Lets be fundamentalists

Ever found yourself speaking to ungodly atheist?
Trapped in conversation with the mistaken followers of other religions?
Ever debated with those hell bound “evolutionist” who just cannot see the plain simple truth of “young earth” theory?
Is witnessing to the unhearing internet sinners of the world getting you down?

Well what you need is a crash course in “Simple Fundamentalism”, the darkness of uncertainty will never again flash across your brain whilst listening to the slander and deceptions of those ignorant sinners and infidels who disagree with your patently obvious and self-evident truths.

The first and foremost thing to learn and never forget is thus: the Bible is the unconditional, absolute and literal word of God. Regardless what the uneducated and unwashed heathens may try to tell you the Bible contains none of the following:

Errors of any kind.
Contradictions.
Absurdities.


When you comprehend this, dealing with those liar and lunatics who maintain they have located a contradiction is effortlessness itself: Simply put, and this is the only answer you will need, there are no contradictions, so they cannot have found one! You see?
Easy, isn't it?
If your adversary continues in his blunder following having this explained to him feel free to expand on your reply using a suitable rejoinder from the subsequent list:

1, That translation is erroneous - in the original scriptures a completely different if not dissimilar word is used, so it is not a real contradiction.
2, He is obviously taking the whole verses or verses out of its original context, so there is, once again, no contradiction.
3, The Devil himself has blinded him to the real truth. There is really no contradiction, and he should get down on his knees and pray to be shown the truthful meaning.
4, This is only appears to be a contradiction. This should not be mistaken with a definite contradiction.
5, If the scriptures are construed accurately, it is evident that there never was a contradiction in the first place.
6, There are no contradictions in the entire Bible, so it is impossible for this to be a contradiction.
7, The contradiction is really only caused by his outdated assessment. The word [insert any word they just used here] had a totally dissimilar denotation back then.

Having just established that the imaginary contradictions do not, and never did, exist, you have now conclusively proved that there are, and never were, any contradictions in the Holy book, therefore strengthening your claim that it is beyond doubt the pure and unblemished sacred Word of God.


But what about all that science stuff people shout about?
There is really only the one measuring stick necessary when determining the conviction of any claim - how it compares with biblical Scripture.
In fact much more precisely, how it balances with your individual interpretation of The Bible. So, if some worldly humanist scientists have the courage to dream up a hypothesis (or "wild guess" or “shot in the dark”, as it is more precisely identified) that appears to be indisagreement with the wisdom of the Bible, obviously these egg-head foolish professors have made yet another stupid blunder, probably under some demonic or drug induced power.

On the other hand, when science agrees with the Bible we should give a round of applause to the courageous, Christian investigators for supporting the sacred Scriptures and presenting the magnificence of Creation. But more often than not they are just plain wrong.
Never forget, the atheists are speedy to use the results of science as "evidence" to back up their arguments, but this is because avarice and science are their god and religion. They want the men in white coats to save them from the God they know will judge them.
There are numerous things which science cannot give explanation. Nevertheless, you CAN explain these things instantaneously and plainly just by these three magic words that explain everything and needs no further response or discussion.
"God did it"
Most likely the ungodly heathen will say "Well, we unsure how or why the Big Bang happened, and possibly never will, but we're constantly working on it".
Straightforward resolution - God did it.
Predicament solved.
Nonetheless, some atheists are obstinate in their malevolent ways and you may have to continuously repeat this scientific explanation to them many times before they accept it. Of course, when scientists eventually do come up with an answers for such problems, be prepared to patiently explain to them that this is what your religion taught all along, if interpreted correctly.

In a impassioned disagreement, you will frequently find yourself losing track of your preceding posts, and the nonbelievers will often charge you of contradicting remarks you made previously. As everything you say is scripture based, it stands to reason that they should consequently be accurate at all times.
On the other hand, keep in mind that, as slaves of Satan, atheists will do their best to interweave falsehoods into your words and endeavour to baffle you. If this appears to be occurring, completely disregard their remarks and pray for strength.

Logic and reason is your enemy.
These are the tools and weapons of the sceptic, and you should not under any circumstance entertain them. Belief and devotion in the Holy Bible is all you need. The nonbeliever will try to tell you that God should be some how bound by the rules of logic, but God created logic and so as thus cannot be constrained by it! The more illogical and unreasoning you are, the more difficult it becomes for atheists to disprove your statements.
They will shout "But that does not make any sense at all! It is logically unfeasible!" - be that as it may, your belief and faith will tell you that you are right. By means of God, all things are possible - counting impossible things. What else could you possibly need than that?

"Extraordinary claims necessitate extraordinary evidence" you will most likely to be told.
But just who is producing the strange and extraordinary claims?
You, who merely notices and can see the Creator's hand in everything, or the heathen sinner who opposing all logic and reason (the two very things they claim to love most) denies the very same.
Evidently, it is the duty of the ungodly to prop up their preposterous claims that there is no such thing as God.
Request of them if they can demonstrate God does not exist.
Question them as to how they can be so haughty to make this assertion, when they clearly do not have the ability to have searched the whole universe for God.
They will retort and ask you to refute the existence of such things as Zeus, Vishnu and unicorns, but you have to give no notice to such immature twaddle - there can be no similarity between the make believe gods of other religions and the certainty of Christianity, Their incapability to refute God is confirmation enough that He is real. If they cannot topple your theory, they are undoubtedly being irrational by refusing to recognise it.

Often after a few days debating with a group of unbelievers, you should disappear for a week or so. This should give them time to come to terms with the truths you have revealed.
Also, it will provide time for new people to join the discussion. This allows you to return to the forum once more and repeat your statements, unchanged, for the benefit of newcomers.
Personally I advocate storing your longer opinions in a text file, so it can be effortlessly cut-and-pasted into the discussion. If the moderators object, illustrate that, having previously corrected their misconceptions; you are now merely attempting to reach the more recent newer members and also the ones who still irrationally decline the truth. If they are educated people, they will hold in high esteem your opinions and step aside.
Duplicate and tirelessly repeat this practice until you are expelled from the talk box/forum/message boards or placed on everybody's ignore/foe/invisible list..

To take the wind out of your opponent's sails, respond to the tiniest question with reams and reams of text.
If at all possible, you ought spend a couple of hours penning this yourself, but seeing as you are a busy person and you don't have the time, well the perfect solution is to copy-and-paste masses of relevant (or, if achievable, irrelevant) information from other Christian websites or sources.
Try to use at least 10 or 15 kilobytes illuminating why they need to pray much more, why they have to dread to prospect of Hell, how Christ the saviour died selflessly for their sins, why important and famous Christian thinker, philosophers and scientists disagree with them totally, how long-dead Christians have previously demonstrated them wrong, and so on.
Ask as many incomprehensible questions as achievable. If they are really honest (which, being atheists, is not possible) they will respond to all of your points.
If they do not succeed and fail to answer ALL of your points and questions, triumph is yours.
Make a reminder of this embarrassing rout and bear in mind to bring it up frequently when dealing with this particular personage. (This is also a useful practice to use throughout any sort of debate with evolutionists.)
A alternative on this premise is to post copious verses from the Bible to sustain your point. Why trouble yourself with a hundred words of description, when just one verse will do the same job.
Basically post any verses that counter the nonbeliever, and then possibly several more pertaining to hellfire. As you know that the verses are known to be true, scant more need be said on the subject.
If the doubter unsurprisingly returns with a contradicting argument, post the unchanged verses again but propose that he truly reads them this time.

Spelling, Punctuation and grammar are not significant, as long as the Spirit guides you. If you are criticised for being incapable to structure a sentence in English, or using words like "athiset", "Noahs arc", "evolotin" and "revilatian" - worry not. It is not the finer points of punctuation and spelling which is imperative, but accomplishment of spreading the message of God across.
Think about this exceptional case in point. To the inexperienced eye, the author may emerge to be an illiterate, ignorant fool, but just sense the worship in his words:"i was wonder if you yourself knew that darwin disowned his theroy in his last days knowing that fossils show species suddenly appering not sight mutations made over long periods of time. the fact is eveolution is total improvible."Only the coldest of hearts could not be moved by such testimony. This is the sort of stage of disjointed drooling you have to be aiming for.
You should mingle a feeble understanding of the English language with your own idiosyncratic writing technique.
The following are quite fashionable at the moment:

1, writing the whole thing in lower case devoid of any punctuation at all this can be fairly tricky to interpret but is very easy to type which is a bonus dont you think

2, ALTERNATIVELY, WRITE THE WHOLE THING IN CAPS. THIS MAKES YOUR CENTRAL MESSAGE STAND OUT AND PEOPLE WILL TAKE NOTICE MUCH BETTER AND REALISE THAT YOU REALLY MEAN IT MUCH MUCH MIORE THAT OTHERS THAT USE VARIED CASE..

3, short, disjointed.....sentences detached by long......strings of dots.....this makes you look quite.....thoughtful as if you are......pausing every now and......then.

4, Overuse of exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! can highlight the point you are trying to make!!!!!!!!!!!! Question marks also work well, don't they???????????????????????????

5, Show ur mastery of the Internet by using words like "u" instead of "you", "2" instead of "to" and "too", "ur" instead of "your" and "you're", and u 2 can spread the gospel 2 other kewl d00dz.

If English is not your first language, all the better. The way you present your argument says a lot about you, so pick wisely.

Whether you are discussing about evolution, the beginning of the cosmos, fundamental human structure, or the structure of the solar system, there is no need to worry yourself with finding or gaining knowledge about anything at all about the issue.
By definition, those who oppose you are incorrect, deluded and maybe perverts, so it is a bad idea to contaminate your mind with their religious philosophy. All the proof in the world is no competition for a single grain of the True Faith.
If they say "But evolution doesn't work like that! You are entirely oblivious!", repeat to them that evolution doesn't really work at all.
Has a cow ever given birth to a dog?
Do we observe hydrogen turning into people next to us?
If we "evolved" from chimps, why are there still chimps?
Why do we not see amoebae sprouting legs and talking?

These cruel insights will cut through their doctrine like a scorching knife through butter.
If discussing evolution, endeavour to request an entire listing of transitional fossils from ape to human. They may supply you with a dozen or so examples, but it is scarcely complete, is it? How can you be expected to recognise such slapdash evidence?
Go on to notify them that those are not transitional fossils anyway, as there are no transitionals. Clearly God created all species independently; if not they would have no difficulty finding the evidence. The gaps in the fossil record are as a result concrete evidence for creationism.
If they attempt to direct you to documents or interweb sites supposedly showing that the universe is billions of years old, direct them in turn to Genesis.
Give details how carbon dating techniques have been exposed to be desperately defective. For example, when the Turin Shroud was dated, the so-called professionals dated it approximately of the 14th Century, instead of 33AD. This evidently calls into question all the other radiometric dating guesses they will throw around.

Words can frequently denote a number of different things. For instance, the word "set" has dozens of meanings : a set of things; a badger lives in a set; a jelly will set; you can set something down on a table; you can set up a meeting; and so on.
Words signify what you require them to indicate at any particular occasion. This is a general basis why you will find atheists misinterpreting things - they believe you imply one thing, when in fact you were discussing about something else. It's scarcely your error if they are not capable of keeping up, is it? For example, Genesis speaks of a mist rising from the ground to water the Earth. This can mean : mist, rain, dew, fog, clouds, water vapour, condensation, snow, hail, sleet or any other imaginable appearance of precipitation.
Let the Spirit direct you in this topic, and if the atheist claims you are erroneous or contradicting yourself, let the Spirit show you once more to the true meaning of the word. This may happen many times, as you can easily misunderstand the Spirit's guidance

Lying for Jesus
Being economical with the facts, manufacturing data on the spot and ignoring incompatible evidence are all useful weaponry in your armoury. The vital thing is to persuade the adversary of the reliability and honesty of your claims. How you go about this is inconsequential. Feel free to refer to other fundamentalist works, whether or not they have been allegedly "discredited", "refuted" or "demonstrated to be false" - the ICR website and publications, Jack Chick tracts, Dr.Dino's website and videos, Answers In Genesis, things you remember hearing from other fundies or as a child in Sunday School, and so on.
When comparing the works of God-fearing, Bible-believing Christians against deviant secular humanist scientists, who are you going to believe?
Remember, you are here to save their immortal soul from the burning fires of Hell, not educate them in stuff they don't really need to know anyway. If you have a dubious argument based on fictional data, but it works, then there is no problem. The vital matter is bringing souls to Jesus and how you go about that is immaterial. The ends justify the means, and in this case the "ends" are souls being saved. Such a noble and worthy goal itself justifies any means you see fit to use. Physical force is generally frowned upon, although there are clear historical precedents for this. Use your own judgement.
Don't forget, the Lord is watching at all times, and will certainly forgive you as long as you are spreading His good news. So go to it!

Compartmentalisation
In this world, what you know to be true often conflicts with the reality around you. To be a soldier for Christ it will help enormously if you can master the technique of mental compartmentalisation. This means you must be able to keep your scriptural knowledge away from the secular knowledge that allows you to function in wordly matters, e.g. at your place of work. For example, even though science is clearly mistaken about the processes involved in radioactive decay (see the "carbon dating" example above), if you worked at a nuclear power plant it would be necessary to assume the opposite was true - otherwise it would be impossible to build nuclear reactors. Likewise, a good fundy astronomer knows that the correct date of the universe is about 10,000 years at most, but must be able to examine galaxies millions of light-years away and explain them according to the secular model of cosmology. Being able to hold two (or more) sets of mutually exclusive thoughts at once is extremely beneficial to the up-and-coming fundy on the internet.
Remember, something might be "true" while you're at work or sitting an exam, but it's still completely wrong, and you should switch back to the "Christian Compartment" in your brain whenever possible.

Wilful ignorance
Ignorance is bliss, and what is more blissful than reading the Word Of God? You will often find yourself accused of this "crime", but why should you waste time trying to learn how the unbelievers lie to themselves? You don't need to read a book on evolution to know that it is wrong. You don't need to read a book about the so-called Big Bang to know that it is a delusion.
It is the atheists who are wildly ignorant for not reading the Bible! Sure, many of them say they have read it, but this is clearly a lie - if they've read it, how come they don't believe it?
Don't waste your precious time trying to get to grips with their overly-complicated theories, when you have a much simpler theory that you already know is true.


Conclusion
There you have it - Fundamentlist Think For Beginners.
All you need to do now is decide how to sign off your devastating arguments. There is classic arrogant abuse, such as "Ha ha ha what an idiot! God made it all! Get an education."; or patronising the opponent - "I'll pray that God opens your closed mind and eyes"; a selection of obscure Bible verses, maybe; and finally, the ever popular subtle threats of hellfire - "Well, I've told you the Truth, I only hope you like it HOT after you die".
Don't forget what you've learned: return a week later and post exactly the same assertions that you started with.

Evolutionary Misconception.

The single most common misconception that people have about evolution is
"It's only a theory."
Wrong!
Evolution is a fact and a theory. Confusion arises when this distinction is not recognised. This misconception is expressed pretty much everywhere else on the internet that the subject is discussed.
This misconception invariably arises out of plain ignorance. That is not to say that evolution deniers are generally ignorant people, but when it comes to the subject of evolution they usually have wild misunderstandings about pretty much everything to do with it. A bit of a sweeping generalisation, maybe, but fairly valid as anyone who has had to deal with creationists will tell you. (Many people do have a good depth of knowledge about it, but still choose not to accept it, mostly because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.) When it comes to, say, the history of Thailand, I am certainly ignorant - I know practically nothing about it whatsoever. If I then started sounding off about it, and explaining to someone what I thought about some issue to do with Thailand, my ignorance of the subject would be instantly obvious to anyone who had actually read up on the topic. This does not make me a stupid or ignorant person, but it does expose my misconceptions and lack of basic knowledge - the same applies to many of the people who say "Evolution is only a theory."

Fact
Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time.
For example, imagine if you will a rabbit farm high on a mountain. The farmer buys a thousand rabbits, some have longer fur and some have shorter fur - it's a quite mixed group of rabbits. The length of the fur on the rabbits is determined by their genetic makeup. Some have genes for long fur, some for shorter. Now, this farm (or ranch, if you prefer) is in an area that gets extremely cold for most of the year. The rabbits survival depends upon having enough fur to keep them warm. Those with short fur will freeze to death and die (our fictional farmer doesn't have much business sense).
Because of the situation these unfortunate creatures are in, they are subject to natural selection. There is a selection pressure for longer fur. More baby rabbits are born than can possibly survive in the environment. This is an important part of the process. Their genetic makeup is a determining factor in their survival. Rabbits that die of cold will not pass on their short-fur genes to their offspring (as they won't have any), whereas rabbits with long fur will be more resistant to the cold and therefore much more likely to reproduce, passing on their genes for long fur.
Over many generations, the farm will consist almost entirely of long-fur rabbits. The frequency of genes for short fur has decreased, and the frequency of genes for long fur has increased. Far fewer short-haired rabbits, and eventually none at all, will be born - their genes will have been lost from the gene-pool.
Some rabbits may have developed genetic mutations which further increase the length of their fur. These mutations will clearly give those rabbits an advantage in their environment, and those beneficial mutations will spread through the gene pool of the population. Mutations that are detrimental to the survival rate will clearly be lost quickly, as those unfortunate rabbits will have a reduced chance of surviving long enough to mate. In this way, useful mutations stay on in the population. It's a positive feedback loop - this is the second important thing to remember.
These rabbits have evolved. It's really that simple.
Evolution is a directly observable phenomenon. There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution occurs, any more than there is debate about the Earth orbiting the Sun. Gene pools change - evolution happens. This is obviously a rather contrived example, but it serves to demonstrate some of the basic principles.
Now, objectors will say "Ah, but they're still rabbits, aren't they? That's not the same as amphibians turning into reptiles, and then mammals, is it? That still doesn't explain how a human can evolve from an ape-like ancestor, does it?"
Yes, it does. The change from mixed-fur rabbits to long-fur rabbits (in this example) is often referred to as micro-evolution - a minor change within a species. Larger changes are known as macro-evolution, and take far longer to occur, but the process involved is exactly the same - genes changing over time. It is a cumulative process - the minor changes build up over many generations into major changes. Given time, the descendants of these rabbits could become an entirely novel species of rabbit, and eventually a creature that can no longer be called a rabbit.
To say that you accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is akin to saying that it is possible to walk to the end of your street, but it is somehow impossible to walk to the next town. The process involved, putting one foot in front of the other, a single step at a time, is exactly the same although the end results may be completely different.
Evolution is a fact. This is not open to debate.

Theory
Darwin's Theory Of Evolution is not evolution. In the same way, the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun is not the Earth orbiting the Sun - it is a description and explanation of it.

The theory of evolution is an explanation of the facts of evolution.

If nobody had ever developed the theory, it would not change that fact that living things evolve over time - evolution happens whether there is a theory or not.
Furthermore, Darwin's theory of evolution may be totally, hopelessly and utterly wrong. Even if it were, and Darwin and every biologist who had contributed to the theory since were incorrect, evolution would still exist and continue. Evolution is totally independent of the theory of evolution. The theory is simply an attempt to explain the observed facts of nature that we call "evolution".
If another theory came along to replace the theory of evolution, it would have to explain the facts at least as well as Darwin's theory has done for the last 150 years. No such replacement has ever been produced.
If there is a debate or controversy within the scientific community about the theory of evolution, creationists see this as evidence that "evolution is in crisis". Nonsense - it is merely that scientists disagree (often bitterly) over details of the theory of evolution. That evolution actually happens is beyond question, but the theory of evolution is - and always should be, like every other scientific theory - probed, tested and scrutinised. Again, even if the theory were to collapse, that would still not magically disprove evolution or cause species to cease evolving.

What it is not
Evolution is not about the origins of life on Earth. Evolution is about the development of living things over time. The study of the origins of life is known as "abiogenesis" and any web search engine will find you many examples of current literature on the subject.

Evolution is not about the Big Bang theory, nor the formation of the Sun and Earth. These are subjects for cosmology, not biology. Some creationist websites like to put up list of supposedly tricky questions for evolutionists - if you read them carefully you often find lots of questions that actually have nothing at all to do with biological evolution.

Random. Evolution is often mistakenly compared to "a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and building a fully functional Boeing 747". This is incorrect, as evolution is a very slow, gradual process directed by the actions of natural selection (as shown above in the rabbit farm). Mutations may indeed be random events, but whether or not they remain in the gene pool is certainly not random, as it depends on how those genes affect the creature's survival in the environment. It works as a positive feedback loop.

Evolution is not about attempting to prove that the Bible, Qu'ran, or any other holy book is false. It is simply the study of living things and how they develop over time. Whether or not that conflicts with a particular interpretation of a particular scripture is not a consideration. There is no conspiracy amongst scientists to disprove the teachings of any of the thousands of religions who happen to make claims about the processes of life.

Evolution is not about monkeys turning into men, or showing that humans are "merely" animals.

Evolution does show that humans developed from an ape-like ancestor, along with other modern apes such as the chimpanzee. We did not develop from apes, but alongside them, in the same way that different branches grow from the same trunk of a tree. The development of humans is one minor aspect of the study of evolution, but most biologists will find more interesting creatures to study.

False Christians

What are false Christians?
Glad you asked, false Christians are those who use Christianity for their own aims and not for the true reason it exists.
Like those American TV evangelists who ask for your money (For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. 1Timothy 6:10) and just happen to live in huge houses and own vast tracts of Texas.
False Christians are little more than criminals hiding behind misinterpreted and purposefully twisted biblical text to con and persuade people to trusting them.
False Christians are always looking for some scapegoat for them to vent their spleens on, such as Gays or single mothers.
False Christians insist on the assertion that the Bible is the literal word of God, they use bullying and scare tactics to force others to accept this to be true.
False Christians deliberately use lies and dishonesty to refute logic and reason. They are quite happy to use falsely ludicrous and absurd totally made up claims when speaking against evolution or abortions.
False Christians claim to hold the absolute truth and understanding of Gods word, which means that if only one of them is correct (they can’t all be) then by logic the other 99.99% have to be wrong.
False Christians claim that all other religions or sects are wrong, yet deliberately shield themselves from exposure to anything else other than their own narrow little world view.
False Christians deny absolute truths about there own religion and religious history. The Vatican during WW II lifted not a finger to help the Jews. They could have threatened to excommunicate Catholics who engaged in those murders. After the war, they helped Nazi war criminals to escape. Then they got into the business of laundering money for the Mafia. The Vatican cons poor peasants in the third world to pay for the extravagance and opulence of St. Peter’s Basilica, but try asking a False Christian about this.
False Christians seem to relish and even encourage gullibility. There are no first hand accounts of Jesus or of his words, at best, the nearest we can ascertain is that the earliest Gospel was some 100 years after the death of Christ, so their accuracy is some what dubious, yet False Christians accept them as indisputable facts, rather than a rough account of what may have happened. It is a bit like believing some guy how told you he heard from an unsupported and unnamed source that aliens had landed 150 years ago and made some crop circles. Would one second hand account make you believe in the Loch Ness monster?
False Christians can not understand why their views are not accepted world wide. They can not understand how anyone could deny or reject the existence of their God, whilst simultaneously denying and rejecting the existence of every other God with ease.
False Christians encourages a careless disregard for the environment as they believe that God will not let anything bad to happen to them or their kind. They see no need to restrict or limit the growth of the population as God will take care of all his children.
False Christians teach hypocrisy, they preach poverty yet most of them live in opulence and abundance.
False Christianity encourages passivity. Instead of doing something about the evils of the world, False Christians sit at home and twiddle their thumbs, all the while imagining they are doing something highly virtuous and useful. They call this passivity Praying. Instead of doing something, they sit back and wait for God. If a False Christian was flying an airplane and the controls failed, they would just sit back and start to pray rather than actually try and solve the problem.
False Christianity erodes the minds ability to understand Logic and reason. False Christians are incapable of noticing when they are being illogical. They are so sure in their guts they are right that they will resort to any dishonest tactic to promote their views regardless of how crazy, absurd, meaningless, hollow, insincere and incongruous those views are.
False Christian believe in the whole idea of Christian Triumphalism is that everyone has to believe and follow the same rules for it to “work”. Christianity was thoroughly tried. Life under Christian tyranny in the middle ages proved utterly unbearable. We refer to those times of deep superstition as the “dark ages”. In modern times we have Islamic states like Saudi Arabia and Iran. These countries have to pay huge premiums to get skilled workers to go there. Very few people can stomach such repressive regimes. Theocracies are anti-democratic. Yet still we have right wing fundamentalists trying to subvert our modern democracies back in to Christian dominated theocracies.
False Christians draw others into their delusions, not with logical arguments or evidence based statements, but with emotional blackmail and wishful thinking. Truth is they don’t care if what they say is true, they are just totally besotted with how fantastic things would be if what they said were true.
False Christianity was the root of the Nazi atrocities. That is not to say all Christians are Nazis, just that the False Christian believe of superiority over other races and religions found a foot hold and flourished in Nazi Germany. The KKK was founded on False Christian beliefs and superiority.

False Christians are everything real Christians aren’t. The False Christians message seems to be as far away as possibly for the words Jesus supposedly spoke during the Sermon on the Mount.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Now I am no biblical Scholar, but does any of that sound like the messages given out by the False Christians?

Jesus’ three main points were:
1, Don’t chase wealth.
2, Look after the poor.
3, Don’t judge or seek revenge.

How many so called Christian world leaders in America and Europe follow these words of Jesus?

False Christians give real Christians a bad name. Although it is fair to say this is not just a Christian trait, the same applies to False Muslims and False Jews that twist and ignore the truths and messages of their faiths and bibles to their own perverted ends.

Mormonism

I must admit that I had never heard of the Mormons, or members of the Church of the Latter day Saints until about ten years ago, and I must admit, ever since then, the more I have found out about them, the more and more I wonder why they have any members at all.

The whole religion is based on the words of one man named Joseph Smith, a convicted conman at that, who claimed that God had spoken to him personally in 1820 when he was only 14.
Allegedly God told Smith not to join any church as all the existing churches were false and that he himself (Smith) would bring forth a new and true religion blessed and dictated directly by God.
Three years later in 1823 a seventeen year old Smith was visited an angel named Moroni who told him of a sacred history written by ancient Hebrews that had previously inhabited America. The history, apparently, was engraved on Gold tablets, in ancient Egyptian, and were buried in a near by hill. With the help of the angel Smith obtained the tablets from the hill in 1827, along with a mystical translation devices called the “Urim and Thummim” which were described as a pair of sacred spectacles of sorts.
No one was allowed to see the gold tablets or the translation devices, and Smith kept them locked away in a safe to which only he had access. He translated them to his secretary Martin Harris from another room, not even allowing him to see the tablets.

And thus the Book of Mormon came into being.
Or did it?

Martin Harris’ wife, Lucy, feared her husband was being hoodwinked by Joseph Smith over the “new Religion” that he was working on that she decided to call Smiths bluff.
She stole the 116 pages of the book already translated by her husband and told Smith that “If this be a divine communication, the same being who revealed it to you can easily replace it”.
Now Smith knew he could never translate the 116 pages again exactly, he could probably keep the same essence of the translation, but any deviation from the original translation held by Lucy Harris would expose him as a fraud.
Any lesser man would have ran away and hid his head in shame, but not Smith, a hardened conman who from his teen years charged farmers, property developers, oil and gold prospectors for his “magical powers” to be able to use his “seer stone” to see into hills and mountain and underground.
Smith had a plan. He added a preface to the first edition of the book. The preface claimed that the 116 pages had been translated from supposed Plates of Lehi and that the devil had caused the translation to be stolen and altered from what Smith had "translated." So that even if Smith was to produce a new translation word-for-word identical with the first, it nevertheless would appear to differ from the stolen pages because of the changes which had been made in the latter by the cunning of the devil.
Neat eh?

"I will not suffer that Satan shall accomplish his evil design in this thing. Therefore thou shalt translate from the plates of Nephi." God told Smith, according to the Books preface. Lucy Harris’ plan had backfired but rather than Smith being angry with her, he thanked her for helping him realise how they must all be on their guard against the influences of Satan, and how Gods power will always over come.

Now to any one sane the warning bells of the Bull shit detectors would be deafening, but for some strange reason Smiths followers found this completely plausible and acceptable. God had beaten that scamp Satan, and that was good enough for them.

Strangely enough in 1928, some eight years after God himself had spoken to Smith and told him all churches were false and that he should start the one true religion endorsed by God, Smith applied for membership in a local Methodist church. Other members of his family had joined the local Presbyterians!

As I said at the beginning of this piece the more I learn about how the Mormon religion began, the less and less I understand how people (supposedly sane and rational people) convert to it.
The Book of Mormon spend a lot of effort describing vast civilisations that existed in both North and South America for thousand of years that were all descendants of Jews Moses lead from slavery.
They had knowledge of horses (introduced to America by the Spanish Conquistadors in the early 1500’s), elephants, cattle, sheep, wheat, barley, steel, wheeled vehicles, shipbuilding and other old world elements. They were spread across the continent but shared a common language.
The fact that none of the remains of any of these vast civilisations have never been discovered, not a single relic or item, seems to deter them. The Book of Mormon also neglects to mention any of the civilisations that did really exist in the Americas at the same time as these devout Jewish tribes.
Book of Mormon offers the depiction of a somewhat uniform people, with a solitary language and the ability of communication between remote parts of the Americas, the true history of the Americas shows the opposite: extensively dissimilar racial types (just about completely east Asian of derivation - positively not Semitic, as proven by recent DNA studies), and numerous unconnected native languages, none of which are even tenuously associated to Hebrew or Egyptian.
A lot of the fundamental historical philosophy established in the Book of Mormon had appeared in print previously in 1825, just two years before Smith began dictating the Book of Mormon, in a tome called View of the Hebrews, by one Ethan Smith (surprisingly no relation) and published just a couple of miles from where Joseph Smith resided.
The historian B. H. Roberts, a Mormon himself and a official of the LDS church had to confess later when viewing the evidence that it “tended to show that the Book of Mormon was not an ancient record, but concocted by Joseph Smith himself, based on ideas he had read in the earlier book”

The Mormon religion is supposed to be the direct and irrefutable will of God, everything in it is how God wanted it to be. Its foundation is that it is the pure, uncorrupted, unchangeable, everlasting, eternal word and will of God.
The Mormon church even claims that God is guiding the church through its leader (known by the catchy title of “prophet, seer and revelatory”) so basically his word, is Gods words spoken through him. Which make you wonder how the “Prophet, seer and Revelatory”, and presumably God, got taken in by the successful hoax perpetrated on the church by manuscript dealer Mark Hofmann in the 1980s. Hoffman was a forger and forged documents pertaining to the Mormon religion and presented them to the LDS church (with a several thousand dollar price tag per item). The Church studied the documents and the “Prophet, Seer and Revelatory” declared that God had revealed the documents to be genuine.
Oh dear! In 1986 Hoffman was arrest for Murder and forgery, and confessed to the fakes.

The furtive temple ritual (known as the "endowment") was introduced by Smith in May, 1842, just two months after he had been initiated into Freemasonry. The LDS temple ceremony directly resembles the Masonic ceremony of that day. Smith explained that the Masons had contaminated the ancient (God-given) ceremony by altering it and removing sections of it, and that he was restoring it to its "untainted" and "original" (and absolute) form, as made known to him by God. In the years since, the LDS church has made many fundamental changes in the "pure and original" ritual as "restored" by Smith, mostly by removing major parts of it. So much for respecting God version..

On the whole they, to me, seem a crazy bunch with some crazy ideas. Many of their teaching are well known, such as not partaking in alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea, or giving a percent of you income to the church (known as a tithing).
But there are some stranger more guarded teaching the have that are less publicised and usually only spoken about between practising Mormons, and not outsiders.
Teachings such as:

 God was once a man like us.
 God has a tangible body of flesh and bone.
 God lives on a planet near the star Kolob.
 God ("Heavenly Father") has at least one wife, our "Mother in Heaven," but she is so holy that they are not to discuss her nor pray to her.
 Jesus was married.
 They can become like God and rule over our own universe.
 There are many gods, ruling over their own worlds.
 Jesus and Satan ("Lucifer") are brothers, and they are our brothers - They are all spirit children of Heavenly Father
 Jesus Christ was conceived by God the Father by having sex with Mary, who was temporarily his wife.
 They should not pray to Jesus, nor try to feel a personal relationship with him.
 The "Lord" ("Jehovah") in the Old Testament is the being named Jesus in the New Testament, but different from "God the Father" ("Elohim").
 In the highest degree of the celestial kingdom some men will have more than one wife.
 Before coming to this earth they lived as spirits in a "pre-existence", during which they were tested; our position in this life (whether born to Mormons or savages, or in America or Africa) is our reward or punishment for our obedience in that life.
 Dark skin is a curse from God, the result of our sin, or the sin of our ancestors. If sufficiently righteous, a dark-skinned person will become light-skinned.
 The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. All humanity before the Great Flood lived in the western hemisphere. The Ark transported Noah and the other survivors to the eastern hemisphere.
 Not only will human beings be resurrected to eternal life, but also all animals - everything that has ever lived on earth - will be resurrected and dwell in heaven.
 Christ will not return to earth in any year that has seen a rainbow.
 Mormons should avoid traveling on water, since Satan rules the waters.
 The sun receives its light from the star Kolob.
 If a Gentile becomes Mormon, the Holy Ghost actually purges his Gentile blood and replaces it with Israelite blood.
 A righteous Mormon will actually see the face of God in the Mormon temple.
 You can identify a false angel by the color of his hair, or by offering to shake his hand.
What else is there left to say other than than to what "Kolob" sounds like backwards?

Perspective

It seems that most relgious types believe in one form or another that God gave significance to the Earth and his creation (man) and made it the center of the universe.If this was true, then why would Gods most important and valued creation be one of the smallest and insignificant things in the universe?Just consider the following animation to give you a better idea of our place in "God's" creation.


Somehow I don't feel so special anymore!

Was Jesus Homosexual?

Sounds like a strange question to ask considering the far right religious stance that homosexuality is sinful.
Before any one starts to froth at the gills and their blood boils at the sheer suggestion, lets just establish that this is my opinion based on what the bible or other spiritual source tell us about Jesus and not by any means absolute fact, but how the facts appear to point in the gay messiah direction.

First we must consider the times in which Jesus lived and the community in which he was brought up and the culture he belonged to.

Jesus predominantly lived his life in and around Galilee which is in the Middle East. Conditions would be hard and life harder, men would need be tough if they were to survive.
He was Jewish and a Rabbi and as such would be expected to act and conduct himself in a certain manner.

So lets look at who, or what Jesus actually was.

Jesus was perhaps the most “gentle” soul that walked the face of the earth, In a world were men were rugged, battered and as masculine as John Wayne dipped in testosterone and rolled in gladiator sweat, Jesus minced around as effeminate as camp could be. In modern society he would be called a bit of a limp wrist, in his time he was practically a full blown girl.

He rejected the established code of masculine valour. He frowned on the violent nature of men’s role that was the accepted norm of the time. If he was alive today, he would be called a queer.

He was a Rabbi, but refused to marry. Now for a Jewish male this was peculiar at best, for a rabbi it would be unheard of. You had to be married to be a rabbi so it was doubtful he ever could be a Rabbi. To be in his 20’s and not married was just screaming their was something “different” about him.

Jesus had plenty of opportunity to have sex with women, he was flocked by them, but he always avoided it. If a modern man did the same, we would assume he was gay.

He spent the majority of his time hanging around with people of ill repute, such as prostitutes, former thieves, sodomites and all manner of other lowly sinners. In this day and age Jesus would be looked at as being a tad peculiar at best, especially with his close connection with sinners and sodomites.

He was physically intimate with other men. He surrounded himself with other men of a similar disposition as his. There are accounts in the bible where they place their heads in each others lap whilst dining. Now today in a more tolerant society this would be deemed a “bit gay”. Back then it was probably very nearly a crime punishable by stoning.

Jesus and his chums often were seen to kiss each other

Jesus’s "groupies" competed, each claiming to love Jesus the most, often declaring their love for him quite openly.
John 13:25 tells of John lying with his head on Jesus’s breast. Straight men don’t do that, at least not in our culture, and it would have been unheard of in their day and culture.

Ok, so that is my opinion based on nothing but what I can see for myself in the bible.
So now for some “evidence”.

In 1958 a Scholar from the University of Columbia, named Morton Smith discovered a fragment of manuscript in Mar Saba Monastery in Jerusalem which was, according to local scholars and records, excised and edit out of the original Gospel of Mark.
The passage read: "The youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him ... they went into the house of the youth ... And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, in the evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God."
This passage would fill the gap in Mark 10:46 which has Jesus and his chums making a journey to Jericho and then as soon as they got there, they left again. There seems to be a whole episode in Jericho that vanished with in one sentence. Later on Jesus was caught in a park with a naked young man dressed, or rather undressed, in the same manner as the one mentioned in the missing text. See Mark 14:51-52.

During the Last Supper before Jesus' execution, the authors/editors of the Gospel of John describes how the "beloved" disciple laid himself on Jesus' inner tunic – which to us is another word for his undergarments. See John 13:25 and 21:20.

There is a story recorded in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. where a Roman centurion came to Jesus and asked him to heal his Servant. Seems innocent enough, but the ancient Greek word for Servant was “pai”, which also happens to be the same word used for same sex partner (the Greek had no qualms about homosexuality) so the Centurion would have asked Jesus to come heal his boyfriend. You have to remember that Roman soldiers of the time were not permitted to marry and it was not unheard of for Centurions and higher ranking soldiers to have young (often teenage) male servants that were also used to satisfy sexual needs. This may sound shocking now, but the culture of the time was different and these things were, if not exactly acceptable, were known and tolerated. So the Roman could have been asking Jesus to heal his lover.

Matthew 19:11-12 has a statement from Jesus about “Eunuchs”, which announces “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can” Again this may sound a relatively harmless statement about eunuchs, but let’s examine the use of the term eunuch. The latter part of the statement speaks of those who made themselves eunuchs, which means those who forego marriage and children to better serve God, such as nuns and priests. Jesus also mentions the made into eunuchs, which was a common practice of the time. The unusual one is the one where Jesus speaks of those who were born Eunuchs. Medical the chances of being born a eunuch (with a penis but no testicles) is extremely slim, but consider other literature of the time that uses the term “Born Eunuchs” as a veiled euphemism for homosexuality.

In the ancient world, including ancient Jewish culture (as reflected in the Talmud), “natural” or “born” eunuchs were not associated with missing testicles. Rather, they were associated with stereotypically effeminate characteristics and behaviours such as that of homosexual desires.

The bible does not denounce same sex relationships, in Ruth 1:14 the same Hebrew word is used to describe Ruth’s love for Naomi, as used to describe Adams love for Eve e.g. as a partner or lover. In II Samuel 1:26 David declares that he loved Jonathan more than any woman. This is just one of several Bible passages that describe and celebrate an intense love between these two men that went well beyond friendship

Although there is no mention of Jesus being directly homosexual in a physical sense, there is no proof that Jesus was heterosexual in a physical sense, either. He never claimed to be heterosexual. He never denounced homosexuals either. There is no Biblical evidence that Jesus ever had sex with anybody, though in his times, celibacy was considered abnormal and a little queer!

With extra special thanks to the great Chaz Braman for allowing me to use his brilliant cartoons on my otherwise naff web blog.
For more from Chaz view his fantastic site http://russellsteapot.com/comics/

The Death of Christ (how and why)

The late great Bill Hicks said about the symbol of the cross for Christians,
“A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. Do you think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a fuckin' cross? It's kind of like going up to Jackie Onassis with a rifle pendant on."
The crucifixion of Jesus is perhaps one of the best known of all the Biblical stories and the symbol of the cross is synonymous with Christian’s world wide.
But what exactly is crucifixion, how is it done, how does it work, how does that hold fact with biblical accounts of Jesus’ death and for what reason did Jesus actually die.

Crucifixion

Crucifixion is perhaps one of the most horrible ways to die, not that I know this from experience, but the mechanics of the process makes it impossible to be anything but horrible.
First of all you are tied by the wrist to a plank of wood, not a full cross as traditionally shown, the upright section it stationary and only the cross piece is lifted and attached to the upright (bare in mind these uprights were used again and again for numerous crucifixions and would remain in place). Once your wrists are bound to the plank, nails are hammered through your fore arms, not the hands as depicted on all the pictures of Jesus. The nail which is four to six inches long and an inch wide would be driven between the ulna and radius bones and often bent over the radius to hold it in place. If the nail were driven through the hands are normally depicted once raised up the weight of the body would just rip the nails through your hands.
So, now you are securely nailed to a plank, wrists bound and ready to go. You were then lifted up to the upright and made to stand on a small ledge on the upright while a couple of crucifixion attendants secured the cross piece to the upright. You are now stood on a ledge, up a pole nailed to a plank of wood. This sounds bad enough but just standing there with nails through your arms does not really achieve much as you could stand there a couple of days before dehydration and fatigue finally began to take its toll. Now the Romans did not want to waste time standing around several days waiting for you to die, guarding you to make sure no one rescues you. On occasion for really evil criminals or those they wanted to make examples of they did just leave you to die slowly, often giving the criminal water to sustain the dying process, but this scenario was quite rare. The Romans preferred you to die in a couple of hours, so they could all go home, so what they did was once you were securely perched on the crucifix, they broke your legs so that you could not stand and support yourself.
The result, slow asphyxiation (or more precisely you drown as fluid collects in your lungs) as the weight of your body pulls down on your arms preventing you from being able to breathe, that combined with the agony of two broken legs and the whole weight of your body dragging on two nails hammered through your fore arms.
Those are the facts of crucifixion.

So let’s assume that the method of crucifixion is not as above, but as depicted in the crucifixion of Jesus, what would this mean? Lets try to sort some of the facts from the fiction.

Jesus was made to carry his own cross to the crucifixion site. Well this is quite possible, occasionally full crosses were used in places where existing uprights were not available, but considering this was out side a large populated city it seems unlikely that an existing crucifixion site wouldn’t exist, so it would be more probable that Jesus would have to have carried the cross bar of the cross, but not the whole cross. So this is possible, but not probable.

Jesus was nailed to the “cross” through his hands. Obviously this would not work, unless the wrists were bound to the cross as well. People that show signs of stigmata never show signs of rope burns on the wrists or of holes in the fore arms. So the likelihood of Jesus just being nailed through the hands is not possible as the weight of his body would have pulled him free.

Would Jesus have been able to talk at length to his disciples? Not possible as the whole mechanics of crucifixion makes it almost impossible to breathe let alone carry out conversations. So not possible or at the very best only in tiny gasps. (although seeing as the four gospels can not agree on what Jesus said on the cross, it is highly unlikely that he actually said anything at all)




Ok, so that to some degree covers the How section of the Christ Crucifixion story, now lets have a little look at the Why.

“God sent his only son to die for us”, or “Jesus died for our sins” are two stock responses normally applied to why Jesus was crucified. Apparent it was a selfless act on both Gods and his son’s behalf.
Ok, Lets look at this “selfless act”

1, if Jesus had to die, why the whole charade of being frog marched up and down carrying a cross, the whole suffering and indignity of the crucifixion etc… Why couldn’t just jump off a cliff or something?

2, if Jesus willingly allowed himself to be crucified isn’t that the same as suicide?
Surely that is a sin?
Sins are bad aren’t they?
Some would say it was a sacrifice, but what is the difference? He basically sacrificed himself to, er himself, knowing that he was only going to be dead a few days anyway, so hardly a huge sacrifice seeing as he knew he was going home at the end of it.

3, exactly how does Jesus’ death free us from sin? I have read the bible and spoken to many people who claim to be Christians and neither seem able to explain clearly, or show where it is explained how the death of Jesus actually freed us from Sin. There just seems to be no sense in it at all, if it was such an issue God could have sorted it out with out the necessity of making his son suffer so much, unless he was actually punishing Jesus for something, perhaps his own sins!

4, As the son of god, and in turn God himself (remember the holy trinity), would Jesus actually feel any pain? As an omnipotent, omniscient deity, can he really feel pain? If he did feel the pain, why was in necessary and if he didn’t feel pain, then the whole thing must have been just for show.

5, if God is omnipotent and omniscient (all powerful and all knowing) then he already knew before he sent his son down to earth that this would be the outcome. As part of a part of the triune God, Jesus knew all along what his outcome would be, so this sort of negates the sacrifice as it was actually part of the whole plan, because if it wasn’t what he wanted, then he had the power to change it.

6, Why is Judas so reviled? If he acted with Jesus' blessing, or even under divine coercion from Jesus, why is he portrayed as a bad person? Either way, he helped the crucifixion take place, so surely Christians should admire him. Without Judas they might not have been saved, or Jesus might have lived a lot longer and they'd have a much less impressive ornament to hang round their necks as a symbol of his death. A runaway horse maybe, or a slippery banana-skin or perhaps a poorly looking kebab.

So seeing as Jesus died for all our sins, past present and future, anything we do now is basically sinless as Jesus has already atoned for them. If our acceptance into heaven still depends on us living a sinless lifestyle then surely the death of Jesus was pointless! As from that point onward no matter what we did, the death of Jesus atoned for it. Anything we do from that point onwards is technically already accounted for. As I have already explained previously, in another post, Jesus could not be paying for the original sin, as God permitted that one as part of his creation
So in conclusion to this part, basically we have God sacrificing himself to save us from a hell he created in the first place. Also if the reason Jesus had to die to atone for all mankind’s sins past, present and future what was the point of the Great Flood and Noah? Surely all the millions that died then were rendered pointless if God knew at a later point he would forgive them all anyway. Seems to me God just likes to see things die, after all he caused Cain to kill Abel because he preferred to see the murder of innocent animals over the growing of crops.

In order to accept that Jesus' death washed away Original Sin (and therefore had any meaning at all), you are forced to subscribe to the young-Earth creationist view that the universe is about 6000 years old, and was created just as described in the Book of Genesis. This would mean that almost all sciences (including the sciences that allow us to generate the electricity that is letting you read this blog) are totally wrong about everything. This is one of the main reasons why creationists object so strongly to evolution. It implies (or demonstrates) that the basic concept behind Christianity is simply false.
There was nothing for Christ to atone for, so the crucifixion was meaningless.

Know your son of God.

Read these questions, see if you know the answers.

1, Which Son of God’s birthday is 25th Of December?
2, Which son of God was born of a virgin mother?
3, Which Son of God had 12 disciples?
4, Which son of God performed miracles, such as curing the blind and lame?
5, Which son of God was referred to as the “Good Shepard” or “Lamb of God”?
6, Which son of God was visited by Three Persian Magi at his birth?
7, Which son of God died on a cross?
8, Which son of God subsequently was placed in a cave and reappeared 3 days later?
9, Which son of God held a last supper with his 12 disciples?
10, Which son of God ascended to heaven to watch over his flock?

Ok, you now have 20 minutes to think about the answers, so I will see you back here in 20.















Done already?
Ok, here are the answers.

1 to 10 the answer was of course Mithra, the Persian Saviour, know as “the light”, or “the way”.

Oh yes, Jesus would also fit, but he was born 4000 years later.

Click for almighty sized fun.

You need to click the image to see the full sized cartoon, although it will probably offend everyone and their dog, so don't bother if you are only going to moan about it.

Taken from my other blog http://jebusno.blogspot.com/

Bible versus the Koran.

This section is to highlight sections of both the Bible and Koran that speak of the same subject, but not only contradict each other, but themselves as well.
I was going to do one big list, but the more i read the bible and the Koran the longer and longer my list got, and this post would have beeen twice as long as the books themselves. So i have decided to make this a reaccuring section that I will post time to time, concentrating on a different area each time.

Creation:

The Bible has literally loads of Contradiction regarding the creation of everything.
In Gen 1:3-5 it claims that God created light on the first day and then went on to separate light and darkness.
In Gen 1:14-19 is says that the source of the light, the sun, wasn’t created until the fourth day.

Gen 1:11-12 states that trees where created before man.
Gen 2:4-9 states the opposite.

Gen 1:26-27 states that Male and Female (Adam and Eve) were created at the same time.
Gen 2:7 and Gen 2:21-22 states that the Female was formed much later.

The Koran has its own confusion over creation

Koran 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, 25:29 all state that Allah created the world in six days
Koran 41:9 states that the earth was created in just two days.

Koran 39:73, 41:30, 57:21, 79:41 all refer the there being only one Garden of paradise.
Koran 18:31, 22:23, 35:33, 78:32 all state there are several Gardens of Paradise.

Koran 2:29 tells that after creating Earth, God then created the heavens
Koran 79:27-30 has it the other way around.

Koran 96:2 states that man was made from a clot of blood.
Koran 21:30 and Koran 25:54 both state that man was made from water.
Koran 15:26 says man was made from Clay
Koran 3:59 and Koran 30:20 both state that Allah created man from dust
Koran 16:4 has man being created from a drop of sperm.

To be continued

Omniscience versus free will

Who or more precisely what is God?
According to common understanding he is an omnipotent and omniscient being. He is all powerful and all knowing. He has prior knowledge to everything to come and everything that has ever been. He has the power to shape everything to the way he likes and he knows the outcome of every single change he has ever made or will make.

With all this power and foresight why does he not intervene or prevent wars, rapes, murders, natural disasters and innocent deaths?
Because has given man free will to choose his own destiny.

Hmm, is it me or do these two statements contradict each other?

If God is omniscient then he surely already knows 100% what each individual or group is destined to do. So if a person is going to grow up to raise an army and rampage through the world slaughtering indiscriminately then God is already aware of this before the person is born. In fact he knew this at the moment he created the world. So with his omnipotent powers he could alter this persons destiny to suit Gods own will if he was not happy with the outcome he already knows will occur.

If man truly has free will, then God is unaware of which option the person will choose. He may be aware of the choices available, but not the choice that will be taken.
In this case God can not be Omniscient.

So if God is omniscient then there is no point complaining about the evils in the world because God must know about them and actively sanction them by his very Omniscient nature.
God must not dislike Gays, as he created man in the knowledge that he would experiment with his sexuality and thus at some point be aware that a section of his creation would choose the path of Homosexuality. If God did not want this then he could have deigned the relevant parts so that they could not possibly fit together or give pleasure. Sort of a square peg and round hole scenario.
The people who claim to have killed in Gods name must be telling the truth no matter how heinous the crime as God knew it would be done centuries, even millennia, before any of those involved were born.
You have no choice, the universe was made in such a way that everything you do must necessarily happen

And so on…

If man is free to choose his destiny then God is little more than an observer of his creation. If he is not omniscient then he could not possible omnipotent either.
He can not possible be all powerful, if he can not see what your next choice will be.
So if you believe we have free will you may as well resign yourself to the fact that God is powerless to intervene so prayer is, well just the same as talking to yourself, which is generally regarded as a form of madness.

Can't lose.

What am I?

I am frequently reminded, often in quite colourful terms, when debating religion in one internet forum or other that “all you atheists” are miserable, untrusting, aimless, disrespectful, conniving, thoroughly worthless and altogether somewhat of a blight on Gods wonderful creation.
Some times you get that feeling that some one is trying to tell you something but you just can’t put your finger on it.

Firstly, I am not an atheist, so they must be confusing me with some one else, I think of myself as Agnostic. I do not personally believe in God, but I can not prove or be 100% sure that he doesn’t exist (although I am 99.9% sure).

People, mainly theists and other religious types, seem to think that we (atheists and agnostics) have no respect for life.
I find this incredulous as I personally accept people as I find them.
I do not prejudge people because their belief system is not the same as mine.
I do not wallow in self superiority when speaking to Muslim, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians believing that they will all burn in hell fire as my religion or belief system is the only true one and there for everyone else will suffer.
I give equal worth to disasters that occur in Christian countries as I do those that occur in Islamic countries, because I see the people involved, not the religion.
If there were starving babies in an orphanage in some none Christian country my first thought would not be to say a prayer, or how to send them bibles, but how to get them food.
No one has ever, in my name, enslaved masses and preached conversion to Christianity or Islam on fear of death.
I don’t tell people “believe what I believe or you will die”.

I consider all life important and (dare I say it) sacred, as I believe we only have the one so it is important to use it right and for the right reasons.
I do not suffer from any preconditioned guilt when having sex for enjoyment rather than just reproduction;
I do not feel that I will be judged as being avaricious for having more chocolate than is good for me;
I have no shame about displaying pride in my own achievement.

We are often deemed as untrusting or dubious.
I trust what I can see or what can be proved, I am dubious of “facts” that can not be proved or of people who make decisions based purely on what a book tells them rather than what common sense tell them.
Some say it is only because I can not see God or that he works in ways that I don’t understand that I don’t trust him.
Well I have never actually seen the processor in my computer nor do I understand how it work, but trust it to do stuff on a daily basis.
When I see a wonderful sunset or beautiful mountain range I marvel at the immeasurable and destructive forces that were needed to create both, the sun with its countless billions of hydrogen reactions and the mountains with their crashing together of tectonic plates.
I don’t think “God put them there” and think nothing more of them.

We are often accused of being selfish.
I am nice to people because I choose to be, I do good things because it is usually the best for everyone, not because I am thinking to myself “If I am nice to people and do good things, I will surely go to heaven”.
I do not discount the opinions of other because their religion contradicts my religion and thus is wrong and therefore anything they have to say is wrong.
I treat people the same way I would expect them to treat me, regardless of age, sex, creed, colour or lifestyle. I do not view anyone that does not share my beliefs as some way less worthy.

I am certainly not aimless, I have goals like most people, but my goals are determined by my own abilities, not by dogma.
I want to live my life as peacefully as possible with out prejudice or preconceptions.
I want to sit on my death bed and ponder whether my life has any bearing or positive effects on the lives of the people I have known, not worrying if I have atoned for any forgotten sins I may or may not have committed.

I try not to be disrespectful, but some time it is extremely difficult to debate a point with some one who’s only retort is “well it says so in the Bible” with out blowing a fuse.
I do not look down on Mr Patel (yes, that is his name) at the local off licence because he is a Muslim, nor do I secret scoff at Mr and Mrs Greenman when I see them in the petrol station because they are Jewish.
I do not ignore my cousin, or not speak of him because he is openly gay.
In fact I regard everyone I meet with the same amiable standing. As I said previously, I see the people, not their choices.
I do, on the other hand disrespect ignorance and intolerance.


And on a final note, anyone who knows me personally will tell you, the one thing I have never been is Miserable.

Are you a good christian?

1, You feel quite at ease when debunking and ridiculing hundreds of other religions and their Gods, but fly into a rage when anyone tries to question yours.

2, you are unable to accept that Humans could ever be related to dirty beast such as the apes, but are quite happy when the Bible tells you that mankind was made from dirt and mud.

3, you mock the idea of polytheism, but then worship the holy trinity.

4, You become upset and angry, often flying into a rage, when you hear of other religions committing “atrocities” in the name of their Gods, but remain silent and at ease with such things as “The inquisition”, “The crusades”, “Persecution of homosexuals” and “The spread of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV and AIDS due to churches prohibiting the use of condoms.”

5, you laugh at the idea that humans can be deified as in Hindu religions, but have no issues with elevating a Jewish carpenters son in to a saviour of mankind.

6, you will spend years of your life looking for tiny scraps of evidence, no matter how tenuous or ambiguous, to try and prove the evolutions wrong, but take the word of a man made book which offers no evidence to support its claims that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and was made in six days.

7, you truly believe that apart from yourself, and everyone that shares you exact religious persuasions and beliefs, the entire population of the planet, past, present and future, are all condemned to eternal hellfire.

8, Although the thousands and thousands of pieces of evidence collected and shown by History, science, physics, geology and chemistry , you are unconvinced of evolution and the possibility of a godless universe, but Mrs Miggins’, from church, claim of her TV starting to work again after she started praying when it broke is proof enough of God existence.

9, you constantly foam at the mouth over the godless heathen of other religions. You think all gays should be shot. Teenage mothers should be locked away in asylums and that abortionist should be killed whilst espousing the evils of contraception. Yet you consider your religion to be one of tolerance.

10, You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Noah, the Ark and the Flood.

I have lost track the amount of times I have had this discussion with people who wish to believe it.
I don’t doubt at some point in history there was a flood, a big flood, but not a world wide flood, and that some chap called Noah some how had the foresight to build a big boat and put some animal on board.
The story of Noah is mentioned in the Bible, Koran and Torah, so it must have some basis in fact.

The Ark

The Bible leads us to believe that one man and perhaps his three sons built a sea worthy vessel that could carry two (or in some passages of the bible, seven) of each species of animal and plant life on the planet.
There are millions of different species of animals on this planet alone and many many more millions of plants and Noah had to accommodate them all, if the story has to be believed.
Even some of the world’s biggest super tankers of present time could only hold a fraction of the world’s myriad of different animal species in conditions where they would be comfortable and safe.

Noah would not only have to build an Ark big enough to hold all the animals, but areas large enough to carry food and keep it fresh for ten months at the very least. Also much of the ark would be given over to supplies of fresh water (unless he some how managed to build a desalination unit that converted the sea water in to potable water.)
He then would have needed extra storage areas for the food they would need to sustain them after the flood for a year or two until natural vegetation began to grow back again (that’s assuming there would be any soil left for it to grow in).

So at the grand age of around 600 years old Noah had to build a super ship, the size and likes of which could not be built today with all our modern ship building methods, all out of locally sourced gopher wood. The upper deck of the ship would have been that high Noah would probably need breathing apparatus to walk on it.

The whole upper deck(s) would have to be given over to plant life and grasses, just to support a fraction of the grazing animal. None of the plants that Noah would have needed to take aboard would survive the minimum of Forty days journey (this is if the billions of plant species were all put aboard on the last day or two before the flood started) if they were kept below the deck levels away from sun light.

So if the bible is to be believed eight people, Noah his wife, their three sons and wives, cared for the specialised and demanding needs of countless millions of animals and hundreds of millions of insects as well as tending to thousands of acres of grass and plant life during the journey. Most zoos only have a tiny fraction of the possible array of animal species that Noah would have had, yet they employ hundreds of people to take care of them.

The physics behind the story of the ark is impossible. Not only would the collection and storage of the animals require all of Noah’s energies, he had to collect the plant life, grow specialised crops, build a ship of such proportions to house them all and then contend with being over 500 years old at the time.
He also only had seven days (Gen 7:4-10) to load all the millions of animals and plants onto the ark.
So if we take a very conservative guess and say there was 10 million different species of animal and plant to load (which I am sure you will agree is much much less than there would be), then he would need to load approximately 1,500,000 per day, or put another way, 1041 per minute or 17 per second.

The bible says that Noah had approximately 100 years to do all this and that in itself poses its own issues. If Noah spent the whole 100 years just building the ark, then surely the parts he built first would have started to rot away by the time he hammered in the final nails. This is not taking into account for such thing as termites and other wood devouring insects that would have risen thousands of generations amongst the timbers of the ark.
This also does not account for jealous locals stealing the wood for them selves or trying to sabotage the project.

Personally I believe there was a chap called Noah, who during a localised flood in and around the area of Modern day Turkey saves a significant amount of animals on a large boat. Like all great tales, the story became embellished with every telling and a handful of farm animal became a menagerie and then the whole spectrum of animal life upon the planet.



The Flood

According to the Bible during the flood every mountain was covered by water. So that is at least 8,848 metres (29,000 feet) of water encompassing the entire globe.
Now I am not a mathematician but that is something close to 4,500,000,000 cubic kilometres of water which is 15 times the volume of the sea and the ice caps combined.
Rainfall of that magnitude is akin to the amount of water pressure used in Hydraulic mining where water is used to break rocks.
We are talking in excess of 200 metres (90 feet) of water per day or around 8.5 (2.5 feet) metres an hour or 0.14 metres (4 inches) a minute. Recently we had rain in Britain that amounted to a couple of inches a day and it destroyed crops and brought life to a halt. We are talking of rainfall that would strip soil from land and churn the seas into mud.
Water cascading from the sky at that speed would completely flatten everything that it hit, including the Ark itself.
The earth would be stripped down to the rock of all soil and arable land. All fresh water would become tainted with salt water which would kill all aquatic life that relies of fresh bodies of water to survive. The seas would be a churning mass of mud and debris that would clog and suffocate anything that swam in it. Animals such as dolphins would soon die out as hunting fish with it sonar would become impossible because of the turmoil caused in the water by the 90 feet a day down fall. Whales would drown as they came up for air because their air holes would instantly fill with water the second it surfaced, that is if they survived the pressure of the down pour as it would probably prevent them from being able to reach the surface of the water anyway.

Then you have the dead. There would be tens of millions of dead people and animals floating and festering in the water around the ark spreading disease and illness once the rain stopped and they would have been an ever present threat for the next nine months attracting flies.

According to the bible in all this time Noah, his family and al the animals remained shut up in the ark, which God insisted only had one tiny window (Gen 6:16).
So millions of animals, billions of plants, no ventilation, no fresh food, no fresh water, no facilities for the treatment or disposal of manure and millions upon millions of dead people and animals floating about just outside.
Well now I put it like that I begin to wonder why I ever doubted it.

The story of the flood is, to me, a wash out.
See what I did there?


After the flood

So the waters have gone (who knows where?) and the ark has come to rest. The time has come for Noah to release the animals that gallop off the ark and start breeding like the clappers.
Just a couple of problems with this scenario though.

All the animals have been cooped up with out exercise for almost a year, so the gallop is would be more of a shaky crawl, or totter at the very best.

The majority of them would not have seen daylight in all that time, unless Noah rotated them so they could be near the window, and would be lacking in many essential vitamins.

They would not have had access to fresh water and food in all that time so their general health would be critical, that is assuming they would in reality survive at all.

So Noah’s first job would be the recuperation of his animals, and for this he would need fresh water and fresh food.
Oh dear.
No arable land in which to plant crops (that is if he had the foresight to bring along some seeds) and no potable water. All available land would have been stripped by the floods and anything deposited as the water receded would be full of salt deposits and unsuitable to the majority of all known crops. Any pools of water would be salt water and full of rotting decaying dead things.
So here is Noah with several million sickly animals and nothing to feed them with and nothing for them to drink.
The predators with in the animals would soon start to diminish the number of remaining animals as Noah and God seem to have neglected the basis of all food chains, some animals eat other animals faster than they can breed so lots of them are needed to sustain the animal above them in the chain.
The herbivores would have nothing to eat and very quickly the carnivores would run out of things to eat.
Anything else would most probably succumb to diseases or die of thirst.

The whole exercise would have been futile.


Odds and ends

Just supposing Noah landed safely and all the animal were well and there was underground springs bringing fresh water and acres and acres of crops and grass lands which had remained untouched and all the dead were washed away, and all the carnivores agreed to become vegetarians until there was enough years of reproduction to allow them to start meat eating again and everything else that needed to happen to allow the flood story to succeed actually did happen (this requires some amazing leaps of faith) there are still things that would make the flood story hard to believe.

How did all the animals return back to whence they came safely? Just having one pair of each animal species is extremely precarious at best, throwing arduous treks across the globe over land and sea (not sure if panda and kangaroos are that good as swimmers?) only make the chances of survival much less likely.

Inbreeding would begin to mutate all the species after a couple of generation rendering much of them sterile.

Again, we have inbreeding with in the remaining eight humans, of which only six were of breeding age (in biblical terms they were less than 400 years old), and who could they breed with?
Er..each other, and all the males were related so all offspring would be related and so once again, as with Adam and Eve, the population is based on inbreeding and incest.

I once more hear the twangs of the six fingered banjo emanating from the pages of the bible.

I am sure I will broach this topic again at some point, but for now, I believe that give my reason why I think the whole thing is utter drivel.

Adam and Eve

The Bible, or at least the people who hide behind it, tells us lots of things that are contradictory.
On one hand we are told that the account of the creation according to Genesis is how the world and universe was formed is the true way it happened, as is Gods word.
Yet these same people, when faced with some startlingly obvious errors with in the books text claim that parts should not be taken literally, but as metaphors or parables, so any “mistakes” are not really mistakes but gaps in interpretation!
How convenient.
So basically the Bible is the literal word of God, which is also a collection of metaphors, parables, analogies and selected allegories which the reader is free to interpret to there comfort.
You should always distrust those people who appear to know so well what God or the bible wants or tells them to do, because you will always become aware that it coincides exactly with their own desires.
Strange that really when you think about it!

The First Man

God created Adam in his own image, or so it is told, from dust and stuff he found laying around or if the Koran is to be the correct source of information then Allah made Adam “He has created man from a sperm-drop...”KORAN 16:4

Either way he was created in some ones image. Now my problem with this was did Adam have genitals, or more precisely, the reproductive part of his genitals, eg: his Testicles.
If so, why?
At this time, females had not been created or even considered so the need for reproductive organ were unnecessary, unless God had them and if so, why did God need them when he can create life with an apparent flick of his wrist? (no pun intended especially if the Korans version is correct)

God did not create a woman until Adam claimed he was lonely. To create a woman God needed to perform a little surgery on Adam and remove a rib from which he then created a woman. Now this could tally with the Korans version of how humans are created as it claims that humans are made from clots of blood mixed with sperm.
(Koran 23:14)
Then WE made the sperm into a clot of congealed
blood; then of that clot We made a lump;
then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the
bones with flesh

So Eve had to be made from one of Adams ribs, not dust like Adam and presumably he gave her reproductive organs that would accommodated those of Adams, despite the fact until that moment Adam had no need or use for them.

As they say where I come from “Sounds like bollocks to me”


The Forbidden fruit


It is understood that the “Apple” is symbolic, and not the actual fruit, but for reasons of ease I will use “Apple” when referring to the Fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Adam and Eve were innocent, they did not know the difference between right and wrong or good or Evil. God created them, put them in a lush Garden full of wonderful flora and fauna, yet did not give them the knowledge to know what was right or wrong. Adam could have quite easily vented his desires upon the various forms of livestock with in the garden and would not know it was wrong, and as a result, God would have to look on and either say nothing, or give Adam the knowledge or right and wrong.
Instead he Gave then a tree full of apples and said “Don’t eat the apples, it is wrong” and then left, where as Adam would have looked at Eve and said
“What does wrong mean?”
Where Eve could have replied “I don’t know, but it may be fun!”
So basically in essence God set Adam and Eve up for a fall. He knew they did not know the difference between right and wrong and thus any actions they took should not have been punishable as their innocents would not allow them to know what they were doing was erroneous.
Once they tried the Apple and discovered knowledge God got angry and punished them. This to me is like not telling a child that taking with out asking is wrong and merits a punishment and then punishing the child because they have done exactly what you knew they do because they did not know any difference.

For Adam and Eve it was a situation where they could not win. If they did not eat the apple, then God could have punished them if they decided to murder all the animals for fun, even though they would not know it was wrong, but by eating the apple, they learnt what was right or wrong, thus avoiding angering God by doing things that he would deem punishable.
They were damned if the did and damned if they didn’t.

The deadly Seven

We are lucky to have been provided with a list of sins that can apparently lead to all sorts of trouble - the Seven Deadly Sins. These should not be confused with the Seven Samurai (who could also cause lots of trouble and be deadly), the Seven Brides For Seven Brothers, or the Seven Sinful Ice-cream Flavours (chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, pistachio, anchovy, mint-choc-chip and pumpkin). Obviously, it would be bad to commit any of these sins (they`re deadly, remember), and as such it seems reasonable to suppose that our Lord and Creator would carefully avoid them too.
Let`s see how well He does.

PRIDE
After creating various bits and bobs in Genesis, we are told "And God saw that it was good". So, He takes pride in His work, apparently.
Also, when John baptised Jesus (good job he did, because we all know what happens to un-baptised people when they die...) God said, and I quote, "You are my son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased". God, who is Jesus, loves and is pleased with Jesus, who is God. If you knew someone who claimed to love and be pleased with himself, wouldn't that hint at a self-proud person?

WRATH
Well, according to the Old Testament, God was a genocidal maniac of Biblical proportions (naturally). However, it could be argued that many of the mass-slaughters described therein were not done out of anger, but for some other Godly motives. Fair enough, but are there any specific examples of wrath?
Samuel (24:1) tells us :"Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying 'Go and take a census of Israel and Judah'". Burning anger? Sounds like Wrath to me.
Also from Samuel (6:6) "When they came to the threshing-floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the Ark of God." Presumably God would have preferred the Ark to fall into the mud, but Uzzah paid the price here...

ENVY
From the Ten Commandments : "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God..." Says it all, really. We don't even need to look for the evidence here, as we get it straight from the horse's mouth (so to speak).

LUST
Your school Nativity Play is a good example : the Holy Spirit impregnating virgins... Naughty, naughty - randy old God.

GLUTTONY
Why are we here? Many theologians would say "To love and worship God". Apparently, God just can't be content unless He creates five billion souls for the specific purpose of telling him how great he is. That's lot of people. That's just plain gluttonous.

AVARICE
Okay, he's let off this one - God has no need of money. Unfortunately his spokespeople, the televangelists, more than make up for this. Send me money and get to heaven! Either they're lying and just trying to get rich, or God actually does need money. Either way, it doesn't look good.

SLOTH
Back to Genesis again: "By the seventh day God finished the work He had been doing; so on the seventh day He rested from all His work."Being omnipotent, god cannot get tired. If He has access to an infinite supply of energy (as we are led to believe), He could create a billion galaxies without so much as breaking into a sweat. It looks like He was just slobbing around...