29.4.07

A Sermon I would like to see.

Why do they read the same passages all the time?


I think they should read I Chronicles 21 next week. God smites 70,000 innocent humans all because David decides to take a census...

14 ¶ So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men.


Oh, and don't even try to argue that the laws of the old testament aren't valid anymore:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

27.4.07

Irony is good for more than a laugh

I almost could not contain my laughter during Christian Tradition today. We were peer-editing our papers when out of the blue Dr. Harkins starts reading, the paper he was "peer"-editing, aloud. The sentence pertained to a certain belief of Mormons. According to the paper, some Mormons believe that Jesus is a 'wife' of Yahweh. I believe this idea comes from Jeremiah where he refers to Judea as the wife of Yahweh.

This, like most beliefs of religion, are absurd. The idea that Jesus of Nazareth, the "savior" of mankind, was the wife of his father? Or that Jesus is the wife of himself, the god of Abraham? Just plain bollocks in my opinion. I think the majority of all religious beliefs are bunk, and this is no different than any other Christian belief; this is very appropriate considering I am an atheist.

However, what brought me almost to tears was how the students in the class reacted. Some students, who I shall leave nameless, began to scoff at the very idea and even laughed. Now this absurdity and lack of rational thought is clear to both them and me, but what was ironical was their own hypocrisy.

To them, it is clearly erroneous to believe that Jesus was both a wife and a man; how could he be both? Yet, it is okay for Jesus of Nazareth to be both human and superhuman*. Jesus as a wife of God- completely ridiculous. Jesus bootstrapping himself out of his grave after three days of being dead- completely sane. Jesus as a wife and man- heretical. Three equaling one- legitimate. Where is the distinction? These ideas all come from the Bible, so they are all equally valid**. How can they sit there and laugh at an idea that came from their own "Holy Text" yet go home and talk to their imaginary friend, god, like he really cares that you had a good day in class.



* Dictionary.com's definition of human is: 1.of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people. I would think that most people cannot 1. walk on water 2. turn water into wine 3. raise people from the dead, therefore, by definition, he does not have the nature of characteristic of people. And since people are not 'divine' Jesus cannot be human because he is divine.

** The Bible is either a) the literal word of god b) the inspired word of god c) a fictional story. Which ever way you choose, they place the Mormon belief and modern christian though on the same page, literally. If one argues that the Mormon's view comes from the Old Testament rather than the new, why is this belief ridiculous and creationism is considered valid?

20.4.07

Why I am outspoken.

A while ago my roommate asked me why Atheism and the problem with Christianity was such a concern for me. Why can't I just let it be? Well that's pretty easy. Here is just a sample:


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
- George Bush, Sr.

Hmm what a coincidence

I was reading through some articles of research done by MENSA, what interested me most (obviously) was an article done meta-analyzing Religion and IQ done by Paul Bell in 2002.

The article's results were exactly as what I figured them to be:

Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one's intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one's intelligence of education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind.


This is not implying those without 'belief' are intelligent, but that maybe religion really is 'the opiate of the masses'.

19.4.07

The Religious Right is Never That

When unexplained violence takes center stage, we tend to turn to modern psychology to explain it.

But there is an alternative explanation, one that has been played out in film, stage and writings since the beginning of history.

Was Cho Seung-Hui schizophrenic … psychotic … manic-depressive? Or were the shooting deaths of 32 people, including Cho himself, at Virginia Tech University part of the ongoing struggle between God and Satan … good against evil … lightness and darkness?

Could Cho have been possessed by the Devil? Could that explain the massacre at Virginia Tech?

Dr. Richard Roberts, president of Oral Roberts University, shouts an unequivocal “Yes!”

“Based on what I’ve seen in the news," Roberts said in an interview, "there’s no doubt that this act was Satanic in origin."

Roberts added that he doesn’t know if it was Satanic “possession” or “oppression.” Possession, he said, occurs when Satan takes over a person’s life, and the person’s actions are dictated by demonic possession within. Roberts says he’s seen this type and has seen the Devil cast out of a person.

Satanic “oppression," on the other hand, is "that which comes against." "It’s not in a person, but is coming against them, trying to put evil thoughts in their minds,” Roberts said.

He said that the evil thoughts in Satanic oppression can be fairly innocuous, or they can be harmful. And the oppression can be in the form of fear, depression or discouragement, he said, because “Satan comes to kill, steal and destroy.”

Roberts says we’ll never know whether Cho was "possessed" or "oppressed," because the killer has died. But he did leave a note blasting everyone around him, calling them “rich kids,” and “deceitful charlatans,” and then blaming them, saying “you made me do this.”

Roberts describes Cho's writings as “just words,” and says words are one of Satan’s tools to bring about Man’s destruction.

In Judaism, however, there is no belief in a supernatural evil and no belief that demon possession is at the heart of what happened in Blacksburg on Monday.

Rabbi Peter Rubenstein from New York’s Central Synagogue, says, “… Every human has two inclinations, one to do evil and one to do good…. Our hope is the individual tries to access the inclination to do good. There is a balance." But, he said, evil is done "when we enter that other side.”

Rubenstein is convinced that Cho, who reportedly was taking anti-depressants, may have been sick.

"Every human being has the ability to control that kind of rage," Rubenstein said. "This is a person that lost contact with anything decent in their lives, including their own inclination to do good.”

It’s not only theologians who talk of evil. A new book by psychologist Philip Zimbardo, “The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil,” offers a perspective that may shed light on Cho’s inner demons.

"The Lucifer Effect" is based on the Stanford Prison Experiment of 33 years ago. It exposed how the prison environment creates evil and violent behavior, like at Abu Ghraib. It also explained the group or systemic evil that occurred under Hitler, communist regimes and during the genocide in Rwanda.

Zimbardo says there are prisons that are not confined to a place or building — emotional prisons of “normal” individuals that can create aberrant and evil behavior. Whether that prison is shyness, loneliness, anger or hate, it can grow and manipulate an individual into believing his only course of action is to break out, using any means possible, including violence.

In the case of Cho, he said, the “rich kids,” the “deceitful charlatans" and the women who rejected him may have been people he saw as his “jailers,” the wardens responsible for his emotional incarceration. Cho vilified them, found them guilty of great offenses and then methodically executed his warped sense of justice: the murders of 32 people.

Atheists don’t believe in the Devil or demonic possession, but there is some respect for the theological idea of evil. Michael Shermer, editor of the Skeptics Magazine, acknowledges Christianity’s take on Satan has a great deal of weight to it. “Religion figured out long before science the pervasiveness of man’s 'vil'side, that’s why they created so many rules," he said.

Shermer, of course, doesn’t believe in anything like demon possession. And surprisingly, he has an unlikely man who almost agrees with him: Rev. Robert H. Schuller, founding pastor of the Crystal Cathedral, who says he’s “not prepared to give the Devil credit for insanity.”

In addition to his theological accolades, Schuller has a background in psychology. He says of Cho: “I think it’s pure psychotic crack-up.

“I’m not denying that Satan himself could have been in this act. I’m just saying if he was, I’m not giving him credit for it.”

But the scenario of demonic possession fits neatly in the Christian paradigm. It says the whole of human existence is predicated on the narrative of man’s fall from Grace in the Garden of Eden, after Satan’s temptation of Adam and Eve, and that wherever there is good, there is Satan trying to destroy it.

The battle of good vs. evil in all of us is not a simple choice between two forks in a road, but a cosmic war being waged over our souls.

Says Dr. Richard Lints of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary: “The lesson, I think, is that when we don’t take our own evil seriously, we are much more liable to perpetrate acts of evil.”

Lauren Green is FOX News Channel's Religion Correspondent.



Fox News shouldn't even be called that anymore. This article is absolutely ridiculous.

How does this make Christianity and Fox News look? They are hinting that maybe Cho was not insane, that it was the Devil making him do things. Maybe, it was not even his fault... Wow... thanks Fox News.

18.4.07

Celestial Teapot

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove the received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving around the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor of an earlier time.


-Bertrand Russell's Parable of the Celestial Teapot from: Is there a God? (1952)



I really want to do my Christ College Honors Thesis on the idea that the belief in (a) God(s)
and religion is an evolutionary novelty.

10.4.07

Treaty of Tripoli

Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United  States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary



Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.


Annals of Congress, 5th Congress

Article 1. There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers.

Art. 2. If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war, shall be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party, they shall pass free, and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them.

Art. 3. If any citizens , subjects, or effects, belonging to either party, shall be found on board a prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at liberty, and the effects restored to the owners.

Art. 4. Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties, by which they are to be known. And considering the distance between the two countries, eighteen months from the date of this treaty, shall be allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers, belonging to such vessels, shall be sufficient for their protection.

Art. 5. A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel, condemned by the other party, or by any other nation, the certificates of condemnation and bill of sale shall be a sufficient passport for such vessel for one year; this being a reasonable time for her to procure a proper passport.

Art. 6. Vessels of either party, putting into the ports of the other, and having need of provisions or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the market price. And if any such vessel shall so put in, from a disaster at sea, and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and re-embark her cargo without paying any duties. But in case shall she be compelled to the land her cargo.

Art. 7. Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other, all proper assistance shall be given to her and her people; no pillage shall be allowed; the property shall remain at the disposition of the owners; and the crew protected and succored till they can be sent to their country.

Art. 8. If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy, within gun-shot of the forts of the other , she shall be defended as much as possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized on or attacked, when it is in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to sea, no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port, within twenty-four hours after her departure.

Art. 9. The commerce between the United States and Tripoli; the protection to be given to merchants, masters of vessels, and seamen; the reciprocal right of the establishing Consuls in each country; and the privileges, immunities, and jurisdiction, to be on the same footing with those of the most favored nations respectively.

Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Art. 12. In case of any dispute, arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty, no appeal shall be made to arms; nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Consul, residing at the place where the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable referrence shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers; the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he, by virtue of his signature to this treaty, engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case, according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observance of the same.

Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211— corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796, by

    JUSSOF BASHAW MAHOMET, Bey.
    MAMET, Treasurer.
    AMET, Minister of Marine.
    SOLIMAN KAYA.
    GALIL, General of the Troops.
    MAHOMET, Commander of the City.
    AMET, Chamberlain.
    ALLY, Chief of the Divan.
    MAMET, Secretary.

Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211—corresponding with the 3d day of
January, 1797, by

    HASSAN BASHAW, Dey,
And by the agent Plenipotentiary of the United States of America,

JOEL BARLOW.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Where is this "Our founders were Christian?" stuff from?