "him", homosexuality was quite common in Greece and "Rome". 
One has only got to visit the storage depth of ancient Greek pottery at the Louvre to see seriously bold depiction of the act as an accepted part of "daily life" with members bigger than cucumbers, way before AD. Then the Christians brought in their tight arse religious dictums, mostly in the 19th century. 
This is what "Paul" wrote. This is the English translation of a medieval translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation:

Romans 1:20-27New International Version (NIV)

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.


So is this unavoidable punishment subjectable to "interpretation"? None of this is making sense. "invisible qualities ... have been clearly seen..." "no excuses"... thus god MAKES then sin...   Bloody Hell ! 

Some religious figures strongly defend Paul's existence:


C. E. B. Cranfield, in the introduction to his commentary on this epistle, Romans, says:

The denial of Paul's authorship of Romans by such critics... is now rightly relegated to a place among the curiosities of NT scholarship. Today no responsible criticism disputes its Pauline origin. The evidence of its use in the Apostolic Fathers is clear, and before the end of the second century it is listed and cited as Paul's. Every extant early list of NT books includes it among his letters. The external evidence of authenticity could indeed hardly be stronger; and it is altogether borne out by the internal evidence, linguistic, stylistic, literary, historical and theological.[5]


Balls... says Gus.


So who was C E B Cranfield?... He was a "reverend" (a high priest) and a theologian. He was not going to shoot himself in the foot ! As mentioned before, there are major doubts amongst serious scholars that Paul wrote those epistles. Other religious/non religious experts have analysed the style and authorship on this part of the New Testament and come to a totally different conclusion to that of the reverend. 


So. I may ask here that religious institutions can do what they bloody well like as long as the state can approve a gay marriage. I even know of some Rabbis who marries homosexual couples... 


Is this so hard to do? Ah yes I know the next step is abortion which of course was NEVER mentioned in the bible, but this is another story. It is subject to the iniquitous interpretations... And of course abortions and infanticide were prevalent in Roman times.... It could have been a crude form of social "engineering".


And next year, the American voters elect another "religious" president ... Now where did I leave my camel?


Gus Leonisky

Your local atheistic Goethe, Dante and Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche reincarnations. 

 

a growing pack of runners...

The Republican presidential field has expanded by two with the addition of former Hewlett Packard boss Carly Fiorina and conservative neurosurgeon Ben Carson, second-tier candidates aiming to dramatically upset the White House race.

They join three conservative US senators already on the campaign trail — Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.

A sixth contender, former Arkansas governor and television host Mike Huckabee, is expected to throw his hat in the 2016 ring on Tuesday.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-05/republicans-carson-fiorina-enter-white-house-race/6444590

abbott snubs the brady bunch...

Australia's ambassador to France offered his resignation after an incident while greeting Tony Abbott as he arrived in Paris on Anzac Day.

According to multiple sources, the ambassador, Stephen Brady, was on the airport tarmac with his partner of 32 years, Peter Stephens, waiting to meet the incoming plane around 7pm Paris time.

The prime minister's travelling party sent an instruction that Mr Stephens should not take part in the greeting but should wait in the car. 

It is understood that no explanation was given.

The ambassador, a career diplomat and formerly the official secretary to two governors-general, refused the instruction.

Word of the incident, described privately by Canberra officials as "bizarre" and "extraordinary", spread quickly through diplomatic circles. 

A spokesman for Mr Abbott did not deny that it had occurred but said: "The prime minister was very happy to be met by Ambassador Brady and his partner when he arrived in Paris last month."

Mr Brady later offered his resignation to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 

It is understood that his resignation was rejected. Mr Brady still serves as ambassador. He declined to comment.

The arrival was a small non-ceremonial event. It took place not at the main Paris airport but at the smaller airport reserved for private jets, Le Bourget. France was represented by a junior protocol officer.

Mr Brady and Mr Stephens were the world's first openly gay ambassadorial couple to be formally recognised when Mr Brady took up the post of ambassador to Denmark in 1999.

He served as official secretary to Dame Quentin Bryce and her successor, Sir Peter Cosgrove until the Foreign Affairs Minister, Julie Bishop, appointed him to the Paris post last year.

Mr Abbott hosted a farewell dinner for Mr Brady and Mr Stephens when the couple left Canberra to take up the Paris job. 

read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ambassador-to-france-offers-resignation-after-bizarre-abbott-airport-incident-20150505-ggunu9.html

suddenly, dante becomes fashionable...

 

Pope Francis has issued a statement commemorating the 750th anniversary of Dante Alighieri’s birth. He said, in part:

Dante is, in part, a prophet of hope, a herald of the possibility of redemption, of liberation, of profound change for every man and woman, of all humanity. He invites us once again to regain the lost sense of our human journey, and hope to see again the bright horizon where the full dignity of the human person shines. Honoring Dante Alighieri, which Paul VI already invited us to do, we shall enrich ourselves by his experience to cross the many dark woods spread in our land, and happily make our pilgrimage through history to reach the end dreamed of and desired by every man: “the love that moves the sun and all the other stars.”

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/pope-francis-loves-dante/

See article at top... Hopefully they don't exclude women here... desire of Love for sure... But EVERY man "dreaming to move the sun and other stars?" Going a bit far... Redemption? what for?

 

sinful or not?...

 

Scripture books promoting "dangerous" messages about sex and male power are being used in NSW public schools, leading to calls for a crack down on special religious education.

Parent-run lobby group Fairness in Religions in Schools (FIRIS) has raised concerns about a number of publications for students attending scripture classes in state secondary schools.

The Anglican secondary special religious education (SRE) curriculum for public schools includes texts which FIRIS claims promotes sexual abstinence outside a "lifelong relationship" and the doctrine of male headship and female submission.

A sample lesson from another provider, Seed: SRE, claims divorce happens "because of human sinfulness and ignorance". Another section aimed at year 8 students lists "mistakes women make" as talking too much and giving in sexually while male "mistakes" include letting their bodies rule and lacking courage.

A FIRIS-commissioned analysis of Teen Sex By the Book and its companion manuals, produced by Australia's biggest evangelical Christian school curriculum publisher, Christian Education Publications, found they failed to meet industry standards. The books link teen sex to drug addiction and alcoholism, describe homosexuality as "misplaced sexual desire" and warns that girls who wear short skirts and low-cut tops might be "tempting their Christian brothers to lust".

Sex educator Deanne Carson, who analysed the texts, said the treatment of divorce and homosexuality contravened Department of Education and Communities (DEC) guidelines.

"The book's messaging on sexuality and gender diversity is hugely concerning," she said. "It really undermines the work being done in schools and communities to support same-sex attracted young people."

Her report, which has been sent to Education Minister Adrian Piccoli, recommends schools do not use the book or manuals.

Teen Sex by the Book author Patricia Weerakoon said the book was intended to be used by Christian parents and their teenagers.

"It does not in any way portray same-sex attraction as a sin," she said. "It does not portray pre-marital sex or divorce as sins."

 

read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/scripture-classes-calls-for-crackdown-on-public-schools-20150505-ggu7a1.html

 

 

read article at top.

black salvation through slavery...

Dr. Tony Evans, the first African American to earn a doctorate in Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary, chided black Americans recently for not taking responsibility for the breakdown of their families, declaring that "the white man is not making you do that." He also charged that black families were a lot stronger and made more progress during slavery.

Evans made the comments during a discussion with DTS scholar Dr. Darrell Bock on the issue of biblical racial reconciliation last month.

"We've got this discussion about what should be happening kind of across the racial divide with each other and how we build these relationships. The other aspect of the question is what the black community needs to get about itself in order to help build those bridges?" asked Bock of Evans, according to a recording of the event.

Evans replied: "The first thing we've gotta get back to is the biblical standard that God holds us to, not the White guy, not even other black but God holds us to."


Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/dr-tony-evans-says-black-families-were...

 

Gus: OMG !

obama the faith bloke

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama spoke Tuesday about the importance of faith and family during a panel discussion for the Catholic-Evangelical Summit on Overcoming Poverty at Georgetown University.

"Faith-based groups across the country and around the world understand the centrality and the importance of [poverty] in a intimate way — in part because these faith-based organizations are interacting with folks who are struggling and know how good these people are, and know their stories, and it's not just theological, but it's very concrete. They're embedded in communities and they're making a difference in all kinds of ways," Obama said.


Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-talks-importance-of-fathers-faith-at-catholic-evangelical-summit-on-overcoming-poverty-139041/#SMBxOmIRwAY5XoBz.99

 

Read article at top

presidents, faith and murder...

President Obama is a Christian (despite the fact that most Republicans apparently still believe that his “deep down” beliefs are Muslim, according to one poll conducted last year.)

In fact, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, there have only been four “religiously unaffiliated heads of state in American history,” the last being Rutherford B. Hayes, who left office in 1881. This, however, does not mean that they did not believe in God.

Perhaps the most famous unaffiliated president was Abraham Lincoln, who wrote in 1846:

“That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular.”

Now it is almost unconscionable to think of a president who didn’t believe in God. In fact, a poll last year by the Pew Research Center found that not believing in God was the most negative trait a presidential candidate could have among a variety of options, even more negative than having an extramarital affair.

 

read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/opinion/charles-blow-unaffiliated-and-underrepresented.html

 

read article at top...