Discussion (76)¬

  1. 1happyheathen says:

    Mark 10 verse 17-18 shows what many xtians think is true, actually is not…. bring that up with a xtian and watch the cherry-picking start…

  2. loner-too says:

    Mr. Carpenter, you died. In a biological entity this is the only failure that matters. You were fallible.

  3. Oozoid says:

    The new Coen Brothers film (“Hail, Caesar”) has a nice ‘my gospel is greater than your gospel’ scene.

  4. loner-too says:

    regarding the above: Mo’, being a contemporary and completely human body-double has not, yet, proven to be fallible by dying. That makes him better than Jesus.
    With which, of course, one thousand million people would agree.

  5. loner-too says:

    Lastly, to the lovely, wise, patient and wonderful Barmaid, it is utterly and completely obvious which of the many versions of the many scriptures is indeed the One True Truthful And Inerrant Truth:
    it is Mine.

    How could anyone doubt this?

  6. Dr John de Wipper says:

    If not dying is considered the test for “godness”, then nearly half the people ever born in all history can claim to be god.
    That is how fast world population is growing!!

  7. Nassar Ben Houdja says:

    The problem with a wholly book
    Is that the contents are manipulated, cooked
    By profits interpretations
    Of ridiculous machinations
    The paying faithful are hooked.

  8. pink squirrel says:

    Even assuming ‘god’ and even assuming the two gents mentioned were ‘infallible’
    this would not make the fantasy fiction novels written by /about them infallible [ they are clearly not as both contain contradictions] nor would it prevent the fallible followers from misunderstanding/misreading the texts.

  9. Walter says:

    Another zinger!

  10. Thanks again, Author. You express so well that which is obvious to everybody but a believer. They can’t all be right, so my guess is they are all wrong.

  11. Sparky_shark says:

    I have come to realise that the true dramatic tension in this wonderful cartoon is that Mo and J never get shitfaced over a bottle of cheap hootch and have the “elephant in the room discussion” about who is really god or not. This would end up (if I’ve understood the narrative arc over the past few years) in a drunken brawl, marginal damage to house and home and drunken make-up-sex thereafter…

  12. loner-too says:

    Sorry, Dr, John but the usual statistic is calculated to be that that human condition is 93% fatal. That there has been, through all the ages of the Earth, roughly 100 thousand million true Homo Sapiens and relatives close enough to be allowed to vote and that roughly seven thousand million of those are alive today.
    That gives those alive a 7% chance of being immortal. Immortalish. Statistically immortal.
    Okay, not dead.

    But being dead is a definite failure of the biology. It is a serious failure, quite a terminal failure in most cases. (There are many humans who, for one reason or another, are counted as having been dead-ish and who yet consume ice cream and watch movies. These are mere outliers and it is generally acceptable to state that dead guys in general generally stay dead. Mostly. As a rule. Pretty much always. Unless otherwise engaged in not being dead.)
    As it is a failure and as the younger Mr. Carpenter of Nazareth has been widely reported to have been in that state he is by his own testimony in addition to that of others fallible.
    This does not disqualify him from godhood. Many gods have died. Many gods have died more than once. Many gods, indeed almost all gods, are fallible. Loki, for one example, made a career out if being so. It does, however, give lie to his claim of infallibility.
    That being so and Mr. Josephson having made that claim on many occasions, it also tends to make suspect any other of his pronouncements. If he lies once, he may be lying more than once.
    This does not bode well for his many promises.
    If a politician or other huckster is caught in a single untruth his word is forever tainted as unreliable and his veracity is tarnished forever.
    Jesus’s campaign promises are therefore as worthy of credence as those of any third-rate used-car salesman.
    He was a lying toe-rag.
    Not the sort of gentleman to be worshipped as a hero.

  13. Macha says:

    Thanks Nassar for the “wholly book”.

  14. pink squirrel says:

    That is not dead which can eternal lie
    proving all gods are ultimately dishonest

  15. extro24 says:

    @loner-too: Jesus (if he was real) was fallible because he didn’t return during the lifetime of the apostles as he promised: “And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.” (Luke 9:27). Case closed.

  16. pink squirrel says:

    (Luke 9:27). Case closed.

    (Luke 9:27). Case closed.

    (Luke 9:27). Case closed.

    (Luke 9:27). Case closed.

    (Luke 9:27). Case closed.

    (Luke 9:27). Case closed
    only to those who have a rational mindset
    fairly sure xians and creationists could selective twist and spin the words to get round the problem

  17. pink squirrel says:

    apologies for repetition of the paste [luke case closed- – my screen did not show them until after I submitted the comment

  18. John B. Hodges says:

    Even if the scriptures/prophets/pope ARE infallible, YOU are not infallible, therefore you cannot know for certain that another person (X) IS.

    It seems implausible that a god who is superpowerful, let alone omniscient and omnipotent, who has a message for all humankind, and who is serious enough about wanting our obedience that they will threaten eternal torture, would deliver that message by whispering in one person’s ear, and ordering them to “go tell everyone else.” It would be too easily faked by con artists and swindlers.

    If a god wants me to do something, they should tell ME, not you. If they have a message for all humankind, they could write it on the face of the Moon, and teach humankind to make telescopes. There are many possible ways a god could deliver a message that could not be faked by humans. Therefore, any alleged “revelations” that you hear about FROM HUMAN BEINGS are presumptively fraudulent.

  19. pink squirrel says:

    There are many possible ways a god could deliver a message that could not be faked by humans.
    maybe the message is ‘no message’
    maybe the ‘god’ has already preselected who should get the mesaage
    Maybe the ‘god’ is weak and incapable of telling everyone?
    Maybe the message is ‘be atheist’
    Maybe the merssage is only visible/accessible once technology X is discovered
    Or maybe the presence of the ‘faith gene’ is the message, although if so there is still the problem as to why would a deity not make it so that everyone had that gene built in

  20. two cents' worth says:

    pink squirrel, you mentioned the problem of the faith gene: why do some people have it but others don’t? Maybe it’s to give the zealots a “legitimate” reason for persecuting unbelievers (though that would mean that god is not omni-benevolent). Or maybe it’s a test for the zealots–when they convert people who don’t have the faith gene, they gain more glory than when they convert people who do have the gene. I’m sure the zealots can can come up with a reason that suits their purposes.

    From the atheist point of view, maybe evolution will lead to the loss of the faith gene as the survival of human beings becomes increasingly dependent on the use of rational thought.

  21. Grumpy says:

    Faith gene, lazy gene, delusional gene, gullible gene, life is too complicated gene, don’t think for yourself gene. They are all one and the same and evolving away from it / them will take a long, long time…..if ever.

  22. pink squirrel says:

    evolving away from it / them will take a long, long time
    maybe – but if there were a deliberate program of selection/elimination in place, it could be achieved over a much shorter timescale.
    how ethical that would be is another matter.

  23. Dr John de Wipper says:

    One boulevard filled with people watching the Quatorze Juillet fireworks.
    One truck at high speed.
    Allahuh Akhbar.
    Celebrations in the Khaliphate and various banlieux.
    Islam is peace!
    … nothing to fear from Islam?

  24. pink squirrel says:

    we should not fear islam because fear leads to appeasement and inaction
    what islam needs is for the rest of us to stand up against its delusional fantasies
    we need to despise and pity islam/abrahamism, not fear it

  25. loner-too says:

    Pink Squirrel, it is well within the doublethink of human minds and hearts to do all of those things, to despise and loath the multi-branched Abrahamic nut-job cult, to mock it in every root, stem and leaf, to laugh at its idiocies, to pity the poor, deluded wassochs and cloddies who profess to support it and to quite rightly and legitimately fear the total faeces who kill and maim in the name of it and their scunnersome, self-promoting, hideous “leaders”.
    What it seems to be utterly impossible for any humanoid biped to do is to be a money-grubbing, venal, callous, evil little twit of a politician and to refuse to accept their money and support in aid of their election campaigns.
    We may wish them gone the way of the trilobite but those elected to protect us from “all enemies foreign and domestic” won’t dream of even so mild an act as removing the tax-exempt status of the recruiting stations, training camps and terrorist cells they masquerade as “churches”.
    And any real action against the monied supporters of Boko and ISIS is so inconceivable that it wouldn’t even make it into an SF novel.
    Our politicians, our owners and keepers, won’t even criticise them openly as “Muslim terrorists” or “Islamic terrorists” lest they offend their bankers and backers.

    We need that entire religion stopped. Stopped dead. Banned as a terrorist cult. Their fake churches confiscated and closed. Their “schools” (in reality terrorist training camps) shut and bull-dozed and their “holy sites” razed to the bed-rock.
    We need their leaders jailed or eliminated. Preferably both.
    We need their entire population re-educated, trained to think critically, taught from real books in real, living languages – in short, assimilated.
    We need that crooked, criminal, fraudulent, evil little cult wiped from the face of the planet and relegated to being a distasteful aberration in History.
    We need Islam to become less than the Thuggee cult of Kali it so resembles in every detail.

    Of course, none of this will happen. Our leaders will protect theirs while ignoring the rising count of our dead, for our dead matter no more to our leaders than they do to theirs.
    And even when they win the Quislings and Benedict Arnolds will prosper.

    We, the infidel, are doomed.
    We may as well practice bending towards that insipid blob of brick.

    Or is all of the foregoing too heavy?
    If so, I can only shrug and plead sympathy for the people of Nice, and the tourists among them, some of whom will have been “believers” – not that that matters to an Islam nutter – and a need to weep.
    I wish I could weep.
    But though the need is there, the tears will not come for I know, I know that Nice is just the latest in a long, long line of atrocities and that more are coming.
    I’ll need the tears for those, too.

    I really wanted to remark that until the arse in France proved to be such a poor driver today had been ever such a Nice day, but I suspect that any similar comment is grounds for being banned from the Interwebs.
    It’s a pity, we could have had loads of Nice puns.

    Okay, I’ll stop. I’ve already shown that I’m not (yes, I am going to do it) a Nice man.

  26. pink squirrel says:

    ‘a money-grubbing, venal, callous, evil little twit of a politician’

    Booris? Disparage? Trumpet?
    or was it a reference to all of them?

  27. loner-too says:

    My dear friend, Grumpy, there is nothing wrong with a “lazy gene”, a gene promoting laziness and very much to be said in favour of it.
    Many of the greatest developments in History that benefit our common culture and such Civilisation as we have attained are the result of some lazy, indolent sod watching the drips and inventing roof sealant instead of applying temporary fixes every few weeks.
    Hard work pays off eventually, laziness pays off now and keeps on paying off forever.
    Or, as Rovol said, “Never do it twice if a robot can be programmed.”
    If you suspect that I am supporting indolence simply because I enjoy the condition too freely and am currently in its complete thrall, I can only agree and, as independent support for my proposition point to the common house-cat, a species whose entire genus is reified laziness.

  28. Dr John de Wipper says:

    We need that crooked, criminal, fraudulent, evil little cult wiped from the face of the planet (bolding mine)
    Just the “littleness” is the problem!
    …and remember the words of Arafat: “Our strongest weapon is the uterus of our women”.

  29. loner-too says:

    Well, Pink Squirrel, as 700-odd M.P.’s were “inadvertently inaccurate with a small number of claims” yet only the silliest perpetrators of the most blatantly egregious examples of idiotic corruption and peculation were ever publicly chastised, you can possibly imagine my contempt for the entire rotten, stinking, foetid lot of them.
    If you can’t imagine it, I would suggest that you compare our current crop of leaders with rapacious fungi, subtract all of the virtues, graciousness, wisdom, civilised impulses and probity of the near-plants and assume that something far less tasteful and human is how I tend to view them.
    The leaders, that is, not the gentle growths.
    In case you are still wondering and I have yet to be clear in my meaning, something that is the fault of my own inability to adequately express my viewpoint in this or any language not any lack in your own wit or intellect, I don’t really think “honourable” would ever be applied to any of them without gales of guffawing laughter immediately following.
    And, of course, they all know it of each and every other one of them.
    ‘Nuff said and verbum sap?

    Uhn, is any of that libellous?

  30. loner-too says:

    Pink Squirrel, think of it like this: I don’t need elaborate rules and regulations and massive Departments with investigatory and policing powers to tell me that thieving from my employers by way of fraud or peculation is a BadThingTM. I could and did figure that out all on my own. Not through fear of getting caught in any infraction but because my employer was paying me to do a job not to take his tools home with me. Had he wanted me to take the tools home, and to keep them as my own, he would spell that out in the contract of employment. As it wasn’t so written, the tools, computers, screwdrivers, nails or millions of pounds in funds, were his not mine. This simple concept seems to be too advanced for the little minds of politicians.
    Those that do need such controls on their rapacious, covetous, thieving, peculating natures must, therefore, be lesser men.
    Those that do need and have in place such controls and still manage to thieve and peculate and otherwise behave with less than perfect probity could, with some justification, be described as less than men. They are selfish, brattish, little children in a sweet-shop, unable to control their baser impulses with anything like civilised manners.
    And yet they are voted into positions wherein their vilest impulses are given free reign and supported, condoned and even protected from consequences by their co-workers who are also elected.
    This society is a little strange.

  31. loner-too says:

    Dr. John, all of those women and they only have one? Interesting. Maybe also why the male don’t consider visual beauty worth observing and are happy to view black bin-bags all day. There’s no point in being tempted if there’s no point to temptation.
    “… our greatest weapon is the uteri of our women …”.
    Or should that be
    “uteruses”? “Uterodes”?
    Buggrit, let’s go with “wombs”, yes?

    Addendum: I think “is” would be the correct usage as “uteroses of our women” could, in the context of weaponry be considered as a mass noun.

  32. Dr John de Wipper says:

    I hesitate to air my suspicions, but can it possibly be that you do not hold your (or any) politicians in the highest of esteem?

  33. pink squirrel says:

    a money-grubbing, venal, callous, evil little twit of a politician
    the connotations of the Abrahamic ‘women as property’ mindset are clear

    ‘can it possibly be that loner does not hold their (or any) politicians in the highest of esteem?’
    there are strong hints that Loner does not think politicians are infallible

  34. pink squirrel says:

    words of Arafat: “Our strongest weapon is the uterus of our women”.
    the connotations of the Abrahamic ‘women as property’ mindset are clear

    [why the pc did not copy the text I highlighted is unknown to me]

  35. loner-too says:

    Dr. John and Pink Squirrel, now, whatever have I ever said that may lend to anyone such notions?
    Why, it is inconceivable that anyone could doubt the probity, honesty, veracity or nobility of any of our elected or appointed officials and would not hold them each and every in the uttermost of high regards.

    Did I really just say that?

    Pink Squirrel, “uterides”. Surely they have more than one available?
    Women as property? I would truly have loved to see any priest of any denomination of the many-schismed Abrahamic cult tell my wife that she was my property. I would have paid to see that.
    Come to think on it, I wonder if I could arrange for my sister to receive the news of her status with respects to her husband? That, too, would be a clash of symbols to be recorded for the enjoyment of Posterity – which place is where she would consider his views to be originated.

    How the hell can any true man live in a culture where half of our best and brightest are treated as chattels? Not only is it demeaning to that alleged man, it also would be, I imagine, bloody boring.

  36. loner-too says:

    I just thought of an ethics question.
    Some entertainers in the area around Nice have cancelled shows and recitals and concerts. I think that is wrong. I feel that they should not only have played the jazz and pop and whatever that was planned but they should have, just to piss-off the Fun-die bunch, added some free concerts for the locals and tourists.
    As a sidewise corollary (I have never been able to say that word correctly), were you on holiday in Nice, or nearby, would you curtail your holiday in light of the action of one demented peasant or would you ignore the lack-witted vermin and his little cultish nonsense and play, eat, drink and try to enjoy yourself as though his worthless, pitiful life had never been?

    In short, is cancelling our fun “out of respect for the dead and injured” wrong?
    Should we not be telling those cretinous sub-life that their actions have no effect on our enjoyment of our better, saner cultures?

    Or am I just a callous, selfish bastard who wouldn’t waste his holiday on grieving for strangers?

  37. Dr John de Wipper says:

    Some entertainers in the area around Nice have cancelled shows and recitals and concerts.
    I think the officials of the Tour de France (and the authorities inbolved) did the right thing:
    “We are NOT going to cancel. We WILL adapt (no Commercial Caravane, subdued voice and volume announcer, 1 minute silence at start and at finish ceremony). We will NOT let them have won.” (more or less interpretated from memory, but that was the gist)

  38. oldebabe says:

    Loner-too: you are neither callous nor selfish (so what if you are a bastard?) in my book… I think you are right re: continued celebration, rather than useless PC grief. We all will die – one way or another. Maybe actual acceptance of this fact comes w/maturity or old age…? The fact of the current hideous crime doesn’t change that fact, ISTM.

  39. loner-too says:

    Dear Oldbabe, as mentioned above, only 93% of humans die. The rest of us are, so far, immortal. In my personal case, I aim to extend that condition indefinitely.
    I have a fairly good reason for this aspiration. M31 is said by some astronomers to be approaching our dear, old Milky Way and is projected to merge with her. I am of the unfixed opinion, very much subject correction by evidence to the contrary, that The Great Andromeda Nebula is not part of our precious little Local Group of galaxies but is an interloper with its own small group of attendants and that she will glide harmlessly past us fairly soon.
    “Fairly soon” being about three or five thousand million years from this moment.
    There are many other events that I am waiting to see that are in the “not so fairly soon” eras of the Universe. Some of which are often considered not-survivable. I rather hope to amend that estimation.
    So far, I have succeeded.
    After a fashion.

    As far as your estimation of my character goes, I thank you. You are a nice, young lady. I would give you a hug but my telekinetic, immaterial arms seem to be snafued.
    Legally, in the culture I like to annoy, I am not a bastard. I have documented evidence of this. That, as you will probably know, does not exclude the probability of me being self-made.
    As for being callous and selfish, well, cats like me.

    But I do think that, apart from the obvious grief of the survivors, relatives and wounded and our efforts to help them, we should completely ignore the demented, sick-minded faeces who perpetrate Nicean events. Us having fun, getting polluted, eating bacon sandwiches and shagging anything with a large enough orifice is the best revenge we can have on them.
    Or, to put it in terms the Great Poet (me) would use: fuck them, fuck them all.
    Let them fester in their squalid little cults.
    While we take the stars.

  40. loner-too says:

    Friend, extro24, if you consider that Mr. Nazareth the Messenger (or Anointed) was fallible due to his not returning inside the 60- to 90-year limit of the lives of those then living it also casts doubt on his veracity. It is one more in a long line of provably false statements he is reported to have made and which are used as foundational material for his mummy’s cult and many of its offshoots.
    In short, he was a liar and a fraud.
    Provably so.
    By the venerated texts alleging to report his own words.
    The entire mass of cults and sub-cults is built upon demonstrable lies.
    And if the dead twerp thinks otherwise, he can try suing me for libel.
    No, I didn’t expect that one to happen, either. 🙂

    But if you agree that Mr. Josephson is a lying, fraudulent confidence trickster, huckster and bum because he lied a few times, have a read of the history of that most wonderfully fantastic of organisations, the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
    Their bosses have stopped claiming oracular revelations of specific dates for the End Of The World and The Last Trump (no, not the incoming President, he has younger relatives) due to the bloody, irritating planet never being considerate enough to die when she is told to.
    JW’s are about the stupidest Abrahamic cult ever to pollute this world but in spite of their failures, fallibility, frauds and outright lies they are yet an enormously successful one.
    That is not a good portent.
    It is not a good omen.
    It is not even a good indicator of the psychological and intellectual health of Man.
    If JW’s can exist after many failed specific predictions, the prospect for making a sane world full of rational men does not seem likely.
    In short, we may be fscked.


    ± No, there are no such things as “omens”, but there are “portents”. Bacon sandwiches, beer, intelligent ladies and books are a kind of “portents”, they are importent.

  41. pink squirrel says:

    ‘JW’s are about the stupidest Abrahamic cult ever’
    currently perhaps – but all of them steadfastly compete to outdo each other in stupidity- so there could easily come a time when another variant of Abrahamism is even more creationist-witted than the JW’s

  42. Loner-too:
    “We need that entire religion stopped. Stopped dead. Banned as a terrorist cult. Their fake churches confiscated and closed. Their “schools” (in reality terrorist training camps) shut and bull-dozed and their “holy sites” razed to the bed-rock.”

    Pleasant thought but… So we need a religious war to end all wars? Much as I detest the beliefs of Islam, they are no more disturbing than the beliefs of any other religious organization.

    We have recently watched candidates for president of the United States sharing the stage with a man who yells that homosexuals are deserving of death, holding high a bible and shouting “His words not mine.” as if his invisible god dictated the words in the book.
    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/anti-gay-pastor-event-hosts-3-gop-candidates-563178051820 (you must skip ahead to the 6:30 mark to get to this subject, but it’s worth watching.)

    You can’t single out Mosques as “fake churches” and their schools as terrorist training camps without doing the same for every other religion on the planet. So let’s cool the rhetoric, shall we. If the religious were as few in number as the Thuggee, we might have a chance at a solution by wiping out a religion. Unfortunately we are still in the minority. Most people on this planet hold irrational religious beliefs. We won’t get anywhere by picking out a faction to attack. They are all the same.

    ISIS has stepped up their attacks during Ramadan this year, targeting those holy sites you suggest we raze. That should tell you that they are about as Islamic as you are. They are the death cult, not Islam.

  43. Christian says:

    regarding the 2 verses you have quoted. The only God is good one is true, but since Jesus’s parable of a rich man sending his son to the vineyard, his mentioning of the Father knowing the son, the voice of God saying this is my son and Him saying, if you have seen me you have seen the Father is widely taken to show the trinity. The gospel of thomas also seems to suggest the trinity. Regarding the some who are here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God, Jesus says you will now see the kingdom of God here or there but rather in your midst, thus the kingdom of God is likely to be a metaphor for Christendom/the Church etc. so the apostle who founded the Church and John of Revelation did actually see the Church develop, John is also alleged to have seen both the end of the world and the Kingdom of Heaven thus the word also applies to him. Any more questions I’ll be happy to help, but might forget to check here. Important thing is that individual verses are not enough to understand the whole picture, like a blind man encountering an elephant. Feel free to critique the Bible (even though it may be blasphemy) but at least read the whole thing to understand it before you do so. There are also writings by doctors of the Church and saints which enlighten aspects of the Gospel, and also Marian apparitions but this is generally a Catholic thing.

  44. Christian says:

    @Lonertoo regarding Jesus dying as a fallibility, Jesus’ is alleged to have predicted his own death three times, died like promised, the cross was mentioned before, water and blood from the side upon piercing, the resurrection of the holy people and splitting of the veil, and then resurrection. If someone returns from the dead then their death is not fallibility. They are immortal or have powers. Lastly the God being made Man premise of Christianity implied that during Jesus’ human lifespan he was fallible in the sense of being human-he was more like a prophet, but Christian belief indicates that he is on the right hand of God at present and forever so fallibility is removed.

  45. pink squirrel says:

    ‘Important thing is that individual verses are not enough to understand the whole picture’
    so why then is Lev 18:22 so often quoted in isolation, some people even having tattoos displaying the verse

    2 “but at least read the whole thing to understand it before you do so.”
    is it universally understandable ?- 40,000 plus different Xian denominations strongly suggest otherwise

  46. pink squirrel says:

    re but Christian belief indicates that he is on the right hand of God at present and forever so fallibility is removed.
    A -‘god’ has hands?
    B ‘god’ is supposedly ‘everywhere’ = so how would it be possible to stand to the right if it?
    C why would standing some unspecified distance to the [far?] right of make a mortal man ‘infalliable’
    D ‘during Jesus’ human lifespan he was fallible in the sense of being human-he was more like a prophet’
    was that not the subject of a heresy debate among xians ?

  47. loner-too says:

    My dear friend, Christian, I would like you to give me any evidence at all for the correctness or truth any of the assertions made by anyone regarding the Abrahamic religion without referring to the book in any way.
    Science works by producing independent evidence of the usefulness and “truth” (to certain degrees of acceptance and validity) of any conjecture or notion or prediction or theory. Can you do anything similar with any of your sixty thousand million gods?
    Can you independently validate one single example of anything from your books? No, don’t tell me bats are birds or all that creepeth hath four legs, for those are quite roundly and soundly debunked by any four-year-old who can count past “five”.
    No, telling us it says so in the book is not evidence, it is relying on a poorly translated, botched historically compromised compilation of millennia-old oral histories that are contradicted by documentary and physical evidence of all sorts.
    A compilation compromised by committees of power-hungry old men trying and miserably failing to produce one reasonably consistent version of those oral histories out of the thousands that they had available.
    And, yes, the Quran is nearly as bad.
    Can you produce anything to support your claims that does not come from fraudulent priests and committees of priests and politicians who lie to promote themselves or that poorly written trash?

    It is a bloody insult that you assume that anyone disagreeing with every word of that trashy “book” has never read it. Many of us have read it more than have your priests.
    I have read the thing. And Concordances and Asimov’s Annotated Guide. Also the Bhagavad Gita, the Norse Sagas (those are wonderful), myths and origin stories from the Americas and Asia and loads of other stuff, including several mutually contradictory origin tales of Spiderman, Superman and the Fantastic Four.
    Almost all of them read far better and are more educational, more civilised and more uplifting than the psychotic pornography of the Maryams and the Muslims.

    Darwin Harmless, if you knew me you would know that I do not single out the M’slims. I see them as simply being one tiny sliver of the entire Cult of Abraham. The one monotheistic, exclusivist, hate-mongering, divisive, murderous, genocidal, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, vile, disgusting religion that has a boss fairy who encourages torture and mass murder.
    And I would strongly encourage the demolition of the houses of all of the many sub-cults that have sprouted up under its banner, even those that are mere businesses run by thieves sucking blood from the stupid and the weak of mind – such as your above-mentioned huckster who is as Islamic or Christian or Jewish as am I.
    I truly see no difference between Boko Haram, ISIS and Southern Baptists. Just as I see no difference, in a different arena, between Black Panthers, NSDAP and KKK members.
    I do see a difference between religion and sanity.
    All religion.
    The reason I picked on the M’islams that day was that I had seen Nice. Nice religion.
    Any cult that can authorise, promote, praise, condone, support and rejoice in subhuman acts like that needs to be stopped.
    If this should mean stopping the related cults, that’s a bonus.

    Imagine a USA election where no gods are ever mentioned and everyone discusses the issues calmly, reasonably, logically and in a spirit of being open to persuasion.

    I can imagine it but I doubt it will ever happen.

  48. loner-too says:

    Darwin Harmless, imagine hospitals and houses of learning built like, adorned like, treated like, venerated like and supported as are the cathedrals, mosques, synagogues and bloody huge Buddhist temples.
    Imagine nurses being treated as we treat popes and TV evangelists. Imagine scientists and engineers being held in far higher esteem than the sock, deluded few who as adults still so pathetically and amusingly believe in a Santa or ghosts or fairies or gods.
    Imagine where we could be having this discussion.
    On what world of what far star.
    Imagine every politician fought to support …
    … too much?

    They kill us because we don’t point our arses in the air and our heads in the direction of a brick.
    They kill us because we don’t partake of ritualistic cannibalism.
    They kill us because we don’t speak a dead language.
    In what way is that sane?

  49. loner-too says:

    Sorry, I’ve had a bad day. I encountered my Bank. That always sours my dispositions and rouses the lesser angels of my nature.
    Banks, in their way, tend t be so implacable as religions. The difference being that all banks have the same all-powerful driving supernatural urge, money, while religions tend to have at least three each – money, power and their boss or bosses in the skies.
    I’m not entirely sure which I dislike the more or which is the greater evil.

    Possibly banks. Religions can only torture and kill us, banks can really do damage.

  50. Ah loner-too

    The whole world is festering
    With unhappy souls
    The French hate the German
    The Germans hate the Poles
    Italians hate Yugoslavs
    South Africans hate the Dutch
    And I don’t like anybody very much.
    -from “The Merry Minuet” sung by the Kingston Trio

    Not quite sure why your rant reminded me of this song. Anyway, I’m glad to hear you were only singling out Islam because of Nice, and not because it’s worse than any other irrational belief system. I just can’t see any way to do as you suggest, bring about a world you describe, without wiping out most of the human population. That’s a step too far for me. Must be getting wimpy in my dotage, eh.

  51. Dr John de Wipper says:

    Then again, “singling out Islam”?
    Isn’t islam singling out itself? It does not stop.
    Just take your axe, get on the train, shout “Allahu akbar”, and start slaying passengers. Come the police, attack them as well, and go to your (none existing) virgins.
    Yesterday evening in Würzburg, Germany.

  52. pink squirrel says:

    wiping out most of the human population
    no bad thing in and of itself as the world cannot sustain indefinite population growth eventually something will break – either the planet or human numbers maybe both
    the problem lies with how humanity gets there
    there are only four possibilities
    1 we reduce our population in a careful way
    2 we reduce our population in an uncontrolled /violent way
    3 nature reduces our population environmentally
    4 nature reduces our population biologically
    one of these is inevitable
    only the first possibility has any chance of being pleasant
    Abrahamic religions prefer the others, and are actively following the second

  53. pink squirrel says:

    the fifth option – generation ships- only increases the number of locations having those four possibilities

  54. pink squirrel says:

    Yesterday evening in Würzburg, Germany.
    highlights the difference between iblisam and other religions
    eastern religions tend to say remove the self from the world
    judism tends to say remove your own tribe from the rest of the world
    the xianities tend to say remove the world from yourself
    it is only iblisam that demands you remove everyone else from the world

  55. pink squirrel says:

    in case anyone wonders why I don’t include decent/female friendly religions
    is only because the pagan faiths such as wicca are small and low in number compared to the others – were they operating at a national/global level then I strongly suspect they would be as evilly corrupted by power as the patriarchal ones

  56. Christian says:

    I apologise loner too for assuming you hadn’t read it its just you quoting the kingdom of God verse seemed like someone who hadn’t read it. The thing is I tend to think of religion more as history than science. I.e. Can we prove the death of King Harold happened beyond the bayeaux tapestry, things about Rome etc. Obviously these occurred in the past and there’s no way to prove them now. The same thing with religious scripture. It’s all about miracles and prophets but they are historical so in the same way we have faith that the maids who made the bayeaux tapestry or other historical documents weren’t lying religionists trust the scriptures or people. Obviously this leads to the which one dilemna as mentioned in this cartoon. I for one believe the martyrdom of the apostles suffices to explain they did indeed see the resurrection, miracles of the saints, the spread of the church, miracles of our lady of Fatima, Lourdes and Zeitoun, as well as personal examples of “God” which I witness to prove my faith as correct. However you seem set in your path so I won’t try to convert you.

    Re: pink squirrel I’ve read your comments in the past and you seem to be a well educated person so I won’t assume you haven’t read the bible but right hand in the bible was a symbol of authority, I meant right hand side. The idea is to magnify Jesus Christ as having authority and power and the ability to intercede on our behalfs to G-d. Regarding your point on laws and the gospel. I think the Jewish laws can be taken alone as they are individual things, unless connections or reading between the lines are needed. The Law is you must not eat this, do this etc. So they don’t really cross over. Narratives on the other hand, especially the gospel needs to be read in full as different pieces of information are given in different parts-ie one chapter is about the resurrection, another about heaven, another about the sabbath, and since the whole gospel is about Jesus Christ it’s difficult to understand from just one part. I agree with the bible causing confusion amongst denominations, most notable with Protsestants and Catholics. With regards to the man-God status of Jesus Christ that had led to significant debate ie see Christian vs JW beliefs. But since death and resurrection are arguably the most important parts of Chrstianity (Jesus saying he must die to his apostles more than once and He never told any other future plans whilst he was with his disciples) I don’t see how dying can be called a fallibility. He planned to die, He died. That was an achievement. And amongst Christians was a mercy. He also predicted his apostles’ demises and everyone except John died unnaturally. Many early Christian martyrs died as well. Since dying is so essential to the faith I simply cannot understand why both of you consider this a fallibility. Jesus called himself the Son of Man it is implied he is God’s son made into flesh. I don’t claim to be a know-it-all, but my interpretation is he was made flesh and miracles were due to his Father-his prayers helped, or maybe he had some powers within him whilst being man…so like Spider-Man or something. If you have more questions I hope you can ask God and He will reply in a way to you. Regarding the population thing have you heard of a website called overpopulationisamyth. The fact is 1. Fertility rates and the number of children are dropping in westernised countries. However Asians and Muslims have relatively large number of children so unless Christianity or a family based culture is brought back to Europe it will be outnumbered. 2. Cities are dense because services are not being spread out and new towns or buildings upon green areas are not being built. Also your point about Islam wishing to remove the world seems very generalising. I agree that radical Islam is a problem but it doesn’t seem fair to judge the whole movement by a handful of attacks by fanatics, like not all Christians are Westboro or all Hindus the same as the right wing attackers in India.

    Lastly, I have enjoyed this conversation, I will check the thread again in a few days, but you will both be dismayed to know that I am a scientist so will be quite busy in the coming months.

  57. Dr John de Wipper says:

    I am a scientist
    May I humbly inquire WHAT science?
    Can we prove the death of King Harold happened beyond the bayeaux tapestry
    Well, on the risk you put them on the level of the evangelists, there ARE various CONTEMPORARY texts, but importantly, FROM BOTH SIDES.
    On the Romans: you hardly can grasp HOW MANY scripture there still is, both FROM them and ABOUT THEM from others.

  58. pink squirrel says:

    I agree that radical Islam is a problem but it doesn’t seem fair to judge the whole movement by a handful of attacks by fanatics, like not all Christians are Westboro or all Hindus the same as the right wing attackers in India.
    no indeed not
    however the big problem with islam is that the quran demands that believers ‘kill infidels and apostates’ whenever they are met/found -as PART of the instructions for the ‘holy jihad’
    that most muslims don’t does not change that
    in contrast while xians and jews do often indulge in killing and can interpret and find verses in the bible that permit them to kill- those passages are not central to their faith

  59. pink squirrel says:

    Can we prove the death of King Harold happened beyond the Bayeaux tapestry, things about Rome etc. Obviously these occurred in the past and there’s no way to prove them now
    try this instead of bronze age fantasy novels

  60. pink squirrel says:

    ‘ unless connections or reading between the lines are needed. ‘
    and how do you determine when that is necessary?

  61. IanB says:

    Can we prove the death of King Harold happened beyond the Bayeaux tapestry, things about Rome etc. Obviously these occurred in the past and there’s no way to prove them now

    Really no way. There’s numerous accounts from both sides. The life of Harold Godwinson as an earl then King are a matter of record, funnily enough royalty tends to keep an eye on each other, they’re a bunch of murdering intermarrying bastards.

    As for Rome it was a massive bureaucracy and amongst the doings of the great there’s a great deal of triva on day to day life of ordinary folks uncovered, the Vindolanda writings are a great example of this with their birthday party list although only a fraction of that uncovered elsewhere from the empire. Despite all that they didn’t notice the saviour of all mankind wandering around miracle working in their empire, funny that.

  62. pink squirrel says:

    Fertility rates and the number of children are dropping in westernised countries. However Asians and Muslims have relatively large number of children so unless Christianity or a family based culture is brought back to Europe it will be outnumbered.
    1- that is incorporated in the first possibility I outlined
    re- However Asians and Muslims have relatively large number of children so unless Christianity or a family based culture is brought back to Europe it will be outnumbered.
    your ‘they are outbreeding us’ mindset starts to be exposed -this is potentially true – however it has been shown that fertility rates among Asian women are also falling
    it has nothing to do with religion but rather occurs where women have access to better healthcare [ a result of scientific medical progress by the way – something which many Abrahmics directly oppose]
    it also seems to assume that all those born muslim remain muslim for life

  63. Dr John de Wipper says:

    There is a current Dutch government “commercial”:
    “It does not stop, not by itself” about violence being unacceptable.

    But ideed it DOES NOT STOP!!

    Today, a holiday park, southern France (near Gap).
    A French-Moraccan considered the (holiday park!) clothing of his neighbours too reveiling. So he stabbed a mother and her 3 daughters. Mother’s life in danger, wound of daughters yet not known. (Name of perpetraitor Mohamed B.; which reminds Dutch people of Theo van Gogh’s murderer).

    For sure, it does not stop, not by itself.

  64. Christian says:

    i was speaking more of things which are less well known-Rome and bayeaux was just an example more about things which might be more biased, wars, assassinations, biopics of kings. Biblical archaeology also exists. Yes the Romans didn’t mention him, but 1) there have been alleged accounts from a couple of historians like Josephus – but accusations of forgery, I guess we’ll never know. 2. Rome was a proud empire who thought of themselves above the other nations most likely. I doubt they paid much attention to the Jews and the various religious movements going on. The history I’m more interested is in the apostles and early Christians and how and why they spread amongst persecution. Allegedly the verse in the Quran is in context-killing them where you find them refers to the persecuters during a battle and time when they were bein massacred. Of course it’s very unfortunate that such a verse has inspired so much violence but for instance the Bhagavad Gita, Buddhism even verses of the bible have been quoted for death. Buddhist warrior monks and the permission to use violence to spread Buddhism is in fact a very interesting topic. I don’t think we can stop radical Islam without debating them like we do here. Point out the context and argue against the fanaticism by pointing out those verses don’t apply to this time or situation. With regards to reading between the lines I meant that mainly for Jesus in the gospel. The Old Testament is plainer, the New has lots of parables etc. Meaning it’s difficult to quote lines to assert stuff. I.e. Muslim scholars often point out there’s no place in the bible where Jesus says He’s God yet it is inferred from various passages through the gospel that’s just what I meant.

  65. loner-too says:

    “The history I am more interested in is the apostles ….
    I asked for confirmation of the trashy pornographic, poorly-transcribed, ill-fitting bunch of lies, frauds and fairy-tale origin stories without referencing the book itself.
    We have records from the monasteries of bills for the threads used in the Bayeux tapestry, and many other things. We have menus of meals Great Houses laid on for King Henry. We have documentation of Nero and Claudius and their city and Empire from merchants, plumbers, coin collectors, playrights and circus managers. We even have court cases detailing the charges, tortures (or “interrogations”) and ultimate punishment of petty criminals from a couple of millennia ago.
    Yet there is not a single source, outside of your pathetic book that confirms the existence of what you consider to be the most important trial in history.
    There is evidence, tons of it, for a baby-rapist and paedophile in Arabia who had ghost-writers produce a much-talked about even more venomous and violent second edition of your bible but, again, there is no evidence, outside of the book itself, for the truth of any of the lies within it.
    For two thousand years reputable historians and scholars have tried to find evidence of your Jewish zombie. None have. Ever.
    Not one.
    Marvel Comics’ Spiderman has more supporting evidence. At least we have film and stil images of him. Hell, we have far moe evidence for Thor and his mummy than we do for your dead jew.
    Produce one single non-biblical piece of evidence. And, no, Bible 2.0, the Islam corruption, does not count.

    Secondly: if your book is ineffable, inerrant and all-truthful, why isn’t the Book of Moroni? This massively contradicts yours. What EVIDENCE can you provide to show which of the two is the lesser fraud?

    Thirdly: what of Jim Jones and Sun Myung Moon? Aren’t their prophecies and dogma also the One True Word Of The Local Godling? Again, supply evidence, not taken from your book, that their books and pamphlets are any less valid tan is yours.

    Fourthly: what of Saloth Sar? Isn’t his godhood valid? Wasn’t he the returned Anointed One, the One True Messenger. Mr. Sar certainly thought he was and he convinced quite a number of others of this one true truth. What evidence do you have that he was not the return of your hero, the dead guy from Judea? No, Sar being a little potty doesn’t count. The message changed from Old to New Testaments. The message changed again from Bible One to Bible Two (the one, true, Authorised Islamic Version), so what EVIDENCE do you have that your daddy in the sky didn’t change its message yet again?

    Why aren’t you worshipping the latest of the prophets? If one was true, why not the next? And if Mo’ was true, why not Jones?
    Or even me?

    If simply writing rants is enough to qualify one for deification and one’s words as the UltimateTruth[TM] why don’t you follow me? In spite of what my secondary Bank may think, there is ample documentary evidence, outside of my writings, that I exist and that what I have written have validity, value and truth (to certain degree of “truthfulness” and utility). So why should it be that I am not the returned Messiah bringing you the message of the ending of all religions?

    Outside of your book, and the liars that created it out of a million legends and almost-remembered semi-histories, what evidence supports your dead Nazarene that does not also support me? Or Mr. Jugashvili, or even C.o.G.’s David Berg?

    With work, I can produce laws from Sumeria on the original tablets. What can you produce that is not in your book?

    <a href=http://www.jesusandmo.net/2016/07/13/which/#comment-196786>Pink Squirrel: the entire Quran is full of entreaties to kill the infidel. It is not a pamphlet of peace and love. It is a call to cheat, steal from, maim, rape, torture and murder the heathen and the apostate and anyone who questions. The entire cult of Islam is based totally on the absolute correctness of every single word, phrase, order, law, concept and command inside that collection of inconsistent works. The entire cult is centred around an absolute, unquestioning obedience to their godling. It is what the word means.
    Islam can never live with not-islam. Islam can never live with any Islam but the one true Islam, as defined by the guys with the most bombs, guns and suicide bombers.
    Islam is fundamentally opposed to everyone else. Not the fundamentalists, not the rabid clerics, not the jihadis or m’jihadin or suicide axe-men or terrorist truckers but every single Muslim who has lived since the Seventh Century and every Muslim who ever will live.
    Without exception.
    There may be, and so evidently are “moderately behaved” Muslims who do not set fire to their disobedient neighbours every day but that is only because the Law would arrest them. There is no such thing as a “moderate Muslim”. It is a contradiction in terms, it is against their dogma, it is apostasy of the rankest order, it is a stoning offence in their law. The message is loud, proud and clear, we die.
    There is no other choice for them.
    There can be no other choice. Their every thought and law is to kill us. All of us, even other strands of their own cult.
    This is the truth of their “faith” that the Quislings, Arnolds and BBC will never mention.
    They want the whole world to push our arses into the air, bang our heads against the carpet and point at an insipid brick forever …
    … or die.
    It is the very core of their relationship with their godling.
    It is in the book.
    And, just like Christian, above, they must obey their daddy.
    There is no such thing as “radical Islam”, there is only Islam and a few braver soldiers willing to die for it. All of the others, every last one of them, should be willing to kill for the cult. Their book commands it.

    This will probably be moderated out as hate-speech, which it most certainly is not. It is “fucking terrified speech”.
    I am islamophobic. But it is not irrational. I don’t want them to torture me to death just for laughing at their idiotic, delusional fantasies.
    But they eventually will.
    When they have killed and silenced all of the many, many millions of greater enemies they will hack the systems and find their way down to me.
    If Christian’s mobs don’t get me first.

  66. IanB says:

    Dr John de Wipper says

    A French-Moraccan considered the (holiday park!) clothing of his neighbours too reveiling. So he stabbed a mother and her 3 daughters.

    BBC SaysUnconfirmed reports suggested he had objected to the light clothing worn by his victims but Mr Balland said “it’s all rumour, the man’s not said anything

    While I abhor regions violence let’s avoid leaping to conclusions.

  67. IanB says:

    Christian says:

    i was speaking more of things which are less well known-Rome and bayeaux was just an example

    Hmm is that the sound of goalposts being moved?

    I doubt they paid much attention to the Jews and the various religious movements going on

    Yet there is record of children’s birthday parties in what is now England and the life and times of for example Herod Agrippa are well recorded. The day to day minutia of the empire is recorded, but no sign of Jesus appears apart from the disputed Josephus outside of the fables of the bible and works based on it.

  68. pink squirrel says:

    Hmm is that the sound of goalposts being moved?
    probably not – the problem with debating with xians is that while they use the same words they don’t ascribe the same meaning to them
    so not so much moving goalposts as of playing a different game on a different field with a different set of rules

  69. loner-too says:

    Christian, you profess to believe what is in your book, yes? You believe your god created the universe, true? You believe the same god made humans and all of the other bugs, including dogs, cats, rabbits, walruses and slugs?
    So your god designed humans, too? Designed their arms, legs, feet, fingers, teeth and taste-buds?
    So your god is responsible, solely responsible for the fact that humans like sugar? Your god designed humans to like grapes? Your god designed humans to enjoy eating strawberries?
    Your god designed humans to enjoy being warm, to dislike (mainly) being cold, wet and miserable and to like sunsets and long walks on the beach?
    Your god designed humans with a built-in dislike for their own faeces and vomit, yes? He forgot to build that into dogs as every dog-owner knows but maybe he had reasons for that. Maybe he thought the dogs could clean up their own messes?
    But, specifically, humans were built by your god with an intense revulsion towards their own vomit and faex, yes?
    Patience, brother, I am getting to the point.
    Your god designed humans to like fucking, yes? He built into male humans a liking for boffing female humans (and, if none of those are in sight, anything with a round orifice nearly large enough, from a gaffer-taped hamster to a hot exhaust pipe). Most male humans like a good boffing with a female human. It’s supposed to be the one good thing to come out of marriage, yes?
    All of that said, why didn’t your god instil into its toys a thorough dislike of rape? Why didn’t your god make rape “taste” the same as shite or worse? Why didn’t your god make rape, especially rape of a child or of someone weaker and more vulnerable than the rapist, odious, horrible and impossible?
    And why didn’t your god program humans so they could not murder? Or maim? Or torture? Or steal? Or be venal, corrupt, peculating politicians and priests?
    It could program humans to like sliding down an icy slope on a sled so why not to avoid killing each other?
    No, it has nothing to do with “free will”. Humans have the free will to eat dog-shite but very, very few of them will because they are programmed with a built-in revulsion. That doesn’t seem to interfere with “free will” so why would an infallible prohibitive instinct to protect not rape?
    Could it be that your god gets off on violence? That The Plan is just a wank-fest?

    On a small, trivial, tangentially related note and one that has been mentioned a few times but that no Christian has adequately answered:
    Why didn’t your god build a fence around that tree?
    It knew that eating of the fruit was going to cause intense, week-long agonies to thousands of millions of women over many millennia (six, according to your stories, but more in reality) so why not just take the obvious step to avoid all of that suffering?
    A ten-mile-high electrified fence, with a moat and a mile-high wall of glassy crystal whose top could be studded with wasp hives.
    Or why not simply move the fucking tree? Put it on Mars. Put it on Sol. Put it on the surface of the Crab Pulsar. It’s a deity, it could have put the thing anywhere and kept it thriving. And, to answer the obvious next objection, it’s a deity, it could have timed the Crab Pulsar to its own needs.
    Why have the tree, anyway? Surely a god has wisdom enough? Yours wrongly seemed to think it did, though how wise is a godling that can’t build a fence?
    Why not temper the curiosity of the female humanoid? She had a certain level of curiosity and a certain level of resistance to being submissive and obedient, a certain level of wilfulness and independence but not complete rebelliousness, so why could your godling not have tuned it down a bit?
    Did it want to see hundreds of millions of women writhing in pain? Was it longing for their deaths through haemorrhage and fevers? Was “the original sin” planned and if so how the fuck can women be blamed for it?
    Can you see that your god is an idiot, a sadist, a psychotic bumbler and a demented horror? That “original sin” is an insane construct. That treating woman poorly because of it is stupendously inhuman?
    That your entire cult is based on nonsense?

    Yes, the tree thing has been pulled apart a few times but I could have done the same thing with the instructions for building a temple, the laws of slavery, the begats, the ever-decreasing lifespans of the ancestors and children of Noah, the laws from your god about how to wash your bum, why you should never eat bugs and several million other things.

    The book you see as “sacred” and “holy” was complied by committees of old priests and politicians in the fourth century and several times since. It is a mish-mash of fables and social commentaries. It has been poorly translated several times.[Just what is bdellium and where are all of those places and rivers?] It is nothing like the scrolls it came from or the oral histories those were abstracted from.
    You bible is the ret-conned version of the ret-conned version of the origin story of the Fantastic Four as adapted for a movie that demanded the inclusion of a Black hero for political compromise and marketing.

    The K’ran is no better. Little better. That one is at least more consistent. Mostly. Well, it hasn’t been messed up by translations. Yet.

    You are basing your life on comic books. Things worse than comic books. Isn’t it past time you rejected that fluffery, grew up and became an adult, thinking, independent being?
    Preferably one not prone to killing me and mine over a poor joke of a text?

    Your priests have lied to you for twelve millennia. Would you not like them to stop?

  70. loner-too says:

    I think I’ve wasted enough of my life on the attempt to amuse and educate. It’s too nice a night and I have better things to do.

    Everybody cheer.

  71. pink squirrel says:

    loner to-if the myth is taken as given then ‘god’ also created Satan [pbuh]

    also there is the problem of where did the ‘first couple ‘ learn to sew garments
    they made garments of leaves without learning how from ‘god’
    and after they did that ‘god made new garments from skins – why?
    why were the leaf clothes not sufficient ?
    and which animal supplied the skins?

  72. Dr John de Wipper says:

    The “first couple” would be Adam & Lilith.
    Only after Adam rejected his (much too “feministic”) 1st wife, he was bereft of his rib to mold it into a more – ehm… “followsome” Eve.

    But that was editted out of the Jewish story for conveniens of xtians.

  73. loner-too says:

    Pink Squirrel, their deity didn’t create the Lucifer/Satan thing, it made a herd of robots and was such a poor programmer that some of them went nuts and acted as though it was an independent entity with free will.
    According to the logic of the Christian fairy story, this was all part of their god’s Plan. It was Ordained, Foretold, Written.
    So the imperfect programming wasn’t an error, it was deliberate.
    Their god deliberately made Gharlane of Eddore and the rest of Boskone to torment us all.
    It’s just as incomprehensibly an evil act as Aslan’s creation of that evil witch in his pocket universe to torment his puppets and toys.
    Their god created a faulty robot so it could have an excuse for a “war”.
    It also created other robots that were susceptible to being re-programmed by the “evil” Lucifer, who was and still is just obeying orders so The Light-Bringer would have an “army” to fight the “war” that their loving, merciful god had Written into and Ordained in The Plan.
    The Christian god is just Aslan with deeper psychoses and greater sadism.
    It is playing a game of draughts, chess or Go with real people who bleed and suffer for its own amusement.
    And this is the sickening psychopathic nut-job they revere?

    See, Christian, I told you we could rip apart any of your book.

  74. Christian says:

    1) I don’t think you can program people not to do stuff if you give them free will. Ie it’s good for us to eat fruit and reproduction is a necessity. Stealing, murdering and raping are human things in an attempt to seek that pleasure-the reason we don’t eat feces is because it is unpleasant. Whereas other crimes are due to us finding them pleasant-how are you supposed to program someone not to do something illegal which they find pleasant-when they’re based on perfectly natural desires.
    2. The Lilith thing appears to be a mistake. With 2 Genesis chapters with 2 different Genesis stories early people tried to resolve them by inventing Lilith. However, the first chapter says God made man and woman on the sixth day. The second goes into detail on how Adam and Eve were made. Thus it appears the second is an in depth look of the first not a continuation as some people believed. Ie if a batman origins story occurs after a batman film does this mean this is a new batman? Of course not it is all occurring in the same universe.

    Regarding Satan, free will was given to humans as well as Angels and thus they were able to rebel. In regards to why G-d did not forsee this or allowed it to happen. The bible seems to suggest that evil is allowed to see who is influenced by it and thus removed from the Kingdom of Heaven. Satan is portrayed as a tempter. God is portrayed as good due to mercy shown to those who do not deserve it ie David was not killed for committing adultery. And then again there is the question of God’s plan and the fact that no one knows what it is and are thus unable to question the motives of God. Obviously I don’t expect both of you to accept these points. But at least if there is a God it should be seen that human beings should serve and obey so as to enter heaven and not to enter hell, whether they like religion or not. Look at the reports of St Gemma Galgani, Padre Pio etc which deal with heaven and hell.

  75. pink squirrel says:

    the question of ‘god’s’ plan and the fact that no one knows what it is and are thus unable to question the motives of ‘god’.
    A-assuming ‘god’ exists it does not follow that it even has a plan
    B- BS – it is perfectly reasonable to question motives based upon current and past action – regardless of whether the plan is known or not

    if there is a God it should be seen that human beings should serve and obey so as to enter heaven and not to enter hell

    even assuming the existence of ‘god’ none of the other items have to necessarily follow
    why should humans serve and obey just because ‘god’ exists or even if it demands we do
    the existence of ‘god’ does not prove the existence of ‘heaven and /or hell
    also even if someone were stupid enough the serve and obey it does not necessarily follow that such will result in a pre fixed ‘afterlife’ destination

    ” But at least if there is a God it should be seen that human beings should serve and obey so as to enter heaven and not to enter hell.”

  76. Walter says:

    @loner-too RE: Abrahamic Cults

    Tell us how you really feel!


NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.