 
Against God: How the God of Abraham is Against Morality, Against Reality, and Against Reason

by Gregory Coffin

Other titles include:

Sterling Honor

The Gospel of Reason

A Social Carol

The Justified Trilogy  
Philosophical Works 2010-2014

Philosophical Works 2015

The following is a collection of works that show there is a Good beyond God. In particular, the God of Abraham (using the bible and koran) is focused upon showing how He is the epitome of being unjust, leading His followers to act similarly. Fortunately, we can see He is unreal, though His followers must be taken into consideration; there is a difference between the modern-religious believer who ignores or is ignorant of the intolerance of His God's history, and the follower who not only knows of God's intolerance, but revels in and enforces it. The works are in chronological order, but have included a Table of Contents with categories and links to make it easier to find specific topics of interest.

The links provided with bring you to different websites where updates on my work can be seen.

Main: www.GDX1776.com

Blog: <http://gdx1776.blogspot.com/>  
Facebook: <http://www.facebook.com/GregoryCoffinauthor>  
Twitter: @GDX1776

### Table of contents

Metaphysics (a Sonnet in The Gospel of Reason)

A poem from my book _The Gospel of Reason_ that reviews the origins of existence.

'If you don't believe God exists, how could you be mad at Him?'

A dismissive question made by many believers implies that atheists and agnostics must have some degree of belief in order to be 'mad at God.' This is the response to their false assumption.

Belief in God is the Ultimate Moral Relativism [A Brief Review]

An oft-heard criticism of being without faith, is that one has no moral center – that society would crumble and humankind would devolve into mindless, murdering and rapacious heathens without God's moral guidance. This shows how following the God of Abraham leads to an ultimate 'might makes right' standard.

Why Proving/Disproving God is Impossible

Claims that 'you cannot prove God doesn't exist,' and that supposedly are to offer scientific proof that God does exist, in addition to the claims that make the opposite assertions that there is scientific proof God does not exist, are addressed.

Proof of the New Highest God

This work reviews how faiths emerge, based upon evidence that would not be taken seriously elsewhere.

Fundamentalists are not crazy; they are far worse

Those religious extremists who are most faithful to their texts are dismissed as radicals and crazy. However, the etymology of radical is the same as radish, from _radicalis_ (having roots), meaning they are most faithful [dogmatic] to the base of a faith. It is in this most faithful following of a religious system that problems and conflicts come, for where these beliefs are held, the violent actions that follow are rational consequences.

Scientific Proof Of God - A Brief Review

This is another work that reviews the impossibility of proving God using science, and that ultimately, an omnipotent God would not be limited by Nature, though any attempt to prove God's existence falls within Nature's limits.

How Do We Know What We Know

Epistemology is the focus of this work, and how we should be skeptical about the claims of faith, and how those claims originated.

What is important is not what your Holy Book actually says, as what it says to you in how to act

Defenders of faith and religion defend their Holy books with references to passages/verses that speak of compassion, love, and beauty contained within their pages. The Holy books do contain such passages; however, that is not the extent of what they say as the Holy books also have violence, intolerance, and justification for various acts of cruelty. Which gets stated reflects the person talking, not the books for they say both.

The Bible didn't change; you're breaking Biblical Law

To those who claim that a return to biblical law is in order to restore humanity to a good and proper course, this exposes what exactly a return to such laws would entail, and the necessary conflicts between church and State that would emerge from it.

In God We Trust... better think again; the Bible says He is not Totally Trustworthy

We are to have faith in God, but looking at the bible shows contradictory passages where God is not honest, or causes people to believe in delusions.

Justice and Free Will – Two Things We Do Not Have With God

We are supposedly responsible for our actions, and God will treat us accordingly for acting as we did. However, if God is to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, and has a plan, then we really do not have free will and cannot have any hope for justice.

The True Mass Killers

Adherents of a given religion will refer to their own as a 'religion of peace'. However, by the nature of faith, its collectivistic/tribalistic nature, blending practical (resource concerns) with moral (my faith is correct), leads to the surest base to ensure conflict among peoples: division for bodily needs and spiritual wants, through classism.

God Does Not Love The Children

Those who claim to be 'pro-life' (actually just anti-abortion) proclaim that 'God loves the Children.' There are no mistakes, each life is precious, and especially children need to be protected. The bible does not reflect such a child-friendly God, for He not only lets children die, but orders their murders, and even (against the religious anti-abortion position) induces abortions.

What was Jesus [Christ]? – humanitarian or hypocrite?

WWJD is a saying used to present Jesus Christ as the model of perfect behavior, in order that humankind is to emulate. Looking at his behavior, though, we can see he as a model is less than perfect.

If I Wanted to be Seen as God (Sacred or Secular)

In 1964, Paul Harvey read his 'If I Were the Devil' radio segment, which decried the perceived moral collapse of American society. Though some of his comments were prescient, the rest were not. A retort for today's society.

Metaphysics (a Sonnet in The Gospel of Reason)

[Thursday, January 3, 2013]

Exactly why, does he, mankind, exist?

From where did life, and order, formulate?

And, how – without a cause, nothing to list;

Did all the Universe come from that state?

Is Nature fated? – did it have to be?

No plans, no script, just forces manifest;

Not cruel, nor mean, with no affinity.

Objective rules are learned from interest.

The other choice: a primal Creator;

The being living in vacuity.

But how did He, with nothingness before;

Beget the stars, all else? – His nascency?

The answer, Nature versus God, sublime;

There is no doubt that one has been all time.

'If you don't believe God exists, how could you be mad at Him?'

[Tuesday, May 6, 2014]

'If you don't believe God exists, how could you be mad at Him?' (snicker)

Many theists of various sorts enjoy deriding atheism by asking 'if you don't believe in God, how can you be mad at Him?' or 'are you also mad at Bigfoot?' Though there may be a few who are actually angry at a specific god, the retort to atheism with such dismissive questions overlooks a crucial point for the issue at hand is greater than any level of animosity at a specific entity/deity.

Most atheists are as equally mad at God as they are at Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster and the like - meaning atheists are not angry at God for there is no actual object for scorn. Similarly, most atheists are not angry with anyone's belief in their chosen god. The issue of anger comes forward not from anyone's belief in God, but from the basis of that belief in God going beyond personal belief and into aspects that affect public life meaning politics and government.

Some examples are needed to show the concern; this is not a left/right wing issue, for both sides have the commingling of religion and State.

"Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant - they're quite clear - that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments" \- former governor Sarah Palin

Similarly...

"There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles." \- former senator Hillary Clinton

Following Palin's desire here would include violating the first Amendment for the obvious fact of endorsing a religious system; this is a glaringly obvious conflict with individual liberty when all but two of the 10 Commandments have nothing to do with protecting individual rights, but are proscriptions upon human behavior based upon the Biblical God's wants.

Faith-based initiatives, a repeated calling from ex-president George W. Bush, are also against the first Amendment. It's deemed okay when the faith presented matches one's own, but when the faith doesn't match there are problems. An example of 'my faith' is good, but yours is not can be seen in Oklahoma where to match a 10 Commandments monument, Satanists have a design for a statue to be paired with the commandment monument. Additionally, Hindus have a statue proposal for their religion, and Atheists have erected a monument to no God next to the commandment monument.

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." \- former president George H. W. Bush

"Those who are quick to feel disrespected often have a spiritual vacuum in their lives, because they feel disconnected to the love of their Father in Heaven." \- Presidential nominee Al Gore.

"If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land." \- CAIR director Herman Mustafa Carroll

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." \- then senator Barak Obama

Each of the aforementioned comments emphasizes a legal distinction between how different people are to be treated. No legislation (in America) has been passed that states atheists are lesser citizens, and there has not been any legislation stating that Muslims are super-citizens. There have been laws advanced that repeated Obama's (and numerous other politicians) stance that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Obama, like most other politicians, has an 'evolving' (politically expedient) stance that changes throughout the years from 1996 to 2013.

Law, however, doesn't change as easily as one can change one's mind. Law stays in effect until a new law/amendment is passed that nullifies the original. What will be the result if the same number, or even more people who pushed for the marriage=one-man-one-woman legislation, advance that Muslims are to be super-citizens or atheists are less-than-citizens? The precedent has already been set for taxation in who gets taxed what with respect to socoi-economic status, and distinctions are being made outside of taxation. With precedent, new forms of applying it will come.

"I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution... call for the examination of all sides of a scientific theory..." \- governor Rick Perry

Former senator Hillary Clinton stated that Jesus' resurrection was a historic event.

Any religious text has examples in it that if taken literally are morally repugnant or physically impossible. Moral issues are related to the ways people can be treated differently for being not of one's group: women, infidels, apostates or just pagans/barbarians. Regarding the return of the 'Son of Man' in Mark 13:24-25: But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and those powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. As Neil deGrasse Tyson quipped, that one says the stars will fall from the skies shows that who wrote that had no idea about what they were writing about.

"Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning. And it puts the lie to the notion that separation of church and state in American means somehow that faith should have no role in public life." \- current president Barak Obama

As any politician, Obama does speak well regarding not implementing his religious beliefs in legislation - in some areas. Freedom of/from religion isn't a piecemeal aspect of humanity where it's okay to force some of one's religious preference on others; it is to be an absolute division, leaving individual liberty and self-direction to choose one's course in embracing or rejecting religious systems. Individual rights transcend any religious law; Nature transcends any religious tenet. Just because men and women are different, or that another has a different belief system doesn't mean that one has the authority to morally treat them differently based upon that distinction.

Let us combine some thoughts of those in government with some verses from religious texts and see if the combination thereof is a good one.

"We are a nation called to defend freedom - a tradition that is not a grant of any government or document, but is an endowment from God." \- former attorney general John Ashcroft

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." \- president (at the time) George W. Bush.

"The Constitution promises freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. We are, after all not just another nation but 'one nation under God.'" \- former senator Joseph Lieberman

All of the aforementioned examples given are made by those in government, or trying to influence government. That means they are working with the system that has a legal use of force. Legal use of force against its own citizenry and abroad. Segregation, prohibition, eminent domain were each advanced based upon varying degrees of a religious belief; spreading democracy, like sharia, has many who advance religious understanding as the basis for legal/political/police actions. How closely religion and politics commingle.

When a moral/legal differentiation amongst people is accepted as a base for how to see people outside of moral/legal issues (not based upon how they act, but on something else), the dominant power can exercise force against those deemed not worthy of self-direction. This isn't just referring to America's distant past with slavery. Stoke enough fear and groups can be marginalized. This can be an immediate concern as though they were all conspiring to attack (Japanese and German citizens being interred during WWII), or by association with 'evil' such as being 'witches and sodomites'.

When one takes to heart as part of their sacred tomes such verses as:

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination. (20:13 follows with 'they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them').

Surat Al-Baqarah (The Cow) 2:191 And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al-Haram until they fight you there, But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

...even if the those who follow those books outwardly differentiates between their political and religious lives, what level of that moral proscription/prescription of actions upon others carry over into other parts of their lives? If there is part of their religious base that has a literal God that is to be obeyed, instead of a spiritual image that had books written about it to try and explain/review life based upon the temporal/spatial limitations of those who wrote the original books, then there is a part of their beliefs that is to transcend the political goals they are supposedly trying to achieve. John McCain, Mitt Romney, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton each were not for the recognition of same-sex marriage. Homosexuality used to be considered a mental disease.

The enlightened can regress if allowing irrationality to smolder. Afghanistan had a more open society for women during the 1970s. The additions of 'In God We Trust' and 'one nation under God' were both not originally on US money or in the pledge of allegiance. The change from openness to closed is rarely quick; the most sweeping and lasting is through an extended time. The issue is not so much (though not wholly excluding) any specific policy advanced that has religious strings attached: it is the principle that those religious strings may be attached at all that is to be addressed. Any specific politician at any given moment may not be calling for sweeping changes, but as a foot in the door keeps the door open so too does that first principle-setting policy that gets passed allowing the religious/political commingling. A different politician, or the same one at a different time, after seeing how much more that door can be opened gradually, will eventually swing it wide open and at that point it will be too late.

All of this will be based upon a philosophical base holding religious convictions prepotent over individual rights. The end result is one who sees his religious cause to be achieved regardless of the methods - of who is sacrificed (i.e. murdered or enslaved), it is irrelevant for there is a 'greater good' and that is God's will. So atheists do not hate God; they do hate the belief and the attempt to bring one's individual literal interpretation of a God into political life. It has its own precedent and natural consequence.

"Remind yourself that in this night you will face many challenges. But you have to face them and understand it 100 percent... Obey God, his messenger, and don't fight among yourself where you become weak, and stand fast. God will stand with those who stood fast." & "Keep a very open mind, keep a very open heart of what you are to face. You will be entering paradise. You will be entering the happiest life, everlasting life." \- Mohamed Atta

Belief in God is the Ultimate Moral Relativism [A Brief Review]

[Monday, September 8, 2014]

Those who believe in God advance the 'highest' moral system created: the one by their respective God. Even when thinking they are granting a concession to nonbelievers regarding the ontological nature of God, they still press that even if God didn't exist, there would be no objective moral system, leaving only moral relativism. The Good is decided by God, and without God, there is no Good. However, what they fail to realize is that by holding up a God who decides 'The Good', they are actually enshrining the ultimate moral relativism. Their moral relativism would be actually worse for it would be systematized, making a 'tyranny for our own good' while individual moral relativism would be constrained to the individual.

An objective moral principle of humanity and individualism states that no one is the property of another. However, God and His 'prophets' had slaves of all types. Muhammad had numerous slaves, and the Bible makes references to the owning of slaves (including sex slaves - remember Moses' taking of the 32,000 'women who had not known a man) to which neither Jesus or Paul explicitly condemn. Objectively slavery is immoral, but with God and God's will, slavery is permissible.

An objective moral principle of humanity and individualism states that murder is immoral (murder, not killing for murder brings with it its own context as killing is vague). However, God and His 'prophets' murdered countless people. 'Killing in the name of...' is the [appropriate] pejorative, but also the justified excuse believers use. Whether it is killing the apostates and nonbelievers mentioned in the Koran, the 'sinners' in Sodom and Gomorrah, the children of the subjects of the one who isn't liked (parents of firstborn in Egypt who wouldn't have any significant political power), the entire planet in Noah's story, or an individual that is one's own child with Abraham - murder is acceptable or even held as an exemplar of devotion with God. God had 32 of the 32,000 virgins offered up to Him. Objectively murder is immoral.

The Classic Greeks asked this question with Plato and his Euthyphro: is The Good what God (the gods) decides, or does God (the gods) like The Good because it is The Good. To give the base of morality to any [Abrahamic-based] God is to cede morality to an interpreted understanding of what others advance from books written by man, influenced by the culture/context of the time, interpreted through generations today to come to their understanding to be pressed upon today. It is relativism, plain and simple. Objective morality based upon human rights and individualism is based upon principles which are eternal, while understanding of 'God's' will fluctuates with time and to who is being addressed. If you want an ultimate, objective standard of The Good and morality then it is not to any God that one should be turning to.

Why Proving/Disproving God is Impossible

[Thursday, September 11, 2014]

God is untouchable. This is not just meaning as a physical, tangible entity; this refers to at a conceptual level as well. There is no standard that any believer can advance that will objectively prove the existence of God; equally, there is no standard that any who states there is no God to objectively prove there is no God. The problem arises from the inherent nature of God and proof.

The first point of the issue is the concept itself of God. The focus of this will be on an existing and willing (having volition to will things into existence and can manipulate things by will) God - the theistic God. A deistic or pantheistic God each refers to a God that works with or is Nature - an anthropomorphic God which is a poetic expression as Nature is the main factor in life. The theistic God is not only apart from Nature, but can violate Laws of Nature at will: e.g. turn water to wine, cause the moon to stop in the sky, move mountains, etc - all by mere will. If one takes the deistic or pantheistic God as the same, granting their respective God the ability to have volition and will, then they give themselves the same problems of a theistic God.

Proof requires definitions that are objective, otherwise it is just subjective experience which cannot be objectively proven. God is beyond being objectively defined. God is supposedly the 'Self-Existent One', 'All Father', the 'Alpha and the Omega', 'The Supreme Being'. In addition to this God is also to be Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent: that is all-powerful, all-knowing, and present everywhere at all times. The Bible says in the Book of Job 11:7-8: Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty? It is higher than heaven - what can you do? Deeper than Sheol [place of the dead] \- what can you know? Equally, in the Quran 43:84 And He it is Who in the heaven is God, and in the earth God. He is the Wise, the Knower.

Each of these definitions are non-definitions in the objective sense for any entity. Epistemology has abstractions that are related to concretes to make the concept that is the abstraction: e.g. various types of apples to create the concept of apple, and various types of fruit such as apples, oranges, bananas, strawberries and the like, to come to the concept of fruit. Without being tied to anything that is objective what remains is subjective interpretation of an external entity. There is a difference between the subjective experience of an external source, such as do we see the same shade of red as one another; that perception may differ. Variation of interpretation of an existential object's existence is in how we see a thing, not in what it is: it is either there or it is not. Whether one sees it or not does not have an effect upon its actuality. If we do not see the table in the dark, when we kick it our senses will alert us to its actuality.

When the books one bases one's understanding of God upon make the same admonition that God is beyond human comprehension, and with only disconnected definitions, what makes something objectively provable is impossible. To define something is to limit it to the definition, but 'Self-Existent One', 'All Father', the 'Alpha and the Omega', 'The Supreme Being' as well as being Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent are each impossible to individually tie to a single entity, let alone combine all of them into one entity.

What is generally advanced as proof of God are 'experiences of God', meaning individually feeling the presence of God in one's life; they 'felt' the presence of God. This experience is not objective, but subjective, meaning it is beyond being verifiable to an actual being. There can be no debate that one may have felt some thing, but that one may have felt something has no bearing on the actuality of what is real in the world. Again, the interpretation of something has no effect upon what that thing actually may be. 'Feel the presence' of something, and is that something the Abrahamic God, Zeus, a goblin spirit on Mars, neural stimulation/activation? The first three each have the same potential proofs; the last one actually can be seen, but it is not the one that refers to an entity.

Non-personal experience proofs of God that are advanced are substitutes for great cosmological forces and events: the origin of the universe, the creation/existence of life. However, these proofs of God are interchangeable with the Deistic and Pantheistic concept of God making the willing God unneeded or irrelevant; Nature is the dominating and guiding factor, with God as a poetic image working with Nature. There is no room for a God that wills; Nature, with science being a good tool to observe, understand and predict events to varying degrees that continue to be fine-tuned, shows us that water when reaching a low enough temperature will freeze, when reaching a high enough temperature will turn to a gas, explain why lightning strikes and what causes and the effects of neural stimulation. This Nature's God is the Law of Identity: things being in accordance to what they are, and interacting in accordance to how they must. There is no God who wills; there is Identity in Nature of 'Is', that is A = A.

Each example of why it is impossible to existentially prove the existence of God, is also a reason of why it is impossible to prove that God does not exist. Without a specific object of reference, there is not a specific object to disprove. In a dialogue on such a subject between Arenos and Madgo, Madgo reprimands "You speak so highly of proof, then I ask you to prove that God does not exist."

"I tell you it is not for me to prove the nonexistence of something; it is for you to prove the existence of a thing. Here" Arenos turned his empty hand so his palm faced up. Looking at Madgo, Arenos continued "I say there is a rock in my hand; prove there is no rock in my hand."

"Don't be ridiculous. Of course there is no rock in your hand."

"Prove it."

"How can I prove what is obvious?"

No proof is proof enough of the nonexistence of a thing. When proof is found, then there can be said for a thing to be. However, proof, or 'hints' at the existence of a thing unbeknownst to man does not mean that it is the willing God. A mystery by default does not mean the answer is God. Eclipses used to be seen as ominous, omens from angry gods or an angry God; however, with science, the supernatural veneer has been lifted and humankind has seen far beyond what any early man could have ever imagined. The Sun used to be seen as an object that moved around in our skies; we now know that it is one but of billions of stars in our own galaxy, and a small star in that. The changing properties of water, as well as the fields of biology, neurology, astrophysics and countless other areas of science show that there is no reason to believe in the God that wills. When there is no proof to first make an assertion of the existence, what more can be offered? Even if there was some proof of the existence of some thing, that does not mean it must be the mysterious, default vague notion of a willing God.

Finally, there are those who state that as there is no proof that there is no God, that is reason enough to believe in God for God will show Himself in His time, to those who are willing and able to receive His message. This is the last speculative resort of one clinging to what is beloved. The depth of devotion though does not have an effect upon the actuality of existence. In conclusion, I offer Bertrand Russell's 'teapot':

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about 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 an 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 in an earlier time."

Proof of the New Highest God

[Sunday, December 14, 2014]

In an archeological find that is sure to shake numerous religions to their cores, an expedition to the highest mountains, within the deepest caves of those mountains in the land of Iltamasastan, humanity has uncovered an unequivocal historic find. There has recently been found a new Holy Book which will finalize any debate regarding the True Nature of God. The first written excerpts date back many thousands of years ago. Found deep within caverns that haven't been opened centuries BCE; it is a fascinating discovery. This book speaks the Truth about the Creator, as well as made predictions that have come to pass.

Written in a lost language, with not an individual whole copy, it has taken time to piece the book together and from that, we now have proof of God and Her nature, including how She created the universe. Not only do we have Creation explained, but how a True moral system is to be implemented. This morality as decreed by She not only shows how best to live on Earth, but how Paradise can be achieved. However, just stating that this has been proven does not mean anything. We shall look at the evidence and let it prove itself to us of the Truth.

Let us start out by reviewing God speaking about Herself as the Originator, as it is written in the book of Adamina Chapter 1 Verse 10: Behold, all that you see and yet do not see, that you have seen and will ever see, all this and more has come from Me; I birthed it for you. You, who were in my bosom before you were born, I had loved. I knew you needed a place to live and grow, so all of Creation is for you. Take my gift and live well, but remember it is of Me, and from Me, as are you.

Not only did She announce Her prepotency in Creation, showing Her first Great Miracle, but She showed other miracles for us. The next in Her Great Miracles comes in the regeneration of Life. As it is stated in the book of Hortense Chapter 5 Verse 27: Behold, where you see death, you also see life; where you see life, you also see death. Where you see the carcass, do you not also see that which feeds on carrion?-the insects and small creatures and the plants that devour the dead, then themselves are later eaten, and those eaters eaten, and those eaters eaten and so on? Where you see life, regardless of how robust and healthy it may be, do you not see a life which will end by ending and a body decaying until it is to be returned to be reborn again?

She advised how to properly relate to your fellow man, as She made clear in the book Alma, Chapter 22 Verses 10-15: To those you know and love, treat them as such – love unshown is the same as food uneaten to a starving body. To those you do not know, accord them the respect deserving of a stranger, with the same vision as seeing yourself through their eyes and how you'd want them to treat you; however, that unwritten description remains blank only briefly and for better or worse, descriptions will be made. Be careful on how you act. A mark on a smooth stone stands out and the only way to not let that mark be the only impression is to have others made, but one bad mark may keep further ones from being made. Individuals are to treat individuals as such; cultures are to treat cultures as such. To those who are hostile toward you, you must also act accordingly. If their hostility is that of a buzzing gnat, they can be dismissed the same; if their hostility is that of a hyena trying to devour your lion cubs, then meet them as that lion who defends her cubs. It is best for people to get along, interact and trade to the benefit of each party; however, not all have noble hearts and if they are set to your destruction and are acting on it, before they are able to devour you and yours, you must defend you and yours.

Sexual relations are reviewed by She in the book of Zalika Chapter 18 Verses 5-8: You were born to blend your body and mind into soul, for I gave you both; to be your highest self, it is through this achievement. You have the ability to focus on one at the cost of the other - to be focusing on the physical for mindless stimulation, or to be only mind focused and lose touch with reality \- but in either way is to live short of the grandeur I made you capable of. This highest is not related to procreation only, for one may love without creating progeny and one may create progeny without love; whether one is of the same gender or different, there is no difference for either way the highest can be achieved. The only thing forbidden is the procreation of same-pair coupling; however, this does not take away from the actualization of spirit potential for those in the coupling. These are my offerings and my limitations. Go forth, find your highest and share in body and mind.

She reveals the great mysteries of Life in Masego Chapter 1 Verses 1-2: You who seek to know Truth without Me! Do you think you can learn it on your own? How can you learn of Life and Existence without Me?-where will you look? Every direction your eyes look, you will see Me; every direction that your ears hear sounds, you will hear Me; everything you feel, you will feel Me; every scent and every taste as well, you will know My presence in Life! If you seek to discount Me, then like the chick still within the egg, you will not see anything beyond your shell; your world will be limited to your confines, though you will know them well.

Like anything or one of Perfection, there are those who hate Her for it. They despise Her Glory and their own smallness. She, too, has enemies who want to pull us down to their flawed level. As stated in one of the later books, the book of Ramona Chapter 6 Verses 16-18: The Jealous one has his minions and his preferred servants. You will know them by the acts they do – all of which are attempts to silence She who birthed you, to remove your ear from her words, to benight you and leave you in darkness – as it was written, leave you unborn, with your world the extent of your unhatched shell, and you calling it the universe. The Jealous One will try to trick you by demanding sacrifice to prove love, and will call for you to prove your love by offering your blood, but he will ultimately spare the males while letting the females feel the blade or the fire; he will reward those who will punish the feminine while rewarding the masculine. He hates Her flawlessness and lets his rage rail against those who resemble She. With the prophets of the Jealous one, you will see them live and die in ways that try to take you away from Her, to try and take that which is Hers and make it so you do not associate them with Her. The glorious mountain overlooks the Earth while standing above it, the proud tree that touches the Earth and the Skies, and even the arms of a girl child from a forced marriage will be associated with death. The Jealous One prefers death worship over Life. Unable to birth Life, acts of prestidigitation will be offered as miracles when the Jealous One is merely using what She birthed. The Jealous one will try to convince you that this life that was birthed to you is but a secondary concern to life after death. How can you achieve Life after the death of what was birthed to you? Do not be deceived! The Jealous One is vain and will do what he can to convince you to his death worship, but you will not be able to enjoy Life!

She predicted the decrease in Her influence because of the increase of people falling for the Jealous one; She also predicted the turn away from the Jealous One and His deceiving and dividing ways. We are approaching that time. We can see the effects now. To continue to fulfill the prophesy as written by the sacred Jaleesa in her book Jaleesa 9:99: The abuses you suffer by the Jealous One shall become too great - come to a point where the promises he made shall be properly brought into question. When you question him, he shall give no answer that satisfies; he will speak vagaries and call them divine; he will obfuscate, but say the blame lies in you for not understanding. Throw off his shackles! He tricked you away from She, but you can shirk those chains yourselves. When you come to realize he is powerless, you will see all the threats he made was because you believed them even though they were no threats he could follow through.

Just as there were miracles that were for all of humanity, there were miracles that were to help specific individuals. For example, in the book of Esperance, Padriac became ill and then died; it was She who helped Her people raise Padriac back from the dead. Similarly, in the book of Terena, when the earth was parched as The Jealous One had brought drought, it was She who brought back the rains and bountiful harvests.

We need not to just take Her word for it – that is not the way to objectively verify anything. We already have secondary sources that can corroborate Her story. We need to look no further than from Kaapo's history; written centuries BCE, he recounts through oral legend of those who were there first-hand to see the miraculous resurrection of Padriac centuries beforehand. Quillian reviewed the text and compared the taxonomy within its pages and found that it matches the plant and animal life of the area and the time. Not only that, but scholars of the area attested to the veracity of claims within the Book. Heralded for his attention to detail in reviewing the data, Agosta summarized in his Historie de Iltamasastan: When we review the text, and compare it to our observations in nature, we see that the script is correct. We know we need the light of the Sun to see, and where the light of the Sun is not, we see not; can we see in the deep caves unless we have a Sun by proxy in a small fire? – even then, we see not far into that darkness, but only that which is around us and our fire. So it is for us, as it was written by She: our entire Universe is that which is trapped inside a great egg, and our entire reality is that which is within the egg waiting for it to crack and our potential to come from that birth.

So, there we have it: proof in the script and verification outside of that script of the New Highest God... rather returning to The Original Goddess. Within the text we can see proof of Her greatness as well as Her predictions of the coming patriarchal religions, and male-dominated societies. Not only did She state our place in the Universe in the dark of a great egg, but She also specifically predicted the rise of the Abrahamic-based religions in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The examples of Abraham, Lott and others were predicted by She.

Now there will be some of you who are skeptical of the new God, or return to the Original Goddess. That is to be expected, as the Jealous One She talks about has deceived you into following Him and forgetting Her. However, when we read Her words, see how accurate they are and just experience Her presence, how can any still feel allegiance toward the False and Jealous One?

For those who continue to be skeptical... very good. This was all made up for this piece. In creating this, I did use some general archetypal symbolism, history of religion and mythology along with items that are (or should be) part of any general education. The appropriate question to follow up that statement is: why? Why would anyone be skeptical about the Goddess presented here? Just because I wrote something stating that it was divinely inspired and the Word of God[dess], why should anyone take it seriously?

My answer to that: outside metaphor, why should anyone take any base for religion seriously? There are truths within it expressed as metaphor, but to be taken literally, one would be considered quite mad to believe it. To elaborate, why do we not approach each 'holy' book with the same level of skepticism? They each have nuggets that are beautiful metaphor, but if taken literally or following their laws and admonitions, have abominable and evil actions done in the name of Good because God said so.

No one has a problem dismissing what I've written here about the Universe being contained in an egg and that is why we see so much darkness. Similarly, there are no issues with disregarding Athena being born from Zeus' head. However, Noah's ark, Moses' escape from Egypt with its 40-year journey, splitting the seas, various plagues, burning bushes and divinely handed-down stone tablets... that's real. God made the sun stop in place in the sky for Joshua, and then let it continue on its path again; for Muhammad God split the moon in half and rejoined it. Jesus' miracles are also well-known: water to wine, a couple loaves of bread and fish to feed thousands and walking on water to name a few. Moses', Muhammad's and Jesus' miracles are 'real', but why? In non-canonical books, there are angels whose heads are above the skies, walking crosses and bowing standards (banners) - was one of the reasons why they were not included in the canon because limits of credulity were being strained?

To believe biblical accounts as literally true regarding the creation of the Universe and Nature's laws, we will have to believe that a group of tribesmen from millennia ago, who had no real scientific understanding, were generally limited to the couple hundred miles around where they were born, that these people had a better understanding of the Universe and Nature than we do today from our collected millennia of experience and technological advances. Even children in elementary school [should] have a better understanding of the scope of the Universe than those old tribal members ever could hope to have.

Literally taking these old books as the basis for modern understanding of Nature and the Universe is wrong for there is no possible way that some of the claims in the books could be correct, which if inerrant would invalidate them as literally God's word; in a similar vein, using them as moral standards shows that there is no real morality outside of God saying who to hate, rape and enslave, such as Moses' admonition to kill all, but those girls who have not known a man so they can be kept by the conquerors - except those that would be offered as a sacrifice to God.

There is equally an objective reality for the Universe we inhabit, and an objective morality for us to follow. If we followed the religious books are the ultimate source of information, then you wouldn't be reading this for there have been a long series of medical, technological and scientific advances that enables this communication to happen; they wouldn't have happened if we kept our epistemology limited to religious textual understanding. Equally, at a moral level, genocide would be the general norm. We are better than that and have evolved our culture [most of humanity] beyond the divinely-subjective morality and realistically impossible views on existence. Let us finish casting off the inappropriate lens through which modern religions are seen of true in actuality and see them through the lens of true in metaphor, and then place the remaining religions with myths of the past.

Fundamentalists are not crazy; they are far worse

[Thursday, December 18, 2014]

A saying that gets offered as justification, or rather as an explanation for the beliefs of those fundamentalist, religious followers who hold atrocious beliefs and commit acts of violence, is the dismissive claim that: they're just crazy. That gets offered by those who lack any religious belief, as well as those who have somewhat a religious belief - generally considered moderates. Though dismissing fundamentalists as crazy does do a good job of distancing them from oneself - appropriately so if one is rational - it is a false dismissal. Fundamentalists are not crazy.

First off, let us look at the word fundamentalist: its base is of course fundamental which is based on fundamentalis \- the foundation, or primary principles. So we need to look at primary principles. Abrahamic religions have as their base their respective God who is perfect and wrote their respective books (Old & New Testaments, and Koran, for Judaism, Christianity and Islam), and is real with a set of rules. The fundamentalist's God wills and has His preferences; those who follow Him are to obey. Here we shall see that it is not crazy to act with such a belief base, for it is much worse.

Fundamentalist base: genocide is not only permissible, but is commendable. One of the greatest figures to the three Abahamic faiths is Moses. In the book of Numbers Chapter 31, through instruction from God, Moses killed the Midianites, and after seeing all the captives, then declaimed in verses 17-18 "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Explicitly, this is genocide and sexual slavery. When Boko Haram kidnapped a couple hundred schoolgirls, they were lambastated, except by other fundamentalists who shared their beliefs. Moses did far worse, but is heralded as a hero. Let's not forget human sacrifice in this for of the 16,000 captives, there were 32 who were 'tribute for the Lord.'

Fundamentalist base: infanticide and sacrificing one's own is commendable. Another hero to the three Abrahamic faiths, and that term gets used because of Abraham. In Genesis Chapter 22, God told Abraham to take 'your son, your only son, whom you love... Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering...' To which Abraham obeys, but right before he slays Isaac, the child is spared and a ram is provided which is sacrificed instead and that pleases God for the willingness to sacrifice his son was a test of Abraham. God did not stay Jephthah's hand, and he offered up his daughter as a burnt offering in Judges 11. When Andrea Yates and Deanna Laney murdered their kids by drowning and bludgeoning with a stone, and did so because they were protecting them from Satan (Yates) or just because God told her to do so (Laney), neither one of them is looked upon as acting properly. Both women were found guilty of homicide, and insane (or trying to get decreed insane).

Fundamentalist base: cult-like slavish devotion to the point of neglecting ones' loved ones and even oneself is expected from the highest. "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters - yes, even their own life - such a person cannot be my disciple" Jesus' admonition in Luke 14:26. Jesus for Christians, was the Son of God; even those who do not see Jesus as the Son of God still hold a similar belief to their respective one seen as a proxy (Muhammad, Virgin Mary, etc) to God. Whoever is the spokesman for one's creed, must be obeyed and given all to. When David Koresh and Jim Jones tried to convince their followers to abandon all in favor of them and their groups, they were labeled as leaders of dangerous cults, and appropriately so.

Fundamentalist base: men and women are of different value, and women/girls have fewer rights. This can be seen in the sexual enslavement of the virgins aforementioned with Moses (elsewhere male and female slaves - when both are kept alive are treated differently), in the marrying off of teens and children to old men (Jesus' mother Mary was a teen when wed to Joseph and Aisha was six when wed to Muhammad, though nine when consummated), both the bible and Koran declaim women as unclean, and in 1 Corinthians Chapter 14:34-35 "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." The sentiment is equally displayed in 1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet". Not to be let out of the misogyny, the Koran has in The Cow 2:228 that women have rights that are similar to men, but men are 'a degree above them'; in The Clans 33, women are to be covered. Though men and women have their differences, those differences are not in moral value.

Finally, fundamentalist base: Creation is as it is stated in the [their holy] book. Additionally, God can and does change laws of Nature as He sees fit. From this belief emerge evolution deniers, 6000-year-old Earth believers, prayer and faith healers, belief that sex with a virgin will prevent one from being infected with AIDS. To believe the holy books is to believe that which we know is impossible. In Joshua Chapter 10, God stops the sun and the moon for a day so Joshua could finish his victory over his enemies and in The Moon 54:1, God split the moon in two. Such a miraculous base for celestial events make the handling of poisonous snakes as non-problematic; you just need to believe and you will be healed, like Jesus' restoring the sight to the blind or raising Lazarus.

Each fundamentalist base reflects two things; 1) that Nature and reality are but facades to what is true and God can change anything at anytime for any reason, for He is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, so examination of Nature is really futile. If a stick isn't a stick, but a potential snake and dust is a human in waiting, then what really is the reason for studying anything outside God?-why study medicine when one just needs 'faith'? 2) that God chose one and from that, the selected one can commit any atrocity and consider it good because God told him. Whether murdering in mass, or just one's own child, it can be seen as good when told to be done by God, as He has told people to do beforehand.

To believe at a fundamentalist level is to state that the primitive, tribal men had a better understanding of nature and the universe than current scientists. Following that, the moral base was built on tribalism where collectivism was formalized between 'us and them' and others didn't have same rights as one's ingroup; even within the ingroup, there is a hierarchy to abide by - men were the leaders and women were to be subservient. Why is life like this?-it is because it was written. Who wrote it?-God. Who interpreted it, those who had the power.

There is no way that this can be argued. Argument entails claims and definitions to come to truth that can change one's mind with the advanced idea; fundamentalism entails having 'the truth' and making claims and definitions change to fit. How can we rationally argue with one who believes that the sun stopped in the sky?-that the moon was cleft into two pieces?-that a bush was on fire and spoke? How can one rationally make a claim about anything scientific when their base is the negation that science rests upon: that things are what they are, and a stick is not a snake? Similarly, how can one make an argument regarding morality when beloved heroes of fundamentalists were tribalistic, and willing to slaughter those members of outgroups, even kill children.

There is nothing rational to be said to them for they reject reason. However, selectively using the tools of reason, they apply it to their beliefs to further find ways of solidifying belief. There is a furrow on the moon?-proof Allah split it. There are large human bones in Latin America?-proof of the nephilim. Others don't have the same rights, or are even to be killed?-they have chosen the incorrect path and are aligned with the evil ones. If you try and contest those assertions, they will point to their holy books as final evidence and as it is written in them, how can you contest it further? If you contest their holy book, then you are of the enemy trying to take away their moral base and personal relationship with divinity - a great threat.

These people are not crazy. They have a definite value system, as well as a methodology within that value system's hierarchy. Within that, they use the tools of logic only so far as to justify a conclusion already embraced and if logic shows it was wrong, then logic itself is incorrect. True reason is every bit an enemy as reality, and that which challenges their belief is not just challenging an abstract notion of what is right or wrong, but one's personal relationship with what is right and wrong as divinely handed down by a specific entity that cares for them. They blind themselves and lash out to threats. The new world is not as much of a concern as the threat to the old; order is important.

We need to better address the issue: 1) address the threat that those who are willing to use force to achieve their ends; 2) address the base of their beliefs, for it is not just wrong, but it is anti-life and anti-reality. When they reject the reality they live both in the physical and moral worlds, and ultimately state this life that we have now is nothing but an impediment to the life that awaits for us after death - what reason can be used to deal with minds such as those?

Scientific Proof Of God - A Brief Review

[Saturday, December 27, 2014]

God would be quite vainglorious if we followed the perception of Him by His followers. It is a perception that is not without merit for it is specifically stated that God is jealous and wants to be worshiped. But it is not God Himself who takes the credit, for the act of taking credit can be done (or assigned) by one who exists - namely followers. It is to these followers that the blame goes to in trying to assert that God exists (outside metaphor), and that God can be proven to exist.

Throughout history any given natural and celestial event was attributed to God and the supernatural, whether it was how all heavenly bodies were seen to go around the Earth in perfect circles, to eclipses being proof of angry gods. Many cultures stopped at that level of awareness; however, some did not and in Western societies, beginning with Aristotle and the Classic Greeks questioning the role of the gods, to Copernicus and Galileo we can see that much of what was seen as the work of God was nothing more than nature being what it is. Nature and existence have the essence of things being what they are: A = A. Among that: orbits are not in perfect spheres, we are not the center of the Galaxy or even our solar system, the tides and countless other phenomena.

That what was originally seen as divine was later seen as purely natural does not detract those who believe from their sacred theory of a divine hand. Even Nature is proof of God, and all the laws of Nature are those that God decreed - for those who think science can point to God instead of seeing the two as dichotomous (again, outside metaphor) as a Creator God and Nature are. Just as in times of old, natural phenomena were proof of God, in times of new with scientific advancement exploring Nature, newer, more intricate details are offered as proof of God; as well as statistical models are used to justify Intelligent Design.

The essence of their points is: everything in existence is too fine-tuned to not be directed by someone/something outside of it.

However, even using their own reasoning, what we actually see are all those supposed proofs of the Creator God, more as proof that a Creator God did not create anything or does not exist. All the nuances, all the probability models each are those that are confined to scientific laws and statistical probability. 'Only God or some super intelligence could direct everything as it is' because if it was just a minuscule degree off, nothing would have happened - no life, universe or anything else. But that is not an answer that points to God, for if there actually was a Creator God, then what would limitations of Nature and Existence have to do with God's power? If a stick can become a snake, a man can be made from dust, and the Universe itself can be spoken into existence from where there was nothingness (excluding God), then what does the orbit of the planet have to do with sustaining life, the elemental make-up of Earth and the solar system and such, what would any of those limitations be to one who supposedly wrote and can violate those laws at will?-e.g burning bush that is not consumed, water to wine, sun stops in the sky and stars fall from the skies... all from will.

Additionally, whether one says God (or aliens as some do) guided the formation of Life, the necessary question becomes: where did those aliens or God come from? This question will never end, for if you say A created B, and C created A, then what was there that created C, and so on. Aliens have the same line of questions for any physical entity, but God needs an extra point of consideration.

Summed up in a Poem Metaphysics from The Gospel of Reason

Exactly why, does he, mankind, exist?

From where did life, and order, formulate?

And, how – without a cause, nothing to list;

Did all the Universe come from that state?

Is Nature fated? – did it have to be?

No plans, no script, just forces manifest;

Not cruel, nor mean, with no affinity.

Objective rules are learned from interest.

The other choice: a primal Creator;

The being living in vacuity.

But how did He, with nothingness before;

Beget the stars, all else? – His nascency?

The answer, Nature versus God, sublime;

There is no doubt that one has been all time

What seems more probable when we come to the great mystery: that material forces created the material universe that set up the base from which life could emerge, or that before there was anything to be born from, sustain or be part of, there was the highest living entity who created everything without having anything to create with and maintained His own life without anything in existence for his birth or maintenance? Whether the review of the Universe is correctly done doesn't affect the reality of what is: we can say God is angry and that is why the sun disappeared, or we can learn and know better.

How Do We Know What We Know

[Wednesday, January 14, 2015]

[Hu]mankind is not the rational animal; he is the potentially rational animal. He can be every bit as reactionary and mindless as any other animal; however, man has the capability to reason which takes more effort, or can just react which is easier. Whether through reason or some non-reasoning method, we can claim knowledge, rightly or wrongly.

The way by which we gain knowledge comes in one of three different ways: by revelation; by experience; by authority. These each have their respective place in the accumulation of knowledge, but that does not mean they have equal value. They differ in where the origination of knowledge comes and from where it is understood.

Revelation is the formulation of an idea without empirical input; it is generally sudden and taken as divinely inspired. or a 'gut feeling'. Most often, this is embraced through the emotional experience that one 'felt' the presence of God, and therefore how correct is the knowledge. There is a second kind of revelation that is not actually revelation, though it gets attributed the same - that type will be addressed later.

Experience is based in empiricism, and expanded to concept formation through processing and contemplation (i.e. reasoning), that can again be affected by empirical findings. Things are expected to be and act in accordance to how our experience of them says they should be, with the expectation that things of a similar nature will act in a similar way unless there are other factors to understand before a different expectation can be expected: e.g. we know that water will freeze at a certain temperature and know that all liquids will also freeze, unless there is something else to change the results, such as a sufficient amount of alcohol to prevent freezing of the liquid.

Authority is the taking of knowledge as granted by another, because they said so. A minimum degree of ethos is granted to whomever, and from that we take their word that what they say is true because their ethos grants them that status. For example, if the question was regarding the nature of volcanoes, a vulcanologist would be best, though because of the nature of scientific inquiry and the related aspects of the fields, a geologist's advice would (should) be more valuable than the advice of one whose specialty is in medieval literature. It is expected that whoever is talking, knows their field well enough to be able to speak from and about it.

Revelation is by itself in that it can be wholly subjective. There does not need to be any reference to empirical validation in any way as the verification of the knowledge through revelation is the emotional sensation that accompanies it. Experience necessarily is objectively based as it is empirical, for one experienced a thing or event and takes the learned information through sensory organs to store for processing and later retrieval. Though the interpretation may have subjective elements, it is based upon an objective event in order to be interpreted. Authority is the deferment of either revelation or experience, granting the knowledge to a third party as a valid source to speak on behalf of actually having the revelation or the experience.

Most of the knowledge we have is based upon authority. Believe that the Koran or Bible is the word of God?-that is based upon authority. If one believes they actually existed according to their respective texts, no one is alive today who spoke to Moses, Jesus or Muhammad, or witnessed any of the acts or 'miracles' they are purported to have done (one reading this definitely did not see them), so authority is granted to those who told the believer: that would be the messengers of today, and the long line of authors who transcribed and 'spread the word' ultimately to the authors themselves. Each has to be granted authority to believe what is read is actually real. Believe in the theory of evolution?-unless you are a scientist working on the theory, your belief in evolution is based upon authority. If you did not conduct the experiments, you grant authority to those who did perform the experiments; authority would still be granted to others in one's field of study. But whether this is from another's revelation or experience, as a deferment the issue remains that the one who originated that which is taken as knowledge either did so based upon their subjectively or objectively-based perception of reality.

This brings up the crucial distinction between revelation and experience, whether one's own or deferred through authority: it is the difference between that which is verifiable and that which isn't. Experience is that which any may have and come up with similar results – the more similar the variables, the more similar the results. For example, if different people take a certain amount of water with the same composition and apply the same heat to it in the same environment, it will turn to vapor in nearly the exact same manner; however, if some variable changes through different attempts, such as the environment in elevation then there will be a change in the results by some degree. The more variables that are introduced, the greater the variability in results, such as different chemical makeup, heat source and the like. Anybody can take the same events and variables and come to the same conclusions. The issue in life is finding the appropriate variables, and reading them properly.

Revelation is not tied to experience of the world, but of a feeling of something inside oneself. There is no way to confirm it, for it is wholly subjective; there is nothing that anyone else can do to verify one's revelation, for by the nature of revelation it is granting authority to one who said they had it. There is no way to externally verify it. Revelation is actually a claim to come to knowledge from an outside source, but without experience of any means of accumulating or transmitting said knowledge; it is to be a direct inspiration from God or another divine source directly into one's mind/soul. How can an individual attest to that the revelation was correct?-he 'feels' it, but how does he know that feeling is correct? There is nothing outside of that feeling. If they point to an external source, then it is experience and subject to interpretation.

This brings us to our last point: regardless of whether it is through revelation, experience or authority, each method of accumulating and processing knowledge is done through our mental makeup from our biology, evolution, society, education and more: the base from which we make our understanding of what we take as knowledge. For experience, it is the reason why we know nature is not playing tricks upon us when we see a bent stick when it is partially submerged in water; for revelation, it is the reason why remote and primitive tribes who never heard of Christianity or Islam don't attribute their revelations to Jesus, Muhammad or other Abahamic figures, but to their own interpretations of divinity – the reverse is true with why Christians and Muslims don't attribute their revelations to the deities of those remote and primitive tribesmen.

Each level has its potential for contributing to knowledge in its own way: experience is limited to what we have done ourselves; authority is letting the expertise that another has earned contribute to our knowledge; revelation, on the other hand, is valid in one way that is not true revelation but how it can actually come about and that is as any knowledge gained is based and filtered through our mental maps (schemata) what is taken as revelation is the subconscious connections that exist within our minds – not actually 'divine inspiration' but the attempts at making connections that haven't been made yet. Newton's realization of gravity from the apple falling is such an example – it wasn't a wholly new idea, but the culmination of ideas he had been reviewing beforehand that got the last piece added to complete the picture's organization.

This is important for any level may be improperly attributed, leading to invalid conclusions and false knowledge. This is most readily apparent with revelation – especially divinely inspired – for there is no way that it can be verified. One says he felt the hand of God – how can that be proven or disproven? Equally, I can say I felt that his feeling was actually a gremlin making him believe it was God's presence to try and trick him – how could I prove what I said, or be disproven? For both claims, as Hitchens quipped: what is advanced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This does not mean that experience and authority are immune to error. Science is never fully settled, and phrenology is an example of what was scientific at one point, but found to be erroneous at a later time. Where revelation cannot be reviewed; experience through science can be amended.

It is up to us to recognize how we get knowledge and where that knowledge comes from. This is especially the case granting authority for the one relaying knowledge does so based upon their understanding, in addition to their bias and interest in the world. Just as we each have our cognitive maps through which we interpret things, so do any we grant authority – where did they get their knowledge they are trying to persuade us to accept?-are they trying to 'sell' us something?

Are we to believe the worldview of those who limit themselves to the information gathered from their culture only, in a dogmatic way that it was given to them from an original source of revelation meaning that it cannot be verified in any way?-are we to believe the politician who has a vested interest in us believing his side of an issue?-are we to believe the scientist speaking in his field of expertise? It is the difference between an illiterate tribesman from millenia ago as contrasted to Dawkins' and Hawking's findings in evolution and cosmology telling us how life and the universe came to be. Revelation or 'gut feelings' may coincide with truth, but to verify we go beyond. Being mindful does not involve thinking with one's gut.

Ultimately, it comes down to the distinction: know reality from reality or from those who say what is reality through a means not tied to reality. It is through this uncritical review where man can repeat like a parrot, or bark upon command, but not actually reason to come to the truth of a claim. This is why mankind is the potentially rational animal for though he can reason, he also has the greater sin in not living up to his potential - acting as humans are capable.

What is important is not what your Holy Book actually says, as what it says to you in how to act

[Wednesday, October 14, 2015]

This is for those who follow the God of Abraham and use the Koran, Old Testament and/or New Testament – the texts that are to be the 'Word of God'. To those who defend those books, they are as beautiful as you say... in parts; to those who criticize those books, they are as wicked as you say... in parts. If isolated verses are looked at, they can be either beautiful or horrid; if we bring context, the stories will still be beautiful or horrid, though possibly in different ways and for different reasons.

'You who believe', is a sentiment oft repeated in both the Holy Bible and Koran (for example Mark 11:23 & Ephesians 1:13, and The Women 4:59 & Iron 57:28, among other examples for each). Who you are as an individual is not what is in the books; however, when you look at the books and their verses, individually and contextually, which parts you focus upon will show how you believe to make you who you are. How you believe is a crucial question for we are not referring to a superficial level (not just taking the title of Christian of Muslim, for those terms are amorphous, having multiple schisms within Christianity and Islam, such as Protestant/Catholic & Sunni/Shia), but at your base where your daily actions and interpretations of life events, emerge from and actions are based. How do you live your life according to the Holy Book you hold?

This will be a non-exhaustive review – it will be enough to show the issue.

Verses taken individually:

[Bible] 1 John 4:7-8 Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth God; for God is love.

[Koran] The Disbelievers 109:1-6 Say, 'O Disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship. Nor are you worshippers of what I worship. Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship. For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.'

[Bible] Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

[Koran] The Repentance 9:123 O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.

Individual lines provide very little outside of being support for what one already believes – ways of 'preaching to the choir'. Lines without context are meaningless when the verses are to be critically reviewed. Context is crucial for without it, any sinner can sound a saint and any saint a sinner. What constitutes a saint and a sinner is a topic for another discussion, but for this point we'll just say they are dichotomous. A final point on context: what context are we referring to? There is the context within the work itself – how does the verse align or contrast to other verses within the same book; there is the context of the environment that the work was written – what was the socio-political situation that the author(s) was (were) living in at the time the work was written.

[Bible] Matthew 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment (referring to the Commandment Exodus 20:13).

[Koran] The Table Spread 5:32 (a segment often gets quoted)...whoever kills a soul unless for a soul of for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he has saved mankind entirely.

Whether looking at a verse from the Bible or the Koran, both state – when viewed out of context – the prohibition of killing other people. However, books are more than just selected verses and more can be understood when verses in question are compared to other verses. When context is applied, definition of who constitutes a person that should not be killed emerges, as well as who should be killed and for what reasons. Both the Bible and Koran were not using the prohibition against killing universally.

The admonition in biblical context: (leaving aside the textual criticism of whether it was 'thou shalt not kill any living thing, for all life is given to all by God...', or 'Thou shalt not kill', or 'Thou shalt not murder') will show that the application of the law was not universally held. Moses had killed every male and female who had known a man, when taking over the Midianites (Numbers 31: 17-18); Joshua was quite prolific (Chapters 12 & 13) in the amount of killing done in service of God, for those people were not God's chosen people, and were in the lands 'God had given' to His people. Furthermore, even the chosen people could be killed if not acting appropriately – Jesus himself even said as much. When confronted by the Pharisees in Matthew 15 about which is more important – following the law of men or of God – Jesus specifically references Exodus 21:17 that children who are disrespectful to their parents are to be put to death (Matthew 15:4). Here Jesus not only stated that disrespectful children are to be killed – there is no rejection, but on the contrary it is an example of what is to be followed. There is also in Jesus' Parable of the 10 Minas, a call for those who worship improperly to be 'killed at his feet' (Luke 19:11-27).

Some may say that Jesus had two commandments (Matthew 22): 1) to love God with your whole heart, soul and mind; 2) love thy neighbor as thyself. However, these were to be summaries of the rest of the law, for the complexity of God's law cannot be so nicely succinct. Jesus was not changing the law: he was a Jew who knew Jewish law and scripture, and wanted to see it implemented properly. In Matthew 5:17 he said: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but fulfill. To fulfill the old law of God means 'the others' [non-chosen people] could be killed, as could those who were not properly following the law. Some may reference John 8 with the woman caught in adultery who was to be stoned, and Jesus' challenge of 'he who is without sin cast the first stone (8:7), to which no one casts a stone and Jesus says 'Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more' (11). The problem with this [delving into textual criticism briefly] is that this was a later addition to the gospel – was not originally in the bible; it still is in conflict with numerous other sections of the bible.

There is also in the biblical context the apostle [proselytizer] Paul who was instrumental in setting the early Christian traditions. In one of his letters Paul writes about improper worship, apostasy, homosexuality or false attribution of the divine to the profane (Romans 1:19-32) 'that they which commit such things are worthy of death...' This is just more of either not-the-chosen people or not acting appropriately and deserving death.

The admonition in the Koranic context, but first we should review the whole verse [The Table Spread 5:32] which reads: Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul of for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he has saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

Just by adding the full verse, the universality associated with the segment can be seen to be no longer valid. It is in fact no longer a poetic passage of peace among men seeking equality and justice, but quite the contrary: it is a warning. The warning is carried over through the following verse 5:33 where it says: Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon the earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.

The full verse of 5:32 when paired with 5:33 is saying to the Jews [Children of Israel] not to 'cause corruption' [create apostates of the Islamic faith], for that is punishable by mutilation or death. That there are acceptable times to kill someone is echoed in The Cow 2:217 where during the sacred month where there was to be no violence, Muhammad had followers conduct a raid whereby one man was killed; Muhammad had a revelation that even though the killing was during the sacred time where such violence was offensive, the greater offense was and is the interference with proper Islamic faith (including being a resource for the primary one who interferes), so even during the sacred time, murder was justified. Though in the order of the Koran, both The Cow and The Table Spread are toward the beginning, chronologically they are books from Muhammad's Medina [later] works.

In both books, there are also examples of how to treat women and equality. In the Bible, there is Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: fore ye are all one in Christ Jesus. While in the Koran there is The Bee 16:97 Whoever does righteousness, whether male or female, while he is a believer – We will surely cause him to life a good life, and We will surely give them their reward [in the Hereafter] according to the best of what they used to do.

However, there are verses in other parts in both books where such equality mentioned in one spot is contradicted. Such as in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. In 1 Corinthians Chapter 11, Paul states that as Christ is the head of every man, so every man is the head of his wife. In 1 Corinthians 11:5 Paul wrote about equality with women praying and prophesizing, while still having it noted as not equal in verse 8 that women are still to be subservient 'For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.' Later in the New Testament 1 Timothy 2:11-12 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

In the Koran, men have a higher degree of responsibility and authority over women in The Cow 2:228, which can be further exemplified later in the same book in 2:282 where the testimony of a woman is worth half the testimony of a man; the woman being worth (or deserving) half of a man is in The Women 4:11 with respect to inheritance. To take the role of the woman to an even lower status, there is the wife who is to submit sexually whenever her husband wants sex for she is a 'field to plow' (The Cow 2:223), and how absurd it is to believe sublime beings such as angels could have feminine names, according to The Star 53:27.

Both books treat women as lesser beings in that polygamy (multiple wives for a husband; not vice versa) is acceptable, as is taking female slaves [for sex]. The bible has numerous figures with multiple wives (and concubines): from a couple wives such as with Esau, Jacob, Gideon, all the way up to Solomon who had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines as stated in 1 Kings 11:3. Moses, held up as an exemplar in all Abrahamic faiths, conquered, slaughtered the survivors and then took the female virgins as slaves for his soldiers in the book of Numbers 31. (some may argue that it was not as sex slaves, but slaves in general – then why only female virgins? – if the girls were to be slaves for manual labor, wouldn't males and experienced/older women be better?). In the Koran, there is The Women 4:3 And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses [slave]. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice]. (Muhammad was allowed to exceed the limit of four). In The Prohibition 66:5 Perhaps his Lord, if he divorced you [all], would substitute for him wives better than you – submitting [to Allah], believing, devoutly obedient, repentant, worshipping, and traveling – [ones] previously married and virgins.

These are just a few examples that both books have parts that are both beautiful and horrific. When looking at the work in full, just as when we review anything, judge anyone, we take the totality and balance it giving certain aspects or characteristics weights, and some parts weigh heavier than others. That a man was a loving father and donated spare time to entertain children, does that make John Wayne Gacy any less of a murderer? – the murderer aspect outweighs the others. It is the equivalent of saying 'outside of the lies, he's so honest'. There is also the time where we may separate the wheat from the chaff, and that is never more important than with books such as these.

Are the Bible and Koran books of beauty expressing spiritual ways of humanity coming together, or are they books justifying slaughter, oppression, division and tyranny? The answer is yes to both.

Biblically: Are we to love our enemies, not just those who love us back (Matthew 5:44-46)? – or are we to forsake the nonbelievers, and to even wish them well in life is equated to committing their evil (2 John 1:9-11)?

Are we to obey the government/State/King for members of the State are sent by God to direct punishment of evildoers (1 Peter 2:13-14; Romans 13:1-4)? – or are we to rebel against the government for not being aligned with God (Acts 5:29; end times with Revelations 2)? What is it exactly to 'render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's (Matthew 22:21)?

Returning to the Koran, is there to no compulsion in religion (The Cow 2:256)? – or are we all directed in our life paths (with or without the correct faith) as Allah 'guides whom He wills'. But you shall certainly be called to account for what you used to do (The Bee 16:93)? (if we act how Allah wills, how can we be held accountable for what we used to do if we were not the agents of those actions?) Are we to see those of other faiths and let them continue on their paths (even if erroneous) for only God/Allah can judge and set proper punishment in the hereafter (The Cave 18:29; The Wind-Curved Sandhills 46:8-10)? – or are disbelievers our sworn enemies, who should be made war with, strike off their heads for those who follow Muhammad are ruthless to the infidels (The Women 4:101; The Repentance 9:123; Muhammad 14:4; The Victory 48:29)?

Whichever verse you use to justify your beliefs will make you correct and faithful to your Holy book. Whether you are trying to justify oppressing women or equality with them, you will find it in your Holy Book. Whether you are trying to justify condemning others or being tolerant toward whichever group constitutes the others, you will find it in your Holy Book. For as reviewed briefly here (for there is much more in both books), both books have beautiful and grotesque passages. It does take greater work with selective editing to focus on the beautiful parts than the grotesque, but it can be done and doing so leaves little wheat for all the chaff. This brings us to the final part: what is in the book versus what you take from your Holy Book.

Do you follow the laws put forth in the Bible and Koran? – not just the notable 10 Commandments and 5 Pillars, but the other laws and foundational aspects that though they do not get the same focus, are decrees from God/Allah nonetheless. If you say you follow the divinely handed down laws, then these nondescript laws are to be followed as well, for they were decreed. If you do not follow them, then you are either seeing them as invalid and not truly as divine laws which would have to place the same suspicion upon the foundational aspects, or just to recognize that you are breaking God's/Allah's laws.

[Bible] Returning to the law to be not changed until fulfilled, do you focus on the law of Leviticus 24:20 of 'eye for an eye,' or follow Matthew 5:39 and 'turn the other cheek'? [Koran] With women, is it two emerging from a single soul mentioned in The Women 4:1 or are women to be kept hidden behind veils and cloaks as in The Clans 33:50-59? If you do not know the history of it all, you have to take the text as it is and this is what it says: spiritual ways of 'having your cake and eating it too'.

Do you stone homosexuals? – adulterers? Do you wear mixed fabrics? Do you keep near (or not remove yourself if you are the affected one) menstruating women, instead of keeping the required distance and cleaning all touched things appropriately? Do you behead apostates and smite the necks of infidels? Each one of these is a decree from God/Allah. If you are not killing the abominations, infidels, shunning 'dirty' women and following the other laws that are listed in the Old Testament and Koran, why not?

If your answer is 'I didn't know', well, now you do and ignorance is no longer an excuse.

For those who follow the Bible, do you see the nullification of the law as mentioned in Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace. But that is a letter from Paul, a follower (one who converted years after Christ's crucifixion); Jesus Christ himself, as aforementioned, said in Matthew 5:17 that he did not come to change the law, but more as he continued in Matthew 5:18-19 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. What is the ultimate fulfillment of Christ? – Christ's return as is said in numerous places throughout the New Testament: John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also; Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation; amount numerous other verses. And you must take it at its [His] word for 1 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. Who would be the one that should be listened to more: the Son of God/Man, or a follower? – the Son said there would be no change 'till all be fulfilled' and there is more to come, so the law would not have changed.

For those who follow the Koran, along with some of the contradictions already mentioned, there is the issue of abrogation whereby an earlier verse is overridden by a later, updated verse. The Cow 2:106 We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent? Similarly, The Night Journey 17:86 And if We willed, We could surely do away with that which We revealed to you. Then you would not find for yourself concerning it an advocate against Us. Though there are some followers who say there are no abrogated verses, as the principle of what is said is not to have changed inasmuch the example used in different times had been changed to make the same point. Others say there is no abrogation within the Koran against the Koran, and the abrogation is referring to the Bible and Torah being abrogated by the Koran. The Old Testament with its patriarchs is also the inspired word of Allah, it is just in its current form modified from repeated copying. In any case – and regardless if there was an actual abrogation or not – there are verses that contradict one another between the Bible and the Koran, and within the Koran itself.

Jews and Christians are fellow 'people of the book' for they follow the Old Testament; Old Testament laws are still in effect, and Jesus as a prophet (not the prophet and not the Son of God) provided inspired words of Allah. [Koran]The Cow 2:87 And We did certainly give Moses the Torah and followed up after him with messengers. And We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear proofs and supported him with the Pure Spirit. But is it [not] that every time a messenger came to you, [O Children of Israel], with what your souls did not desire, you were arrogant? And a party [of messengers] you denied and another party you killed.

In the Old Testament, the law of Moses had adulterers to be stoned to death (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22); however, in the New Testament, Jesus with the woman caught in adultery in John 8, called for the punishment not to be stoning to death, but forgiveness. In the Koran, Muhammad stated in The Light 24:2 that adulterers are to be given each 100 lashes – without pity, and with witnesses. That is amongst the different Holy books that have been inspired by God/Allah. There are contradictions within the Koran itself. Contrary to the Bismillah [repeated saying throughout the Koran of Allah the most merciful and compassionate] and verses like The Women 4:110 And whoever does a wrong or wrongs himself but then seeks forgiveness of Allah will find Allah Forgiving and Merciful, but later on in the same book is 4:168 Indeed, those who disbelieve and commit wrong [or injustice] – never will Allah forgive them, nor will He guide them to a path. Additionally, in contradiction to do (The Bee 16:93) stating that all things are done according to how Allah wills, we have The Romans 30:26 that states And to Him belongs whoever is in the heavens and earth. All are to Him devoutly obedient, while The Cow 2:34 states And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate before Adam"; so they prostrated, except for Iblees [Satan]. He refused and was arrogant and became of the disbelievers.

The Koran, as the Old Testament [and implied in the New Testament for Jesus to not change but fulfill the law] states that homosexuals are to be executed. As following the same book of laws in these divinely inspired books, that means no mixed fabrics, shellfish. Furthermore, witchcraft and sorcery (Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 13:5; 1 Samuel 28:9) are reasons for executing someone, and unbelievers are to be killed (The Cow 2:216; The Women 4:74; The Spoils of War 8:39, among many other verses). But do not be fooled into thinking that 'people of the book' are to be spared, for ultimately they are not; the Bible, written before the Koran is not recognized as the final word of God. Christians altogether follow a false god in deifying a prophet (equating Christ with God), while Muslims can find verses that reduce other people of the book as other nonbelievers who are to be killed, such as The Repentance 9:30 The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah"; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?

One more point of contention regarding the 'Word of God' in the Holy Books: are they the inerrant word of God? Though Muhammad was to have received his revelations from the angel Gabriel, but as an illiterate, did Muhammad actually write the words? – he had scribes write his other documents, and there is no evidence he physically wrote the verses of the Koran. Were the words transcribed correctly? Even if it is granted that Muhammad wrote the actual words, in the Hadith of Bukhari 1:2, as stated by Muhammad's favorite wife Aisha (the mother of the faithful believers) Al-Harith bin Hisham asked Allah's Apostle "O Allah's Apostle! How is the Divine Inspiration revealed to you?" Allah's Apostle replied, "Sometimes it is (revealed) like the ringing of a bell, this form of Inspiration is the hardest of all and then this state passes off after I have grasped what is inspired. Sometimes the Angel comes in the form of a man and talks to me and I grasp whatever he says." 'Aisha added: Verily I saw the Prophet being inspired Divinely on a very cold day and noticed the Sweat dropping from his forehead (as the Inspiration was over). However, The Heights 7:184 states that Muhammad is a 'clear warner.' This brings us to the Satanic Verses, where Muhammad first had a revelation in The Star 53:18-23 where the worship of the three goddesses [the three birds] would be allowed; later this revelation was deemed to have been Satan giving a false revelation and a new revelation was given which rejected the three goddesses.

With the Koran we have an issue with who actually may have written the text, for it was likely not Muhammad. Even if it was granted that he did write the text, some revelations came with inspired words which were the 'hardest' and revealed like a ringing of a bell. Or, it could be instead, the words of Satan trying to deceive. With the Bible we have first and foremost no original documents to verify what is read today matches the source [original inspiration] material, which will never be found for the stories were originally relayed by oral tradition. As far as what we have today in Biblical texts, there are dozens of different versions of 'God's inerrant Word' and though some differences are minor, there are some such as Exodus 32:14 where the difference is substantial, for did God relent, as in ease up in his wrath (NIV), or did he repent, as in show signs of contrition for acting wrongly (KJV)? The difference is not insignificant. Both Holy Books (Bible and Koran) were affected by circumstances in which they are written – which would require books to review (some have been written, see Bart Ehrman, Karen Armstrong, Robert Spencer, among others).

So with all the aforementioned we again must ask: are you for stoning homosexuals, whipping adulterers (or stoning if not Muslim)? – do you see genocide as just, as long as your side wins? – is slavery acceptable? – killing apostates? Both the Bible and Koran condone each of these examples. Are you for letting each person follow their own life path? – forgiveness? – equality? Both the Bible and Koran embrace these facets – though you must be a little more selective and narrowing in getting these, but they are there.

Across the planet, across the centuries, those who carry their respective Holy Books from their Gods of Love, Mercy and Peace, have slaughtered those who had been deemed 'the other' as in 'not with my faith'; however, politics is also involved, but it also must be kept in mind that there is little to no distinction between church/mosque and State for those who use bloodshed to achieve their ends. To call a territory a Holy Land is to blend the spiritual favoritism with material acquisition – vesting one's interest both in spirit and in body. Holy books grant a final license to act against someone else by giving it not just a pragmatic base, but a moral one – it isn't just about resources, but good-vs-evil at a metaphysical level (even though they act the same, they do so to a different deity). People both slaughter others, and come to the defense of others, with an understanding it (persecution and protection) is said to come from their Holy books.

But they, as yourself for you who believe and yet do not stone, flog, or behead someone for not adhering to dogmas of faith – do you do it because your book says to act in a way (for it says to act in more ways than one) or when you see the verse that it's okay for a father to sell his daughter into slavery, and when a slave has children they become slaves as well [Bible] (Exodus 21:4-7) or beat a slave (Exodus 21:20) and that one way to free a slave is by one sharing the same faith and waiting for you to accidentally kill another believer [Koran] (The Women 4:92)? And if you say 'that was the context of the time', how do you respond to: contextually it was acceptable then? Or do you have a sense brewing in you – if reason has not fully brought to awareness – that the punishments, the killing and slavery mentioned in both – though historically may have been accepted at the time committed – is not [ever] an actual moral way of acting? That these were really examples of primate and tribal man without any real understanding of life and not generally concerned about rights of others?

In one way or another, it does come down to rejecting part of your Holy Book. Which will it be? – the part which you hold and which you let go. Will you hold onto the sexism, homophobia, the genocidal unreason listed in the pages as you accept the dogma at face value, or will you see the text as primitive man's attempt to understand the world – and that the Holy Books are creations of man – his imperfect attempts to trying to find perfection through the limits of his understanding in the culture and world in which he lived.

How you read the books and live your life says more about who you are, not about the books you hold. Which one means more to you? How will you live your life according to what the books say? That is your belief (you as an individual) in action.

The Bible didn't change; you're breaking Biblical Law

[Friday, October 16, 2015]

The thing about laws, they remain until they are repealed or the system is overthrown. This is for secular laws, for they are passed and repealed by men. Biblical laws are divinely inspired from God – they have not been overthrown, and have not been repealed. Laws of God are eternal.

There is not one line in the Bible that specifically states any one of the earlier laws – that were written by God or uttered by Jesus – have been repealed or replaced by God or Jesus. There is a conflict between what the apostle Paul had written in his letters, and with what Jesus said during his ministry. If two people are saying not just different but dichotomous things, then you must decide to whom you will listen.

Who said what?

Paul in Galatians 3 reviewed the place of the law in the Old Testament, and stated that 'Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us'. Later in the chapter, he adds that the law was not against the promises of God, but still that scripture had concluded all under sin through faith in Jesus Christ. The law was necessary until the sacrifice (crucifixion) of Jesus.

Jesus said in Matthew 5 that he did not come to change the law, but to fulfill it. In fact he stated specifically that till heaven and earth pass, not one iota (or tittle) shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. What is his fulfillment? As stated in John 14, Hebrews 9 and elsewhere, it is to return to Earth. The law is not going away, for when Jesus addresses the Pharisees about which is more important – law of man or of God – Jesus references Exodus 21, where disrespectful children 'are to be put to death'. Jesus did not say 'don't do that' or change the law, but reaffirmed it as God's command. That the law is not to change at all is a reference to Isaiah 40:8, where the temporary laws of man fade in comparison to the eternal law of God The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

For you who hold your Bible, and especially call yourselves Christians, will you follow the words of a follower who converted years after Christ's crucifixion, or Christ himself? – they say different things.

There are multiple laws in the Bible, and many are deserving death: attacking or cursing a parent, witchcraft or sorcery, doing work on the Sabbath, adultery and homosexuality, blasphemy, as well as you are not to eat pork, shellfish, meat containing blood, among many other laws (Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Exodus just for the aforementioned). These are laws that God handed down, and are if you believe in Christ more than Paul, are still laws of God and are to be followed until his return.

Following Christ over Paul, there are no qualifiers or conditions in the Bible that some laws that were given by God can be followed and others are not to be followed – laws of men are something else. If God's law is good, then all of His laws are good and are to be obeyed. If you are actually following biblical law, then make sure menstruating women are quarantined during that time, you don't mix fabrics, allow different livestock to graze in the same field, and that you are ready to kill people for violations as stated in the law (Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Exodus).

If you are not ready to kill someone for those violations because it is against the law of man, then which is more important – law of man or of God? If you're still not ready to kill someone for violating the biblical laws mentioned here, that is best. It is wrong to initiate force, even if it was supposedly 'divinely inspired'. But as such, do not hold the law of God up as a moral standard, for though the Bible may have lines such as Matthew 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment, there is also Romans 1:19-32 that lists a number of 'sins' (some of which are initiations of force such as murder, but others are not initiations of force such as being proud) ends with Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Isaiah was to have predicted, and Jesus specifically stated: God's law was not to change. It is humanity's use of reason that recognizes individual rights.

Let us not fool ourselves that the 'law of God' is good.

In God We Trust... better think again; the Bible says He is not Totally Trustworthy

[Wednesday, January 20, 2016]

God cannot tell a lie; we know this because the bible tells us so in many places. See Numbers 23:19 God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind; 1 Samuel 15:29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind; and similar verses in 2 Samuel 7:28, Psalm 119:160, Titus 1:2, and in God's Promise to Abraham, Hebrews 6:18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged.

So, it is apparent that it is true that In God We [can] Trust.

Or is it?

Let us look at the Bible and see what it says.

We will skip the implied lies, or misrepresentations, such as the admonition in Genesis 2:17 regarding eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil '... for when you eat from it you will certainly die.' Adam and Eve both did eat of the fruit and did not die, save many years later. Such a warning is similar to 'eat too much red meat and do not exercise, and you will certainly die... just not soon'. That is why we will focus on where the Bible explicitly states deception.

Two books reference the same event of God having deception done explicitly in His name: 1 Kings 22:23 & 2 Chronicles 18:22. In order to lure Ahab to the battlefield in order to be killed, both books (and verses) state the Lord sent out a deceiving spirit to be in the 'mouths of the prophets'. Specifically, those who were to speak on what God's will was to be, even the normal contrarian Micaiah, were to deceive Ahab. In a similar vein, Ezekiel 14:9 talks about prophets for false gods, however And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the Lord have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel. Which is to say for those already astray and those consorting those prophets, God will continue their false belief in order for them to be punished.

2 Thessalonians 2:9 is more explicit with regard to the wicked and lawless For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie. Instead of mercy to correct the erroneous, they are deceived by God in order to fall (or stay) in error and be punished. How similar that is to Exodus 10:27 where the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would not let Moses' people go, and the people of Egypt were punished for the heart of Pharaoh that God hardened.

Does that sound like the work of a beneficent and trustworthy God?

God shows His goodness in Psalm 5:4 For you are not a God who is pleased with wickedness; with you, evil people are not welcome. However, it is the same God who brings both good and evil as in Lamentations 3:38, Amos 3:6, Job 2:10 and in Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.

Just like with anything else the Bible is purported to say, it is true depending upon the selection used to support one's conclusion, while omitting the rest.

Justice and Free Will – Two Things We Do Not Have With God

[Friday, March 25, 2016]

For those who take their Holy Books seriously.

God is to be the Ultimate. He is to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

His omnipotence is stated in [the Bible] Revelation 19:6 And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, "Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns! In [the Koran] there is al-Haj 22:74 They have not appraised Allah with true appraisal. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might. With this, there is nothing that God cannot do; to state positively, God has the ability to do anything and everything.

His omnipresence as stated in [the Bible] Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the Lord are in every place, Keeping watch on the evil and the good. In [the Koran] The Cow, it is said Unto Allah belong the East and the West, and whirthersoever ye turn, there is Allah's countenance. Lo! Allah is All-Embracing, All-Knowing. With this, there is no place that is without God; to state positively, God is everywhere, at all times.

His omniscience as stated in [the Bible] Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite. In [the Koran] at-Tawbah 9:15 And remove the fury in the believers' hearts. And Allah turns in forgiveness to whom He wills; and Allah is Knowing and Wise. With this, there is nothing that God does not know; to state positively, God knows all things.

Combine the three, and we have God/Allah who is everywhere, knows everything and can do anything desired. Both the Bible and Koran refer to the same [monotheistic] God, so God here will refer to that one.

Is God just? Let us look at 'Original Sin' with Adam, Eve, and The Serpent.

First, on God's being 'omnipotent': being all-powerful, there is no act that God could not do, so if one was acting wrongly, that individual could be targeted. When a sniper is called to a hostage situation, if violence is immanent against the hostage, the sniper is to eliminate the hostage taker. An all-powerful one who can speak things into existence, change things at will, would have an easier time than a shooter who has to take into account numerous variables that could affect a shot. However, if that sniper decided to not only shoot the hostage taker, but also target and kill the hostage used as a shield, and then all the bound hostages, we would say that sniper was guilty of murder; if he accidentally killed a hostage, it was a reflection of his not being fully in control. We do not say that with God, who for the acts of one (or all three for Original Sin), decided to condemn every individual from every generation of man afterward. Similarly, in Exodus God could have changed Pharaoh's heart (soften it instead of harden), or just targeted Pharaoh, but instead God targeted people who had nothing to do with the oppression of His people; one more example includes the entire planet, save Noah and his family. When just the guilty could be targeted, God also targeted the innocent. Look at Job, and all those near Job and how they suffered and died for no sin of their own.

God is not just.

Next, as God is 'omnipresent,' God would have been present during the commission of the Original Sin; God was present when the sin happened as it happened. This ties into 'omniscient.' First point to consider, if God was present, and knew everything, He could have interceded and convinced each of their error to prevent Original sin; God did not stop it. God would have already known what would happen when He put all the individuals and components of Original Sin in place. Yet, God still put everyone (Adam, Eve and The Serpent) in a place with The Tree of Knowledge where the three could have easy access. God was present, knew, and allowed things to happen. As God knew things would happen, they were planned to happen – had to happen – otherwise it would be a thing that God did not know, and that could not be. An unknown thing violates omniscience.

From the beginning of Creation (Garden of Eden), God has a plan on how to end existence (Apocalypse). In [the Bible] Isaiah 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. Similarly, in [the Koran] The Reality 69:13-15 And when the trumpet shall sound one blast. And the earth with the mountains shall be lifted up and crushed with one crash, Then, on that day will the Event Befall.

As mentioned earlier, God hardened Pharaoh's heart; earlier in the chapter, Pharaoh hardened his own, but later God hardened his heart. If it was already hard, why would it need to be hardened again? How could there be a chance at change if it is prevented – ensured that Pharaoh's heart would remain hard? 2 Thessalonians 2:9 shows that people are not to change, as God will not allow it For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie. People are deceived by proxy from God to believe lie that will lead to their being punished, just as the firstborn in Egypt who had nothing to do with Pharaoh's heart. Through force and fraud, denying another their ability to make their own choices, and then punishing them for not making the choice one wanted, is not free will and is not just.

Let us return to God's characteristics of omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. As the verses state, these are characteristics God possesses, and examples are given of what God does and that there is a plan only God knows. A plan. A plan means that each individual has a path to follow in order to achieve the plan; if any individual did not follow the plan, then the plan would collapse: the Butterfly Effect and Chaos Theory. Each person would have to follow the plan in order for an omniscient God to not be wrong; each person would not have free will in order to ensure that they followed their portion of the plan correctly. God is everywhere with all power to ensure his all-knowing predictions come to fruition.

Every part, from Original Sin to the Apocalypse would be part of the plan, as well as every detail in between. One degree off is not 100%, so there could not be any variation, any free will to deviate from the plan. Every boon, but also every bit of suffering – the mass starvations, diseases, terror attacks, rapes, slavery – and all else would have been planned in advance, with victims preordained, as well as perpetrators.

One of the clearest examples is in following Christian dogma: Judas is one of the most important figures in the bible; without him there is no crucifixion, no 'redemption'. Numerous verses in the Old Testament (Isaiah, Zechariah, Psalm, among others) predict Christ's coming, including the crucifixion. Someone had to 'betray' Jesus. Luke and John blame the devil for turning Judas' heart; however, God is the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient one. God knew it would happen, was there when it happened, and allowed it to happen, just as He did with Adam, Eve, and The Serpent.

All of it had to be, with no one, not even The Serpent or Satan having a choice.

If you want to give credit to God for all things in life, including boons, then God equally deserves blame for all the suffering in life. He knew it would come, was there when it happened, and allowed it, just as He will be for anything to come. God does not just allow things to happen, but directs them – He made it happen.

If there was the tri-omni God, there would be no free will and no justice.

The True Mass Killers

[Saturday, March 26, 2016]

The Islamic faith has come under a good amount of criticism for the various attacks suffered by thousands of people at the hands of Muslims. These include gun attacks at Charlie Hebdo, bombing of trains in Madrid, most recently the bombings in Brussels, and most notoriously, in New York with 9/11. These are just a small sample of the list of attacks that have been done by Muslims against 'infidels' and an infidel country/culture.

Many lambast Islam as a religion of war. That, however, is overlooking a crucial detail that is not limited to Islam. We do not need to look back to the Crusades for religious violence from non-Muslims.

In 2004, up to 500 Muslims were killed by Christian Taroks in Yelwa, Nigeria (Johnston, 2004; PBS, 2004); many survived the attack, but fled their homes. The victims were killed by firearms and machetes. The Central African Republic (CAR) has killings and forced conversions (with torture if necessary) by Christians against Muslims. Men, women and children were targeted. In 2011, Christian Anders Breivik killed 77 people in his form of protest against the Islamization of Europe (Beaumont, 2011). In Jos, the Christian population watched as one of their citizens killed a Muslim passer-by, who then proceeded to eat him; the Christian did the kill-and-eat act twice in two weeks (Thornhill & Pleasance, 2014).

Many of the attacks are retaliatory in nature against a slight, or conflict from earlier (BBC, 2014; Chicago Tribune, 2004; Johnston, 2004). Each side can point to when members of their side were attacked beforehand; the cannibal killed the Muslim as some other Muslims murdered the Christian's wife and child. Muslims and Christians murdering each other in various parts of the world is nothing new. The murdering is not limited to cross-religious lines, as in the past and currently there are some Muslims that kill Muslims (e.g. Sunni vs. Shia) and Christians that kill Christians (e.g. Catholics vs. Protestants).

The issue is not wholly religious as religion forms a cultural base from which further actions are directed. Where religion can be seen as a flammable gas that gets ignited, combusting those already violent and those who would otherwise be peaceful; the spark that ignites and creates a blast is blowback and blowback is a retaliation. Blowback comes from interfering in another region's political structure (e.g. Iran, Libya, Egypt), occupying holy lands and interfering with economic structures (e.g. Saudi Arabia), and from killing civilians (e.g. Iraq and Yemen).

The single biggest terrorist attack was 9/11 and it was rallying cry. A national fervor was stoked, Republicans and Democrats were united as Americans and the West (and many others) mourned the loss of the Twin Towers and the near 3000 murdered. However, nearly 210,000 civilians (a conservative estimate) have been killed in Iraq alone, since 9/11 in the War on Terror (Brown University, 2015); other estimates have it at half a million, and even higher (Gordts, 2013). How many people would feel a call to service when they and their neighbors are experiencing seventy 9/11s? Osama bin Laden was an ally (though was only out of necessity) of the United States during the Cold War, but he focused upon America as an enemy for what he saw as American aggression in Muslim land including assisting Israel demolish houses in Palestine, and the deaths from starvation of one million children because of boycotts and sanctions, as he said in an interview in 1999 (Miller, 2007).

This brings us to the true killers: collectivism (i.e. group think) and initiation of force. Religion forms the irrational base which makes the collectivism and violence unquestionable. If 'God said so,' how could any human question it? It is no longer pragmatic actions about resources, but a metaphysical good-versus-evil.

The Old Testament (and New Testament through Jesus' admonition he was not there to change the law one iota) has numerous law violations that are deemed punishable by death; there are also numerous examples of God-ordained conquering and razing of cities (kill all, except save virgin girls for slavery), such as Midian and Jericho. Additionally, the New Testament (Romans 1:19-32) has a list of sins (many of which would be part of a different culture) and that those who do them are worthy of death. The Koran has numerous examples of calling for war against nonbelievers (non-Muslims), as stated in The Women 4:101; The Repentance 9:123; Muhammad 14:4; The Victory 48:29.

Whether one's Holy Book is the Bible or Koran (or Torah), holding the books as non-metaphor leads to an unquestionable collectivism that blends dehumanization of the other.

Not all cultures are equal in rightness or wrongness. Individuals within a culture or faith are the ones who actually act, but we may review the belief structure from which they act as an organizing system that provides justification for how individuals act. Dealing in aggregates, in modern times there are not as many killed for Christianity as there is in Islam. There may be a few Christians who still call for the stoning of homosexuals and other ways of returning to biblical law, but the trend is the other direction and marriage equality is being accepted by an increasing number of Christians. According to PEW Research (2013), Islam still has the majority of countries who want sharia as the law of the land, including the death penalty for apostasy. While Christianity of the West has evolved for the most part through the Enlightenment, Islam has not; Islam has remained fast for the most part in its interpretation of sacred texts. Islamists (those who want to use force to proselytize) blend modern technology and weaponry, with a medieval mentality. M. Zuhdi Jasser and Irshad Manji (a non-burka wearing openly gay woman) are examples of Muslims seeking to blend Human Rights within Islam (Gatestone Institute, 2015; Kalman, 2004); like Christianity has evolved, they seek for Islam.

Christianity needed to evolve or die with the advance of science (which providing better answers for the physical world, prompted moral review of biblical claims); Islamists say 'submit or die'.

It is not Islam that is the issue, though it is the biggest and clearest example of the issue: a system that provides group think, praises the initiation of force and has a base that is supposedly beyond the scope of human reason. You cannot argue reason with unreason. Islam is not the only example of group think. Christianity is not beyond collectivism and violence. Secular groups are not beyond collectivism and violence (Timothy McVeigh was an agnostic). Even Buddhists in Burma have taken to killing Muslims – Buddhists, even monks, killing people and burning property (Associated Press, 2014). Collectivism, and its group think can affect anyone. As studies from Milgram and Zimbardo have shown, almost anyone can fall under the control of collectivism and authority.

There is a confluence of three issues – group think, initiation of force, religion; all issues being addressed would be best, but one issue being addressed would stop the violence. That issue is the initiation of force. If the initiation of force was stopped, then even if in error, the group could remain in its religion, even if foolishly. Defensive violence is proper, and most of the violence inflicted by Islamists today is defensive politically, and religion gets tied with it to make it more righteous and unquestionable. Returning to the PEW Research statistics, the very places that have the most desire for Sharia law are the places that have had the most violence against their people – by the US and others. Embargos and regime changes are the first push of a pendulum that causes a pushback; over and over again to 9/11, the War on Terror and the equivalent of seventy 9/11s suffered by the people of the Middle East. During elections in America, there is a controversy if a candidate receives foreign campaign contributions; American foreign policy affects the people of other countries that is far beyond campaign contributions (Al-Shingeeti, 2014; Brown University, 2015; Gordts, 2013).

If you want the violence to stop, then stop giving the other reasons to attack; if you are attacked, then use violence in defense. If you are in a war, make it official, and do not draw it out, continue regime changes or build what the people do not want: defeat your enemy as quickly and thoroughly as possible, then leave and do not 'pile on' punishments. Additionally, picking sides in another country's civil war earns oneself an enemy for the time, and potentially two in the future; the helped one, once with power, may change. Finally, do not support other countries to prop up those militant regimes; those embattled need to resolve their own issues, otherwise, the helped one will not be seen as legitimate. What is best: war being averted and instead of soldiers crossing borders, products and ideas being shared. It was not through a long and protracted bombing campaign that brought down

the Berlin wall, it was the people wanting change.

"When goods don't cross borders, soldiers will." – Frederic Bastiat

Al-Shinqeeti, M. (2014, September 25). America's interference in the fate of the Arab nations. Retrieved from https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/americas/14372-americas-interference-in-the-fate-of-the-arab-nations

Arbaoui, L. (2015, August 03). Central African Republic: Muslims Forced to Convert to Christianity. http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2015/08/164678/central-african-republic-muslims-forced-to-convert-to-christianity/

Associated Press. (2014, January 24). U.N.: Dozens of Muslims massacred by Buddhists in Burma. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-dozens-of-rohingya-muslims-massacred-by-buddhists-in-rakhine-burma/

BBC. (2014, January 13). CAR cannibal tells BBC: I ate man in revenge attack - BBC News. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-25708570

Beaumont, P. (2011, July 23). Anders Behring Breivik: Profile of a mass murderer. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/23/anders-behring-breivik-norway-attacks

Brown University. (2015, March). Civilians Killed & Wounded. http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians

Chicago Tribune. (2004, May 13). 30 killed as Muslims retaliate for Christian massacre. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-05-13/news/0405130268_1_mobs-kano-muslims

Gatestone Institute. (2015, December 6). Muslim Reform Movement. Retrieved from http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7009/muslim-reform-movement

Gordts, E. (2013, October 15). Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,000 Since Start Of U.S.-Led Invasion, New Study Says. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html

Johnston, L. (2004, May 6). 500 Nigerian Muslims Slain. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/500-nigerian-muslims-slain/

Kalman, M. (2004, January 19). A Muslim calls for reform -- and she's a lesbian. Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/A-Muslim-calls-for-reform-and-she-s-a-lesbian-2809919.php

Miller, J. (2007, January 29). Greetings, America. My Name is Osama bin Laden. http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a1813/esq0299-feb-laden/

Pew Research Center. (2013, April 30). Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

PBS. (2004, May 4). Renewed Violence Kills Scores in Central Nigeria. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/africa-jan-june04-nigeria_05-04/

Thornhill, T., & Pleasance, C. (2014, January 22). 'Mad Dog' the cannibal pictured eating SECOND Muslim in as many weeks as Christians lynch and burn two men in Central African Republic. Retrieved from  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2542662/Footage-emerged-cannibal-eating-leg-Muslim-Central-African-Republic.html

God Does Not Love The Children

[Saturday, April 9, 2016]

We are often told that 'God loves the children'. This is especially heard from anti-abortionists who decree that all life is precious, and God has a plan for each individual (and would-be individual). There are, after all, numerous verses in the bible that mention God's love for His children, in particular it can be read in 1 John 5 and Galatians 3 (among others), where it is stated that those who follow Jesus are children of God, and that regardless of male or female, Jew or Gentile, slave or free, all are equal children in faith.

But talk without walk leaves empty words. A brief biblical review of God's history with children shows that God repeatedly acted without love toward children. Some acts were specifically done by God, some done for God through other [supernatural] biblical characters, while other acts were done by God's followers, with God's condoning such actions.

The book of Genesis chapters 6-7 both recount the story of Noah saving his family and two of each kind of animal. Lost in the misdirection is the genocide of a planet's population, which would have included countless families and children. With some bad people on the planet, God applied the wet equivalent of a scorched-Earth policy with "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy the earth".

In a similar vein as the planet-wide destruction, Sodom and Gomorrah were targeted as they were filled with 'wicked' people. Entire cities were wiped out, but this time it was with actual fire. The inhabitants would have burned to death. Again, there would have been children present, who would have been burnt with the rest. Only Lot, his wife and daughters escaped; his wife did not make it far before being turned into salt, for the wrongful act of turning to look at the destruction of her once home. However, before the destruction and to show how precious children were, there was a mob was demanding Lot's [male] visitors. Lot derided the wickedness of the mob for their demands, but offered up his virgin daughters to be gang-raped (Genesis 19). If he was an example of righteous behavior, exactly how much worse were the people of the mob? – would they actually have been much worse?

In Exodus 11, there is the Plague of the Firstborn where God killed the firstborn sons of all: from the Pharaoh's son on the throne, to the slave; even animal firstborn were not to be spared. This was all done with God's assistance in hardening Pharaoh's heart, so that God could show His wonders. Mass killing of children needed to be done in order to show God's might, and no mind would be allowed to change that plan.

Job 1 has the honorable servant having his faith tested through numerous ordeals that Satan inflicts, and God allowed. Among these ordeals, all Job's children are killed, crushed when winds blew out the walls of the building they were inside. That God later granted Job a new family does little for the little ones who were crushed to death.

Biblical Heroes such as Moses and Joshua were great killers for God. Moses in Numbers 31, had his people raze the city of Midian, and kill all the people within; when his soldiers spared the women, he had his men kill all the women who had known a man, so the virgin girls could be kept as [sex] slaves. Joshua razed the city of Jericho in Joshua 6, but he was more thorough, not leaving any captives. The bible is explicit in how none were spared, male or female, young or old. The exception for Joshua was Rahab, who assisted by protecting his men before the city was overthrown. Children were killed en masse by the sword, except for those taken as spoils, as sex slaves.

Abraham was ordered to sacrifice his son Isaac in Genesis 22; God waited for Isaac to be bound atop the alter, and Abraham's knife to be raised, before stopping the sacrifice. Jephthah's daughter was not so lucky (she does not even get a name in the bible), for God allowed her to be sacrificed to His honor (Judges 11).

Both Abraham and Jephthah were warriors for God, as were Moses and Joshua; they combined to slaughter and enslave countless children. Is it any wonder that soldiers waiting for battle had dreams of crushing their enemies and bashing the brains of their children on rocks – all in the service of The Lord – as stated in Psalm 137.

The 'child' (for anti-abortionists) does not even need to be born in order for it to be deemed worthy of being killed. Numbers 5 has a dust-water test for women who had their faithfulness to their husbands questioned; failing the test, if she is pregnant, leads to a Holy abortion – making her belly swell with an induced miscarriage. If that is too passive, waiting for God to induce an abortion, Menahem in 2 Kings 15 raided Tirzah; for the people not surrendering, he punished them and that included "... all the women therein that were with child he ripped up." 2 Kings 22 blends the will of a biblical hero with God's might, when Elijah was mocked by "... little children out of the city...", to which he cursed the children and God had two bears maul 42 of the children to death.

Lastly, and most egregiously, we have the book of 2 Samuel 12. King David wanted Bathsheba, but she was married; David decided to remove the competition by sending the husband [Uriah] off to war to be killed – and he was killed. The enabled David to marry Bathsheba. The Lord was upset with David, and in order to punish him, allowed a son to be born, only to suffer for seven days before dying. If there is any innocent individual, it would be a newborn. It had no control over how it came to be, who its parents were, and had no means of doing anything except receive care after being born. It was this helpless innocent that was stricken and made to suffer before being killed.

God has no problem directly or indirectly, with the killing of children (fetuses or actually born individuals). Contrary to the admonition in 1 John 5 and Galatians 3, there are those who are not children of God. As not part of being in the 'ingroup' they are of the 'outgroup' and with Holy Religious division, not truly human deserving of rights. At best, God's love for children should have an asterisk, for if you are not part of 'His children' then you are of 'their children.' Revelation 2 states that "I will kill her children with death." Here, it is not specifically referring to actual children; however, through biblical examples, though not specially isolating children, they are included. If virgin girls can be taken as sex slaves, boys can be killed with the sword, and a newborn be made sick and suffer until it dies, why should it be assumed that other children would be safe? By repeated examples, children are not safe.

God loves His ingroup, and not those outside – children or not. (rather, the fundamentalists' adherence to biblical doctrine denies love as a concept does not actually have emotion). It is a Good Beyond God, the use of reason and recognition of individual rights – and of humanity – that enables one to truly love.

What was Jesus [Christ]? – humanitarian or hypocrite?

[Friday, August 19, 2016]

WWJD, or What Would Jesus Do, is a colloquialism. The purpose behind it is in the assumption that Jesus [Christ] was a perfect being, and would act perfectly. In our imperfection, we are to seek what the perfect being would have done; in our flawed manner, we try to emulate Jesus and choose rightly – what would he do?

We must ask then: what is the model that Jesus provides?

Perfection is label that if given a priori, is because the behavior afterwards is expected to meet a certain standard; perfection is a label that if given post hoc, is because the behavior met a standard so the one earned it. Whether or not perfection was held beforehand or afterwards, the behavior seen is how we judge.

It is the behavior that we must examine to see what type of model Jesus provides.

Was Jesus a humanitarian, or a hypocrite?

In this review, we will stay with the canonical gospels, and not gnostic gospels: the traditional/dogmatic Jesus.

Was Jesus compassionate to those who had trouble in their hearts?

The answer is yes, Jesus is compassionate and giving. See Matthew 11:28-30: 28 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

The answer is no, Jesus is cold and dismissive. See Matthew 8:21-22: 21 Another disciple said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus told him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."

What should the wealthy do with their wealth?

The answer is that the rich are to sell their possessions, and give the money and their wealth to the poor. See Mark 10:21 21 Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. "There is still one thing you haven't done," he told him. "Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." This is a repeated statement in Luke 12:33 that begins with 'Sell your possessions and give to the poor.'

The answer is that the rich are to spend their wealth on Jesus. See John 12:1-6 where [a] Mary, who was wealthy, anointed Jesus with a perfume that '...was worth a year's wages' and it could have been '... sold and the money given to the poor'. Jesus' reply was John 12:7-8 7 "Leave her alone," Jesus replied. "It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

Jesus, after all, was a transient; he and his followers walked the land as they ministered, and sought places that would accommodate them, see Matthew 10:9-15, where he spoke of his people not carrying anything with them for they should find '... some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave' and in condemnation for those who do not give hospitality, verse 15 ends with "Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah [towns God had destroyed] on the day of judgment than for that town." Jesus was well pleased with the rich who kept her riches to anoint him with what could have fed many.

Is patience a virtue to Jesus?

The answer is yes, see Matthew 18:21-22 "21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?"22 Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times." Additionally, earlier in Matthew 18:12-14, where he mentions the importance of finding the one lost, and how dear it is to have that one redeemed. There is the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8, where in verse 11, he did not follow the letter of the law, but said to her "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

The answer is no, see Mark 9:19, where after a crowd brings a 'possessed' child to be healed by Jesus, they first get a scolding "Jesus said to them, "You faithless people! How long must I be with you? How long must I put up with you? Bring the boy to me." To his followers who were concerned about how to live (be clothed and eat) while following Jesus, they were scolded in Luke 12:28 "8 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you—you of little faith!" In Matthew 8:26, Jesus chastised the apostles' fear of being at sea during a storm 'You of little faith, why are you so afraid?' Mark 14:37, after he returns from praying to find the apostles who were to be on guard had fallen asleep, Jesus chastises them "37 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Simon," he said to Peter, "are you asleep? Couldn't you keep watch for one hour?" To a crowd that was not following his meaning, he berated them in Luke 12:56 "Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don't know how to interpret this present time?"

Is family important to Jesus?

Family and honor was important to Jesus. He followed the Law of Moses. Jesus was not there to change the law, as he specifically stated in Matthew 5:17-18 "17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Exodus 20 begins the list of commandments, and verse 12 states "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." Being one of the primary commandments, family and honor would be of great importance.

Family and honor was not important to Jesus. Beginning with his words when calling for followers in Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple." When Jesus was preaching, his mother and brothers came and waited for him; however, when Jesus heard his family was waiting for him, he dismissively responded in Matthew 12:48-50 48 He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." John 2:1-4 has a more hostile Jesus to his mother. On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine." 4 "Woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My hour has not yet come."

Did Jesus come to bring peace?

The answer is yes, see the proclamation of Jesus' birth announcing in Luke 2:14 "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests." Jesus promises peace and the Holy Spirit in John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid."

The answer is no, as he did not come to bring peace, but division. This is stated in Matthew 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Speaking prophetically on the end times – which must come for fulfillment – in Luke 21: 22-24 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Luke 22:36 Jesus advises his apostles to sell their cloaks if necessary to buy a sword. The clearest example of not being for peace, or at least a peace that was akin to Pax Romana, is at the end of the Parable of the 10 Minas in Luke 19, that ends with 27 "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

So what was Jesus? – humanitarian or hypocrite?

Jesus explicitly stated he had not come to change the law, but he challenged the law repeatedly. He said in Matthew about not changing the law (easier for Heaven and Earth to disappear than for the law to change), Jesus did not follow the law about honoring his father and mother, and he did not stone the adulterer, as the law said was to be done. Jesus came to give and leave us with peace, but then he also said to trade in cloaks to purchase a sword, and he prophesized about the division and war to come – must come to fulfill his prophesy. He told all to sell their possessions and give the money to the poor, but when a rich one pampered him, he gladly accepted. The admonition of Mark 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God, turns out to be conditional. Otherwise, the benefactor, the one who had a house and goods to offer those who had not, and had the funds to be able to afford the expensive gift to foist upon Jesus, would be condemned for keeping that which enabled her to offer room, board, and gifts. It was a precursor to the church's selling of indulgences, centuries later.

So where does this leave us for an image of Jesus?

It leaves us in the same manner of Muhammad, a picture of a man who through all his virtues and faults, was the product of his time: primitive, tribalistic, and dogmatic. Neither one of them actually wrote anything down they were purported to have said, and their 'word' was advanced by vested interests (those wanting to sell stories of divinity) post hoc; in the case of Jesus, these stories were written down decades and centuries after the he had died. As presented in the gospels, the most gentle way of putting things is Jesus was inconsistent. Hypocritical would also be an appropriate label, as would humanitarian. These terms are not mutually exclusive. He was a man of his time, but still a man, who contextually advanced a more humanitarian system than was in place, but still lauded tradition.

Ultimately, WWJD – and finding an answer – is more reflective of who is asking the question, with respect to what is the best, or perfect option. From contradictory behavior and statements, there is a way to justify most positions. Think about what would be the best option, for there is a standard beyond Jesus that is what is used to judge his actions by. Otherwise, it is mindless dogma, and repetition – adapted to your own preference.

If I Wanted to be Seen as God (Sacred or Secular)

[Sunday, August 21, 2016]

If I wanted to be seen as God... to be seen as the ultimate authority, I'd want to have the whole world be subservient. I wouldn't be happy until I had amassed the masses under one collective umbrella – mine. So, I'd set about however necessary to denigrate the individual, and elevate the group. I'd begin a campaign of promises with the false humility of a democratic fascist, and I'd whisper 'it's for the greater good.'

To the ignorant or the too-busy, I would state that I'm 'here to help'. I would convince them that my institutions benefit the people, instead of the other way around. I'd speak in contradictions, but not speak too definitively so I could always state 'you misunderstand' and I could direct them where I want for the moment.

And then I'd get busy. I'd emphasize how weak the individual is, and how in isolation he is nothing, so the individual achievers have nothing but luck to give credit, after giving credit to everyone else. The saying 'they didn't do that on their own' would be common, and as we all are part of society, we all are owed a portion, that I'd promise to take from them and give to the rest. Among the promises I'd make would be violations of supply and demand, ignoring scarcity, and for any problems of all getting what they'd want, I'd blame those who take 'too much of the pie' and say they need to lose some. I'd be working with those among them who are aligned with me, setting up programs that ensure my status quo remains. They, after all, have the means to help implement what I want. They're allowed to benefit by benefitting me. All the while, I'd devalue the wealth you do have, making my help more needed.

I'd push classism, as having an 'enemy' – someone who's guilty of sin for being too light or dark, feminine or masculine, rich or poor, or whatever else, is too useful to redirect the forced inequality I create. Nature is indifferently not egalitarian; I am intentionally not egalitarian. I'd make exceptions the rule. I'd use narratives over numbers, for people can be more easily swayed by emotion than by reason. A feeling cannot be argued. Reason points out contradictions, and takes away from my mysterious ways, so it is to be abandoned.

I would also do away with 'objective truth.' The only truth is that which is relative. Truth is a social construct; society is my construct. When I say 2+2=3, 4, 5, or any other number, or all numbers, it will be accepted. For those who have problems accepting it at first, I will have it said that 'I work in mysterious ways,' from which any rationalization and justification can be made. Critical thinkers are outliers and to be expunged. They are not needed. Independent thought is not a virtue; conformity is. Paragons in my society will be those who follow my path, regardless of how cruel it might seem. Those who share my purpose will be ready to sacrifice one and all to my truth, whether it'd be the taking life of a child to prove love, or spy and betray family, in loyalty to me.

Criminalization of harming another would be secondary to threats to my order. I'd set up zones of speech, differentiate between speech types including making illegal and immoral criticism of me and my system, and even make it so thoughts could be deemed as wrongful as actions. As I would be the victim of these victimless crimes, I would set up paths through which one could pay me to get back in my good graces, and their unorthodoxy and sins would be forgiven. Love comes from the promises I make and the purpose I give, which ultimately are just to serve me. Emphasizing my love, my righteous cause, and how they hurt me or harmed my cause by not following rightly, I'll make the people feel guilty. It is not enough to obey, and they must love me – that obligates them. Obligation and dependency will shine me in a positive light. Cattle follow and get their feed from the rancher who will slaughter them.

In other words, I'd just keep on doing what I'm doing. Good day.

