Blog Archives
Jesus May Appear in Many (exclusively white) Forms
Throughout the new testament, especially after the crucifixion, Jesus appeared to different people in different form. It would be easy to laugh this off as confirmation bias in the face of obviously damning evidence, but Jesus doesn’t believe in damnation as much as salvation.
I’m something of an expert on salvation. It is literally my middle name. I’m not joking. It’s printed on my license. I know what I’m talking about.
But while Jesus may appear in many different forms to many different people, why is it that he always appears as a white hippy to Americans? In recent years he doesn’t even have a long beard, but rather a well-kempt one, as if he might have owned a Flowbee.
Well fret not my fellow doubters in Christ, the answers are as many as they are plentiful and cornicopiaieriaioreosally… As sure as Christ’s death absolved me of sin, that’s a real word.
via Jesus May Appear in Many (exclusively white) Forms (comic) | GlossyNews.com.
Too funny for the Church? Comedy show gets “excommunicated”
Licking a crucifix and pressing some very hot buttons: German satirist Carolin Kebekus
THIS SORT OF THING really shouldn’t happen. Article 5 of the German constitution clearly states that “Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.” This freedom is absolute – except in cases involving a publicly sanctioned religious group, above all the Catholic Church.
The latest case: This week the German TV broadcaster WDR abruptly cancelled a completed and broadcast-ready satire show starring comedienne Carolin Kebekus. Set to premiere tonight at 8:15, it was to be the popular performer’s first solo show. But now her series has been trashed and she won’t be hired back anytime soon. Why? It turns out that the centerpiece of Kebekus! was going to be an elaborate rapper sequence lampooning the Catholic Church.
The offending musical number starts out with Kebekus dying of boredom at Sunday mass, when suddenly the church door opens and she appears in person, now dressed in a white nun’s habit and wearing golden chains around her neck and waist. During the ensuing rap number, this naughty nun twirls her chains, repeatedly licks a crucifix, flashes an altar, joins other nuns in dancing around a burning bush, and otherwise desecrates revered religious symbols. In other sections, an altar boy raps about how superior he is for being Catholic, and a pudgy gangsta-style rapper (German-Moroccan rap artist MC Rene) dressed in priestly robes expounds on virgins, celibacy, and pedophilia. (“In the church I’m the king,/Everyone kneels when I sing./Skip the bitches, I look away,/Celibacy means I do it my way” etc.).
The guiding theme of the video is the popular hym “Danke dem Herrn” (“Thank -you Lord”), a favorite of Sunday school classes and bible camps, sort of a Central European equivalent of Kumbaya. But Kebekus gives this normally ho-hum tune a different twist:
Thank-you for my golden chains,
Thank-you for my virginity,
Thank-you for letting me wear the same dress everyday.
She and the other nuns deliver a break dance before singing:
Thank-you for my fear of gays,
Thank-you for the condom ban,
Thank-you for threatening hell for every sin I commit.
You can read the entire German song text here.
Hence the rap-song’s title: “Dunk den Herrn.” Yes, that’s really “dunk,” i.e. what you might think of doing to a donut.
WDR explained its decision as follows:
Particularly the scenes with the crucifix could injure viewers’ religious convictions. This was and is not the intention of the “Young TV” editorial group. Nor could it be reconciled with the WDR {code of conduct}, which states clearly in Article 5 that the religious convictions of the population are to be respected.
In other words, there shall be no censorship – until there is.
This sort of censorship is nothing new here – I’ve already written about similar cases in this space before. But those who deplore such satires would do well to reflect on where they come from in the first place, namely from the ban on religious free expression at the expense of basic civil rights.
Let me cut WDR some slack here and admit that the segment is about as blasphemous as you could ever get. Call it Piss Christ on crack. But that’s the whole point of the exercise: Provoking a response. If they’d just let these caricatures go through without comment, the public would no doubt tire of them quickly, and people like me, who don’t even watch TV, would never even have known about this one. As it is, “Dunk den Herrn” is now attracting millions of visitors to Youtube.
You’d think people would learn.
via Too funny for the Church? Comedy show gets “excommunicated” – Alan Nothnagle – Open Salon.
‘Please stop killing each other in my name, I don’t exist,’ clarifies God
God has spoken out for the first time in pretty much two thousand years in an effort to distance himself from the continuing acts of barbarity carried out in his name around the world, claiming non-existence in his defence.
‘Honestly, it’s fuck all to do with me,’ God said,
‘I don’t care what you call me – Allah, God, Yahweh, Vishnu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whatever – It really doesn’t matter because I don’t exist. Seriously, can you please stop killing each other in my name, which isn’t real by the way, because even if it were it still wouldn’t be any kind of justification whatsoever.’
God continued, ‘And for all those thinking, ‘Hang on a minute, how is God saying all these things despite the fact he says he doesn’t exist?’ Well let me tell you something, it takes about as much effort in terms of cognitive dissonance to say that I don’t exist despite all evidence to the contrary as it does to believe I do exist without a shred of evidence of any kind whatsoever. I mean, come on, think about it for a moment.’
When asked precisely what humanity should believe in in the wake of his declaration of non-existence God replied,
‘How the hell should I know? Maybe you’re all part of some weird experiment conducted by aliens, or perhaps you’re just the product of sheer astronomical dumb luck. Or, how about this – it might not even mean anything to ask the question in the first place. Have you thought about that?’
God added, ‘But in the meantime, in my absence, please, please, please – I can’t stress this enough – just try and be nice to one another.’
via ‘Please stop killing each other in my name, I don’t exist,’ clarifies God | NewsBiscuit.
The Venial Glint
My father was a lost cause, Granny informed us shortly after arriving to spend her final year of wisdom and illness with us, and by the time she was almost ready to be judged herself, confined to her armchair in the living room from morning until evening when he – The Great Sinner – would carry her to bed, she had given up speaking to him entirely, judging him solely with her eyes.
Despite her assurances that even a venial sin could get you barred from heaven, there were occasions when my mother’s mother was so taken with the idea of damnation that a definite hint of affection could be detected in her voice when she spoke of it. She would turn bright red as her sermonising became more vitriolic, and her eyes would seem to shine. My father called it the ‘venial glint’, and said that if she didn’t feck off to heaven soon he would have her removed from the house – or remove himself – to escape it.
Venial sins were like pennies, she told us, adding up to make a pound, and if you didn’t repent your pennies you would be left with a pound of mortal sin. I was sure that if she didn’t stop talking about venial sins my father would commit a mortal one.
My mother was a sinner by virtue of marrying my father, who was soon forced to enjoy his evening whisky in the shed. I was a sinner for not finishing my vegetables and a heathen for watching cartoons. The newsreader was a sinner for wearing make-up, the weatherman for predicting God’s wind, and the dog for being a dog. We were all doomed.
On the evening she finally departed for heaven, there was an air of quiet celebration in the house. I was allowed to watch television instead of doing my homework, my father was allowed his whisky in the living room for the first time in almost a year, and my mother sat peacefully while the colour that had drained from her face within days of Granny moving in began to return.
I wondered whether Granny was as happy as the rest of us that she was finally up in heaven, and whether her exacting standards would be too much even for the angels. My father, after a whisky too many, wondered aloud how long – if she had managed to get there – it would take for God to have her removed, now that she was living in his house, or whether the big man would simply remove himself and return to us mortals for an early second coming, just to escape that venial glint…
It was a sin to say such a thing, I was sure, but my mother said that God would understand, now that he’d finally met her in person.
Written by Chris Connolly Illustration by Thomas McCar
Jesus and Mo
I really enjoy Jesus and Mo. It a series of funny cartoon strips featuring the two characters – Jesus and Mohamed. It’s totally irreverent and of course heretical, but at the same time it isn’t mean in any way and isn’t on any kind of soap box trying to insult these major religions. Its just a bit silly, lighthearted, and very funny
via Jesus and Mo.
Quotation by Siddhãrtha Gautama (Buddha)
Quotation by Siddhãrtha Gautama (Buddha):
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
Buddhism practised as a way of life is fine but Buddhism practised as a religion is total nonsense. Once Buddhism becomes a religion it acquires the trappings that go with it… greed, wealth, rituals, divisions, factions, superstition, dogma,canons, creeds , veneration,myths and the final plea please help me Buddha
What Religion Cares Most About the Homeless?
A homeless man “conducting a clever exercise in behavioral economics disguised as an inquiry into the levels of spontaneous generosity as determined by religious creed or lack thereof.” For the record, at last count, the atheists were winning.
via This
Jesus and Mo
I really enjoy Jesus and Mo. It a series of funny cartoon strips featuring the two characters – Jesus and Mohamed. It’s totally irreverent and of course heretical, but at the same time it isn’t mean in any way and isn’t on any kind of soap box trying to insult these major religions. Its just a bit silly, lighthearted, and very funny
via Jesus and Mo.
Jesus And Mo
I really enjoy Jesus and Mo. It a series of funny cartoon strips featuring the two characters – Jesus and Mohamed. It’s totally irreverent and of course heretical, but at the same time it isn’t mean in any way and isn’t on any kind of soap box trying to insult these major religions. Its just a bit silly, lighthearted, and very funny
See again on the 8th May
The Faulty Logic Behind the Defense of Divinely Inspired Biblical Massacres
The Faulty Logic Behind the Defense of Divinely Inspired Biblical Massacres
Bible-believers obstinately argue that the divinely sanctioned massacres in the Bible were morally justified–even an example of God‘s goodness and mercy! The logic behind their reasoning is as follows:
The biblicist is working under two assumptions: 1) God is good and all-powerful; 2) God, in fact, ordered massacres as described in the Bible. Therefore, there must have been some reason for God’s actions, no matter how bad they seem, a reason on which we can only speculate. The skeptic is asked to rule out every conceivable loophole, but how can he do that if he lacks the mind of God?
What has been overlooked is that the biblicist has already assumed everything, leaving nothing for rational debate! If we begin with the biblicist’s two assumptions then, of course, the massacres were morally justified! But it’s an empty claim, a bald-faced claim by fiat, not a compelling conclusion reached by reason and evidence. Skeptics, of course, don’t begin with both of these assumptions. That would beg the question.
If we assume that God is good (and all-powerful) then the question is whether God, in fact, ordered those massacres. If this is to be a reasoned inquiry, we must begin with the idea that God may or may not have been responsible. We must begin with both possibilities on the table! The data must guide us–not preconceived doctrine. Which view best fits the data? Are these massacres of men, women and children more likely the work of a god who is morally perfect or a god who is morally defective? If Chemosh or Baal were depicted as slaughtering children in some pagan manuscript, what would you conclude? I doubt you would cite it as evidence of superior morality!
The question is not whether we can shoehorn these deeds into a god of goodness. That approach reflects an a priori assumption, without benefit of evidence, that God performed those deeds. Rather, we are weighing the two possibilities on a balance. Are those deeds what we would expect from a god of goodness or are they not? Certainty is not possible and, thus, not a requirement! We need only observe whether the balance leans predominantly in one direction or the other. From that perspective the answer is obvious. Only a defective brain could suppose that such massacres are best interpreted as acts of moral perfection.
What Bible-believer would not gladly ditch these passages, this albatross about the neck, if only an inerrant Bible could be retained! It’s not by accident that conservative theologians do backflips through flaming hoops to explain why God must act so badly! The moral stench is pretty obvious, that being the cause of mighty efforts to make it go away.
The best conclusion, by far, is that if God is good then he did not order those massacres. He did not order the taking of young women in a battle to serve sexually. That is, if God is good then biblical inerrancy goes out the window.
If we begin with the assumption that God did, in fact, order those biblical massacres, then let us ask if God is truly good. If this is to be a reasoned inquiry, then we must begin with the possibility that God may or may not be morally perfect. There is no point in asking that question if our mind is already made up! All possibilities must be on the table at the start of an objective inquiry; the evidence must decide, not preconceived doctrine. Are these massacres more likely the work of a morally perfect god or are they more likely the work of a morally defective god?
Once again certainty is not possible and, therefore, not a requirement. Once again, the question is not whether we can shoehorn such deeds into a god of goodness but, rather, which way the balance leans. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of morality knows that, all things being equal, the slaughter of women and children is immoral. It’s a no-brainer. The balance tips heavily in favor of a god lacking in moral perfection. Such deeds (without the influence of preconceived doctrine) would never be attributed to a god of moral perfection! If the slaughter of children (and the rape of young women) were seen as evidence of high moral behavior, we would not find apologetic tomes dedicated to explaining why a God of goodness must act so!
The best conclusion, by far, is that if God ordered and supported these massacres then he lacks moral perfection. That is, if the Bible is the inerrant word of God then God’s goodness goes out the window.
Once we understand the logic behind the argument over the massacres in the Bible, we may dispense with certain confusions. The skeptic need not have the mind of God or close every loophole in order to draw a sound and robust conclusion. He or she need only follow the evidence and draw the best, the most natural conclusion. If the Bible-believer were to do that, he would find himself in a serious quandary. Either he must give up God’s goodness or give up an inerrant Bible. Liberal Christians have decided that God’s goodness is the sounder theological position. Conservative Christians have never worked out the logic or, else, are in deep denial.
The Bible-believer may, of course, assume both points. No logical contradiction is entailed, though it does propel one into a kind of Alice-In-Wonderland world. Nevertheless, one should be up front about it and not pretend to be reaching a conclusion based on evidence and reason. It’s a case of burying your head in the sand and declaring that all contrary views–and evidence–are irrelevant! Obviously, there is no point in having a debate with such a person. Without appeal to evidence and reason, an honest believer can only say “Believe me, I’m right!” to a potential recruit. Fanatical believers in a flat earth, Zeus, or Cinderella are all on the same, logical plane with such a person. Once we admit that evidence and reason do not apply, then the knot that holds us to reality is slipped, and it’s off to fantasyland! For most of us, that is unacceptable.
In case you have gotten lost in all this logic, here is a synopsis. If the Bible-believer must reach deep into “creative” explanations, into the merely possible rather than the natural, to justify the divinely inspired massacres of the Bible, then it is clear that he or she is effectively operating under the assumption that a moral God, in fact, is responsible. An objective mind, bringing no such a priori baggage, would hardly go to such extremes to defend one position over the other. Once we understand that the Bible-believer actually begins with the assumption of God’s goodness and with the assumption that God wrote an inerrant Bible, we rightly wonder why there is a debate at all–the key points have already been assumed by the believer! A mountain of data will not persuade those believers as long as there is a single loophole to hide in, and there will always be loopholes to hide in.
The skeptic is saying that if the Bible-believer wants to seriously debate this point, then the debate must begin with objective neutrality. All possible outcomes must be on the table at the start! The opposing conclusions must be weighed for truth and the best one selected. In reaching for the best conclusion, the most natural conclusion, certainty is not a factor. Loopholes are not a consideration. We are not required to plumb the depths of God’s mind. When objective neutrality is enforced, the conclusion is a no-brainier and the Bible-believer has the unsavory choice of choosing between God’s goodness and an inerrant Bible. The liberal Christian has chosen to take his or her stand with God’s goodness. The conservative Christian seems to have gone into deep denial. The atheist, of course, rejects both assumptions. A nonexistent God does not contradict what we know best about our universe. Nor do we have the problem of pretending that an error-riddled Bible is somehow his word to us.
Margaret Thatcher’s Brief Visit to Heaven
Margaret Thatcher’s meeting with With Jesus Christ aka God , the Holy Trinity appears not to have gone smoothly
Is there Prejudice against Atheists?
Just ask any atheist, chances are they will answer, “absolutely!” Many try to disguise discrimination against non-believers as a moral issue. Much of that is discussed in False Assumptions. That rhetoric gravely mirrors that which is used against homosexuals today and was used only decades ago against African-Americans. As acceptance for other minority groups and religions grows, Atheists will probably be the last to gain the protection under the ‘PC’ umbrella.
It has never been advantageous for religions to be accepting or even tolerant of Atheism and doubters. Their smear campaigns, criticism, censorship and punishment of dissenting opinions throughout history still echos today. It was seen strongest in the anti-communist era with Mccarthyism and is now seen in areas dominated by radical Islam.
A Newsweek poll found that 26% of registered voters think that Atheists are inherently immoral, only 29% would vote for an Atheist, and only 3% called themselves Atheists.
In another poll, 53% of US responders found Atheism ‘Unfavorable’. The next highest was Muslems at 29%.
The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George H. W. Bush, on August 27 1987.
RS:
“What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?”
GB:
“I guess I’m pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.”
RS:
“Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?”
GB:
“No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”
RS:
“Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?”
GB:
“Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I’m just not very high on atheists.”
“ATHEISTS, AGNOSTICS AND NON BELIEVERS ARE THE TRUE CRIMINALS OF THE WORLD COMMUNITY” –tencommandments.org
“How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists … and homosexuals are on top?”
– Pat Robertson
“… atheism is none other than raw depravity – the diabolical principle at work in people who dishonor their parents, murder, lie and commit every other moral crime.” – tencommandments.org
“Not only does atheism prevent atheists from properly understanding… but it prevents their minds from being elevated enough to understand the simplest common sense facts.” – tencommandments.org
“All you atheists are *******es. None of you have fought in any wars, or have done anything dangerous.”
– testify
“Have you been burned before? If not, then you will experience it for eternity, unless you accept Christ into your heart.”-guestbook
“THIS IS BS!!!! u guys have no right!! i know u are entitled to your own religion and ur own beliefs… but that is ALL BS!!! and u should be ashamed of urself!!! u inconsiderate a$$holes!!!!!!! TO HELL W/ ALL OF Y’ALL!!!!” – guestbook
misebogland 