The Constitution; Flawed or Just Outdated?


I have to say it is both. But for the sake of argument let’s just say it is just outdated; there is usually less offense taken from this perspective but there is offense taken none the less. I am constantly amazed and offended when so many people get so deeply offended at any criticism of this document. As if it were sacred scripture or something. That however does not floor me as bad as the offense people take at any hint of criticism of any of its writers.

Let’s just consider what should be undisputed facts and not my opinions, this document was written by politicians, it was written to or towards the English Crown; or at the very least with the King in mind. It was meant to define to the King what the new system of government these revolutionaries where setting up I would think as a show that they weren’t going off half cocked but that they had a plan. Regardless it was written by men who just won the freedom to govern themselves, men who were now free from English rule.

The Constitution was written for a government that would govern 13 independent colonies. Leaders of this revolution were awarded colonies to govern on their own,  independent of each other without a Federal government in the respect that we have today, this aspect is the source of one of it’s biggest flaws I will get to shortly. But their were only 13 colonies not 50 states. It was written in 1787 before there was a president, two years before and it was written by the Continental Congress. At that time the colonies had governors who were appointed by the King. Continental, important term here because it refers to a body of government in the North American Continent i.e. a separate one from the one on the European Continent. It was written by a Congress who wanted to be able to have authority of the colonies that were governed by the Crown. These men did not want those appointed governors to have any authority over them. Remember this was all done in succession from the Kings rule. These were all men with a common goal of independence.

Those fact are key here, especially the fact that these were men with a common goal. They were working together; this is not the mindset of today’s Congress, but then again they are still of the mindset of not being ruled by anyone; remember their was no President at the time and wanted the king to have no authority over them. They didn’t want a future President to either, they still had a nasty taste in their mouth from the monarchy.

To my main point. Those men were working together, they had a common goal; why would the allow for a Congress of different goals and ideals, and one that had 4 times the number of members in it when writing this document? It is obvious to me that they never considered the possibility that there would ever be 50 states, resulting in a larger body of government of men who were not trying to reach a goal of independence? This document was a war-time set of rules, not a document defining a set of rules for a completely independant  nation. (Here is a good place to point out that at the time only white Christian men who owned land had the right to vote, in other words all votes were cast by men of the same mindset, values and ideas). I sincerely doubt these men ever considered a nation of such diverse religious and political beliefs. These men allowed for men of different variations of the Christian faith, men with a belief in god. Yes they allowed for differences in the worship of god but they assumed everyone believed in god in the first place. They left no room for non believers. This fact is abundantly clear by the Declaration of Independence which yes does not mention religion or even suggest religiosity, it does specifically mention god and it does directly refer to god.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

These first words were specifically directed at the king; a king who believed he was appointed by god. The founding fathers were disputing the fact that the king was any better than they were.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

These words were also directed at the king; a king who believed he was given the authority to speak for god to them. They were telling this king that only god had that authority, that god never gave any man that authority. They were not just taking authority away from the king they were giving authority back to god.

But back to the political body of Congress itself. The Constitution was written with a common goal in mind. these men considered that there would someday be differences in political agendas, which is why the allowed for it in the Bill of Rights. they considered that men would worship god in their own way, and they may have even considered there would be men who wouldn’t worship at all but they did not allow for this in these documents; not believing in god was a crime punishable by death in this new America, these rights they were assuring were for god fearing (white) men only. In other words they never considered that citizens that weren’t white, god fearing and male would ever have the right to vote or would ever be voted for; that women or non white, non believing men or women would ever be part of this body of government. These differences in beliefs result in differences in politics. I am pretty sure they didn’t consider that Congress would be voting on abortion rights; gun control (remember they wanted citizens armed in a country that was occupied by the king’s army). They weren’t considering that someday Americans would seek to arm themselves against them, they were men who shared the desire to not be ruled by a foreign monarch, men who wanted to make sure that no one would ever have authority over them; remember there was no president at the time, they I believe assumed that the future president they were allowing for was, like them, a man with the same goals of being free from foreign rule, while not leaving room for error if this elected president was in fact an agent of the crown who could then take back the authority they had taken away; remember the governors of the colonies were all appointed by the king; they were forming this new government from the top down, not the bottom up. They fulling intended these governors would be replaced with elected ones with the same end goal of separation from the crown.

 

So let’s look at the holes these fact created in this sacred document.

  • any member of Congress can filibuster. A filibuster is nothing more than a member of Congress running out the clock. It isn’t as painless as a quarterback running out the clock to prevent the opposing team from getting another chance to score; for starters the House play clock is several hours in comparison to the NFL’s 15 min quarters. Congress’ strategy to prevent the opposing side from scoring is to talk until the clock runs out and there is no time for a vote. Ted Cruz once read Green Eggs and Ham and talked about his kids for over 14 hours to run out the clock.
  • Congress can also decide to vote against a bill without even reading it. This is equivalent to a judge passing sentence without a trial because he knows that a jury won’t convict. In other words the whole democratic majority rule thing doesn’t apply in Congress, defeating the whole reason the people elect politicians to represent them in the first place.
  • A bill for background checks for someone buying a firearm for example can also have in it a section that states abortion would become illegal if the bill passes. Let’s walk past the fact that one law has absolutely nothing to do with the other; a Senator who was elected because of their policy on gun control would most like vote no on this bill because they also have a right to choose policy. These deliberate conflicts in policies are intended to do exactly what they end up doing; prevent the passing of legislation put up for a vote by the opposing party. And these conflicting parts of a bill can be tacked on to a bill that has already been submitted by the opposing party leaving no room for them to choose not to submit it. In other words legislation is voted on so no one can argue that a bill was not considered.
  • The Presidential duty to appoint judges, emphasis on the word DUTY. By rules of this very Congress the President has an obligation to make sure our judicial system has enough judges to assure Americans their 5th Amendment right to due process, and the right to a fair trial. The idea of this system is that everyone is entitled to an unbiased judgement from the courts. A judge isn’t supposed to have personal views influence decisions; they are supposed to pass judgement based on the letter of the law. In the case of the Supreme Court of the United States however this is the  highest authority of what the letter of the law is. The President has a duty to appoint these judges but according to democratic policy Congress is supposed to approve this appointment to assure that once again the majority will rule, to assure that one individual does not have absolute authority. Today’s Congress has simply decided they again won’t do what is the thing under  job description for Senators and vote for the people who voted for them, are flat-out refusing to do their job. The majority doesn’t rule then does it? Any other employee in any position in any other establishment would and should be fired for refusing to do their job. Hell my 3-year-old twins grandson’s get sent to the wall when they refuse to do what they are supposed to. Imagine if a teacher refused to teach, a teacher that just sat at their desk in a classroom of students saying nothing. Imagine a fireman who refused to turn on the hose he was holding standing in front of a burning building full of people who were locked inside. Imagine a pilot of a commercial airline refusing to fly the plane full of passengers who had no way of getting off the plane. Imagine a mother refusing to parent a child, a parent who just sat there watching tv while their baby was lying in a crib unable to feed itself. Imagine a President who refused to get out of bed; who decided they didn’t want do anything all day while an enemy troops were landing on our shores. Imagine a bank manager who refused to unlock the doors; who decided they just wanted to sit in their office all day playing solitaire on their computer. All these people would lose their jobs. But; no one can fire a member of Congress. Even Presidents can be impeached for minor violations like lying about an affair, but a member of Congress? Nope, they can spend 14 hours reading a children’s book to the most powerful assembly of elected officials in the worlds most powerful nation.

I would be willing to bet that our founding fathers; while writing our founding documents; while founding our system of government considered that their successors would be such immature, irresponsible, apathetic and deceitful manipulators of their hard work; of their dreams and of their ideals.

 

To Pray or Not To Pray…That Is The Question


Recently the Church of Satan in Phoenix challenged the City Council when the tried to requested to say the opening prayer at a City Council Meeting. The City Council opens every public meeting with a prayer; a Christian prayer. The Council members reacted by holding an emergency meeting to decide what to do. They took a vote; not a vote on whether or not to let the Satanists say the opening prayer, this of course would have ended up in the State Supreme Courts where chances are the Council would have lost. They took a vote on whether or not to ban prayer all together at their Council meetings. The council voted 5 – 4 to ban prayer, rather than let the Satanists have their say. Talk about cutting of your nose to spite your face.

So who really won? Many say the Church of Satan really won, claiming that a ban on prayer is what they really wanted. Some say the Council and it’s Christian members one by not letting the Satanists say the prayer. I would say us Atheists and the Secular won this one. Let’s here if for no public prayer at Council meetings.

Ancestral Line of Jesus According To Luke


Jesus was the son of Joseph

Joseph was the son of Heli,

Heli was the son of Matthat

Matthat was the son of Levi

was the son of Melchi

was the son of Janna

was the son of Joseph,

was the son of Mattathias

was the son of Amos

was the son of Naum

was the son of Esli

was the son of Nagge,

was the son of Maath

was the son of Mattathias

was the son of Semei

was the son of Joseph

was the son of Juda,

was the son of Joanna

was the son of Rhesa

was the son of Zorobabel

was the son of Salathiel

was the son of Neri,

was the son of Melchi

was the son of Addi

was the son of Cosam

was the son of Elmodam

was the son of Er,

was the son of Jose

was the son of Eliezer

was the son of Jorim

was the son of Matthat

was the son of Levi,

was the son of Simeon

was the son of Juda

was the son of Joseph

was the son of Jonan

was the son of Eliakim,

was the son of Melea

was the son of Menan

was the son of Mattatha

was the son of Nathan

was the son of David,

was the son of Jesse

was the son of Obed

was the son of Booz

was the son of Salmon

was the son of Naasson,

was the son of Aminadab

was the son of Aram

was the son of Esrom

was the son of Phares

was the son of Juda,

was the son of Jacob

was the son of Isaac

was the son of Abraham

was the son of Thara

was the son of Nachor,

was the son of Saruch

was the son of Ragau

was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Grow Up And Put Away Childish Beliefs; Like Religion


1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

When I was a child I had a blanket that was my shield, my protection and it was my comfort.

When I was a child I believed that thunder was god bowling, that the rain was gods tears and that Noah actually put two of every animal on the ark. As a child I believed that stepping on a crack would break my mothers back and that four leaf clovers were good luck. As a child I believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I believed that if I ate a watermelon seed a plant would grow in my tummy and that if I didn’t smile my face would freeze that way.

I know better now.

Remember when you were a kid and that story your big brother would tell you scared the hell out of you; the first 500 times they told it? Sure it was scary the first hundred times you heard it, but after hundreds of nights where there was nothing under the bed you just weren’t afraid anymore?

Well when I was a kid I also believed that if thunder was god bowling and that the rain was his tears. I believed that god would protect me from evil as long as I loved him. I believed that the devil was responsible for all the evil in the world and god was responsible for all the good.

I have grown up since then, I know that thunder is caused by an increase in pressure and temperature from lightning which produces rapid expansion of the air surrounding and within a bolt of lightning. I know that the more water vapor there is below a cloud, and the stronger an updraft is it causes the water vapor to condense into cloud water or ice particles, and precipitation will form within the cloud, and then it rains.

I also know that if no god can protect me from the evil in humans no matter how much you love him. I also know that there is good in humans that don’t even believe in god.

I have put away all my childhood things, the blankies, the dolls and the toys. It is time to put away those childhood beliefs as well.

 

 

 

To Richard, From a Feminist; A letter to Richard Dawkins


“Human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights.”

Hillary Rodham Clinton

 

Dear Richard Dawkins,’

Feminism is not an issue and it isn’t political. Feminism is a stand for what is a moral, ethical and international dilemma, the violence against, the oppression and inequality of women. I believe that Dawkins is a good man, rational, reasonable, moral, enlightened, empathetic, intellectual activist who believes, sees, speaks out and stands up for women’s rights, secular freedom and scientific education for the good of the whole of humankind. What he isn’t is a run of the mill man, biased, sexist, racist, misogynistic, religious or hypocritical. He is educated, brilliant, secular and extremely influential and is or at least should be held to a higher standard. He has put himself in a position to make a difference on a global scale for the cultural, intellectual economical, scientific and political advancement and enlightenment of humanity. He has placed himself among those who know they can and will make not only a difference but history. His work is and will be studied, taught and remembered alongside of Newton, Einstein, Darwin, DeCartes, Hume, Oppenheimer, Krauss, Tyson, Bethe, Bohr, Feynman and others who have changed the course of our very existence. So yeah, I expect more of him than most.

Recently Dawkins has been misquoted, , misinterpreted, misunderstood and had completely missed the point of feminism. This is not entirely his fault but it is entirely his responsibility. It is his responsibility to clarify, rectify and unify this divide among free thinkers that he has caused, the cause in which he has fought so hard for; secular freedom and reason depends on him. This cause of secularism and reason isn’t his to divide but it is his to unite. Common Richard, don’t group all feminists into this rape culture and militant feminism; just as you don’t like being lumped in with atheists that have caused harm in the world, those that have damaged your cause; don’t let a few damage ours.

Your’s truly;

and atheist feminist.

 

No Representation Without Taxation


The Revolutionary war began when Americans refused to pay taxes without being represented. They coined the phrase ‘No Taxation Without Representation’.

Well I think it is high time and equally valid to state that there should be No Representation Without Taxation.

 

To argue that religious institutions aren’t represented is absolutely not true. To use as an argument for this that we have a separation of church and state due to the First Amendment is equally false. There is no separation. And the First Amendment was written to protect religion from government not to protect government from religion.

Let me give you a good example;

Congress has a Congressional Prayer Caucus, a Chaplain of Congress (with an office in the Capitol) elected by Congress and paid with tax payers money. Military Chaplains are also paid with federal tax dollars. How again is this the separation of Church and State? How is this not a violation of the First Amendment? It isn’t.

Congress has had a Chaplain since 1774, no that is not a typo, the office of House and Senate Chaplain came to be before the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration Independence was written.

Here are the requirements for Tax Exempt Status per the IRS

Tax-Exempt Status

Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC Section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions. To qualify for tax-exempt status, the organization must meet the following requirements (covered in greater detail throughout this publication):

  •  the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purposes;
  •  net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder;
  •  no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation;
  •  the organization may not intervene in political campaigns;
  • and n the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

IRC Section 501(c)(3)

All organizations, including churches and religious organizations, must abide by certain rules:  

  • their net earnings may not inure to any private shareholder or individual;
  •  they must not provide a substantial benefit to private interests;
  •  they must not devote a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation;
  •  they must not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office;
  • and n the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

 

Congress even wrote special legislation regarding the IRS’ right to audit churches and religious institutions;

Special Rules Limiting IRS Authority to Audit a Church

Tax Inquiries and Examinations of Churches

Congress has imposed special limitations, found in section 7611 of the Internal Revenue Code, on how and when the IRS may conduct civil tax inquiries and examinations of churches. The IRS may begin a church tax inquiry only if an appropriate high-level Treasury official reasonably believes, on the basis of facts and circumstances recorded in writing, that an organization claiming to be a church or convention or association of churches may not qualify for exemption, may be carrying on an unrelated trade or business (within the meaning of IRC § 513), may otherwise be engaged in taxable activities or may have entered into an IRC § 4958 excess benefit transaction with a disqualified person.

Now let’s look at how much this elected office pays;

Total Salary Expenditures

 

I fail to see how being an elected member of Congress does not influence legislation.

From an article by Paul Singer, USA Today;

“We do what we can to make sure that legislation emerges with what we believe to be American, Christian values,” said caucus member John Fleming, R-La. “We believe that a democracy is only functional if there is a certain level of virtuousness among the nation. Freedom also requires a certain responsibility and that requires a certain moral code. The moral code that we as Americans have lived by for over 200 years is based on what? The Ten Commandments.” 

Rep Randy Forbes VA  and a dozen other Prayer Caucus members traveled to North Carolina in March to launch an initiative called PrayUSA, asking government officials and other to sign a resolution calling for prayer. The initiative is part of “a tactical strategy to effectively challenge the growing anti-faith movement in our Country,” the foundation says.

And the foundation blog advocates strongly for the defense of conservative Christians like Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who was briefly jailed for refusing to sign marriage licenses for gay couples.

“Criminalizing Christianity is not the America envisioned by our Founding Fathers,” reads a blog post on the foundation website about the Kim Davis saga. “Sadly, the balance of power in our country is being undermined within the legislative branch and increasingly supplanted by both executive fiat and judicial tyranny. The government was never designed to replace God and therefore, does not have the authority or right to redefine the laws of nature or of nature’s God…..  We are fighting for our freedoms—silence and inactivity will leave us vulnerable and open to further attack. Christian…it is time for us to wake up and be engaged!”

How is this not influencing legislation?

 

 

While the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the a House and Senate Office of the Chaplain stating that it is a tradition and should be respected it is important to remember that slavery was considered a ‘tradition’ as well.

MARSH v. CHAMBERS, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.(1)

 A statute providing for the payment of these chaplains was enacted into law on September 22, 1789.

Clearly the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clauses did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that Amendment, for the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress.

It can hardly be thought that in the same week Members of the First Congress voted to appoint and to pay a chaplain for each House and also voted to approve the draft of the First Amendment** for submission to the states, they intended the Establishment Clause of the Amendment to forbid what they had just declared acceptable. In applying the First Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be incongruous to interpret that Clause as imposing more stringent First Amendment limits on the states than the draftsmen imposed on the Federal Government.

This unique history leads us to accept the interpretation of the First Amendment draftsmen who saw no real threat to the Establishment Clause arising from a practice of prayer similar to that now challenged. We conclude that legislative prayer presents no more potential for establishment than the provision of school transportation, beneficial grants for higher education, or tax exemptions for religious organizations.

A paragraph from writings by James Madison point out that Madison was concerned about respecting the religious rights of all religious sects;

JAMES MADISON: The tenets of the chaplains elected by the majority shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

Though Madison did see the payment of the Chaplain by the National Treasury as unconstitutional, what he deemed a violation of the First Amendment was the appointment of a Protestant, not the appointment of a Chaplain.

 

Islam; Christianity and Terrorism


Let me start by pointing out that Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all monotheistic religions of the same god. Call him Allah, Yahweh or Jehovah he is the same god. Something that most Christians do not know and do not want to know is that Muslims worship the same god, read the same Bible; Old and New Testament and they also believe in Jesus Christ. They, like the Jews just don’t believe he was the son of god, Islam does however see him as a prophet of god. They also differ from Christians on the Resurrection as they believe that god ascended Jesus into heaven before he died on the cross. They all three believe they are descendants of Adam, of Abraham and of Noah.

Another not well know fact and also a commonly disputed fact; as much so as their god being the same god and their holy books being the same is that Muslims claim the Quran was given to Muhhamed by the Arch Angel Gabriel. Yes that Arch Angel Gabriel.

What does all this have to do with terrorism? Just as Christians can’t all be lumped in the same group as Jim Jones, Davis Koresh, Adolf Hitler or those that took part in the Inquisitions or the Crusades, not all Muslims can be lumped in the same groups as terrorists; ISIS, Al Queda or Boko Haram.

The Ancestral Line of Jesus


Abraham was the Father of Isaac.

Isaac was the father of Jacob and his brothers.

Jacob was the father of Judas and his brothers.

Judas was the father of Phares and Zara.

Phares was the father of Esrom.

Esrom was the father of Aram.

Aram was the father of Aminadab.

Aminadab was the father of Naasson.

Naasson was the father of Salmon.

Salmon was the father of Booz.

Booz was the father of Obed. Ruth was Obed’s mother.

Obed was the father of Jesse.

Jesse was the father of King David.

King David was the father of Solomon. Bathsheba was Solomon’s mother.

Solomon was the father of Roboam.

Roboam was the father of Abia.

Abia was the father of Asa.

Asa was the father of Josaphat.

Josaphat was the father of Joram.

Joram was the father of Ozias.

Ozias was the father of Joatham.

Joatham was the father of Achaz.

Achaz was the father of Ezekias.

Ezekias was the father of Manasses.

Manasses was the father of Amon.

Amon was the father of Josias.

Josias was the father of Jechonias and his brothers.

Jechonias was the father of Salathiel.

Salathiel was the father of Zorobabel.

Zorobabel was the father of Abiud.

Abiud was the father of Eliakim.

Eliakim was the father of Azor.

Azor was the father of Sadoc.

Sadoc was the father of Achim.

Achim was the father Eliud.

Eliud was the father of Eleazar.

Eleazar was the father of Matthan.

Matthan was the father of Jacob.

Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, Mary was the mother of Jesus.

If Jesus was the son of god, if Jesus was conceived in her of the Holy Ghost and Joseph never ‘knew’ Mary then how in the hell are all those fathers the ancestors of Jesus?

Should Children Be Taught To Respect The Religious?


I am fortunate enough to be in a position where I not only have a hand and a say in the raising of my 2 year old twin grandsons, within this position I am also fortunate enough that they are being raised as atheists. Like my atheist father I and their father will be teaching them about religion as much as and as often as possible, but unlike my father throughout their younger years they will hear Bible stories in the same context as fairy tales and children’s stories about dragons, Hobbits, Trolls or giants. I grew up going to Sunday School in Protestant churches to learn about the Bible all the while knowing my dad did not believe in god. But I took those that did believe and their beliefs seriously; I don’t want my grandsons to think of religion as anything other than make believe. There is one drawback to this that I can foresee however; that is how do I teach them to be respectful or at least not disrespectful to the religious who take their beliefs seriously? Or do I end the unconditional respect that is granted to religion, the religious and their institutions beginning with my grandchildren.

I say I begin to end this unearned respect demanded by and given to religion. The twins will grow up looking at those that believe in the Bible and worship god the same way they would look at someone who believed in Grimm’s Fairy Tales or worshiped the Wizard of Oz. If I am going to teach them what I believe then they are going to grow up looking at god no different than Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny. The boys are not going to be lied to about these fictional characters and told they are for real, but I also cannot raise them as if they don’t exist because at least as far as Santa is concerned during the Christmas season; yes I refer to the holidays as Christmas because that is what it has always been to me, Santa is everywhere and all the other kids are lied to about him. I remember trying to explain to my youngest daughter why Santa was at every store we went to one afternoon, I think I told her he had helpers that dressed like him because everyone wanted him to be everywhere and she told me that the elves were his helpers, to which I had no reply. My grandsons however will be told the truth, Santa is just pretend, and that it is fun to pretend so lots of people pretend to be Santa and parents pretend that presents they buy were really brought from Santa just because it is fun, no other reason. I will tell them the same about the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, it’s just things we do for fun.

Although I will have a tough time selling the fun to pretend in god story; there is very little if anything about god that is ‘fun’ or ‘funny’. But then we humans do find it fun to scare the hell out of each other so I guess that works as well.

FORGIVENESS


I have felt the same way about forgiveness my whole life. Forgiveness as far as I know is a Christian concept, a concept first introduced in the Bible, a concept of god’s. God forgives all sins and sinners; which in my mind kind of negates or at least means Jesus died in vain. God forgives all sins, priests offer absolution, one may buy indulgences; there are multiple ways to be forgiven for your sins. The reason god forgives sins is because if he didn’t heaven would be empty, we are all born sinners remember? This makes it inevitable that we will sin. But there is a reason god forgives us, what is the reason we are to forgive each other? If I am not mistaken scripture or at least church doctrine says that only god can forgive our sins.

So why do people feel the need, desire or the importance of forgiveness? Yes this is prompted by the shooting in North Carolina of the 9 black people in a church prayer group by an angry white kid who killed motivated by racism. The community in which these people lived and the congregation of the church as well as church going family members are already forgiving the shooter. I see this all the time. I even see it in my personal life from even atheist friends who forgive those that have raped, molested, beaten, lied and betrayed them. Some admit that forgiving is more for themselves than those they forgive and there is a part of me that understands that need to let things go so you can move on. But letting go and forgiving to me are two different things. Forgiving makes things okay, well that being the point making things okay so you can move on also makes it okay for the person who hurt you so they can move on as well. If they move on, move past or get over what they did doesn’t that make it like it never happened? Doesn’t that make is so it doesn’t matter? Doesn’t that mean they will do it again and that no one is held responsible for what they did? Sometimes anger is a good thing, a useful thing, a motivating thing. Anger makes sure that no one forgets these crimes, for it is the doom of men that they forget. Forgetting is a surety it will happen again and again and again. I will never forgive my rapist, nor will I ever forgive my ex abusive husband for all the beatings he gave me. To I wallow in the past no, do I remember the past and make sure that others know the past yes. Am I angry about what happened all these years later no, but I am angry at those who wronged me all these years later. My anger doesn’t exist at the forefront of my daily life but don’t ever doubt it is in there, some where.

This shooting in North Carolina should not be made to be okay by anyone. Especially before the shooter has been punished for his crimes. And I gotta say this………9 black older people in a prayer group, one young white kid comes in and sits down at the table….no one for a minute wondered what the hell he was doing there? Just sayin……

Without God We Will Behave Like Animals


It is too often said that without god we humans would behave like wild animals. That we will fornicate in the street, rape, murder and live life without morals.

Animals behave more ‘godly’ than any human, even the most pius. Think about it.

The very religious suppress male sexuality and oppress female sexuality. The Bible clearly dictates, many times that sexual intercourse and ‘wooing’ is for one reason and one reason only; to procreate and create more humans. God clearly dictates that to fornicate for pleasure is a sin and to prevent pregnancy or to abort pregnancy and even to masturbate and ‘waste’ your sperm are all mortal sins punishable by death or eternal damnation. Rape is wrong, war is wrong, murder is wrong and adultery is wrong. For females to flaunt, enhance or show their beauty is a sin. To abandon, neglect or to molest and abuse your children is a sin. To destroy the earth by the crimes of arson, pollution, poison air, radiation, nuclear or chemical weapons and by logging or fishing and polluting our oceans are sins. These are all behaviors of human beings. Animals only have sex to procreate and to assure the survival of their species, animals don’t practice birth control or abortion nor do they masturbate. They don’t rape; in fact the largest percentage of species females are the ones that choose their mates, or not choose any with no rape. Those animals that mate for life to not ‘cheat’. In the animal kingdom it is the female who plain and unassuming. This is a way of protecting her from being seen so she may protect her offspring by hiding; the males are the brightly colored, larger in stature and it is the males who fight for the right to mate or display elaborate mating dances and rituals to win the females permission. Animals don’t kill or use food and natural resources beyond what the need to survive. They don’t use or do anything out of greed or materialism. Animals don’t murder out of hatred nor do they commit suicide because they are depressed. It would seem to me that if we behaved more like animals this world would be a better place and we would be as godly as god demands we be.

Congressional Prayer Caucus; Violating The First Amendment


Congressman J. Randy Forbes, Founder & Co-Chairman
Senator James Lankford, Co-Chairman

Congressman Robert Aderholt
Congressman Brian Babin
Congressman Andy Barr
Congressman Gus Bilirakis
Congressman Rob Bishop
Congresswoman Diane Black
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn
Congressman Jim Bridenstine
Congressman Bradley Byrne
Congressman John Carter

Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Congressman Mike Coffman
Congressman Doug Collins

Congressman Mike Conaway
Congressman Kevin Cramer
Congressman Rick Crawford 
Congressman Jeff Duncan
Congresswoman Renee Ellmers

Congressman Stephen Fincher
Congressman John Fleming
Congresswoman Virginia Foxx

Congressman Trent Franks

Congressman Scott Garrett

Congressman Louie Gohmert
Congressman Bob Goodlatte
Congressman Morgan Griffith

Congressman Gregg Harper
Congressman Andy Harris
Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler
Congressman French Hill
Congressman Richard Hudson
Congressman Tim Huelskamp
Congressman Bill Huizenga
Congressman Randy Hultgren
Congressman Robert Hurt
Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins
Congressman Bill Johnson

Congressman Sam Johnson

Congressman Walter Jones

Congressman Jim Jordan

Congressman Mike Kelly
Congressman Steve King

Congressman John Kline
Congressman Doug LaMalfa

Congressman Doug Lamborn
Congressman Bob Latta

Congressman Daniel Lipinski

Congressman Patrick McHenry
Congressman David McKinley
Congressman Jeff Miller
Congressman John Moolenaar

Congressman Randy Neugebauer
Congresswoman Kristi Noem
Congressman Alan Nunnelee

Congressman Stevan Pearce
Congressman Scott Perry 

Congressman Robert Pittenger
Congressman Joe Pitts
Congressman Mike Pompeo
Congressman Bill Posey 

Congressman Tom Price
Congressman Dave Reichert
Congressman Reid Ribble
Congressman Scott Rigell
Congresswoman Martha Roby
Congressman Phil Roe

Congressman Mike Rogers
Congressman Peter Roskam

Congressman Dennis Ross

Congressman Ed Royce
Congressman Steve Russell
Congressman Paul Ryan
Congressman Matt Salmon

Congressman Steve Scalise
Congressman Adrian Smith
Congressman Chris Smith

Congressman Lamar Smith

Congressman Steve Stivers
Congressman Marlin Stutzman
Congressman Lee Terry
Congressman Glenn Thompson
Congressman Mike Turner

Congressman Fred Upton
Congressman Tim Walberg
Congressman Randy Weber
Congressman Joe Wilson

Congressman Robert Wittman

Congressman Todd Young

Christian Congress, Christian Nation


First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774

The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774

O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!

Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.

Amen.

Reverend Jacob Duché
Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 7, 1774, 9 o’clock a.m.

 

This was the first prayer said before a Congressional session. Here is the prayer they said on the 15th of May 2015;

05/15/2015
Reverend Patrick J. Conroy, S.J.

We give You thanks, O God, for giving us another day.

We ask Your blessing upon this assembly and upon all to whom the authority of government is given.

The issues of these days and in coming months remain complicated and potentially divisive. Endow each Member with wisdom and equanimity, that productive policies and solutions might be reached for the benefit of our Nation.

Please send Your spirit of peace upon those areas of our world where violence and conflict endure, and threaten to multiply. May all Your children learn to live in peace.

And, may all that is done within the people’s House this day be for Your greater honor and glory.

Amen.

Tell me again we are not a Christian Nation.

Presidential Thought of The Day That Tells Us What The President Really Thinks


From the Prayer Caucus government website https://forbes.house.gov/prayercaucus/

This ‘daily thought’ expresses the idea of America that has not changed since it’s founding with one small, cosmetic, and condescending guise of not only freedom of religion but of freedom from religion. It is meant to appease the secular and atheist population of These United States of America but it actually does in endorse her contempt, intolerance, and ‘holier than now’ moral superiority those of no faith. This daily thought is a reflection of what is thought daily by those of faith; what is assumed and presumed by those of faith; that everyone believes in god not matter how or where they worship him and even if they don’t worship him; but believing him none the less. Sure our gracious founding fathers fought and died for their religious freedom and for that freedom of fellow Americans taking oaths to protect this freedom at any and all costs while overlooking or perhaps even looking past the possibility of anyone wanting the freedom of no religion at all thus assuring no one could make them worship at all but no where, no where in any document written that gave birth to our nation and systems of laws and justice is there any promise or consideration made for someones right to not believe in god at all.

Read what Obama didn’t write down, hear what he didn’t say and think about what he thought. He thought he was being politically correct and including the secular and non-believers, I think he was excluding us.

My comments throughout are in red letters, yes, sarcastically like Jesus’ words.

05/07/2015

“Presidential Proclamation –– National Day of Prayer, 2015

NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER, 2015

– – – – – – –

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

When women and men of all backgrounds and beliefs are free to practice their faiths without fear or coercion, it bolsters our religious communities and helps to lift up diverse and vibrant societies throughout our world. In America, our Nation is stronger because we welcome and respect people of all faiths, he doesn’t say ‘and people of no faith’  and because we protect the fundamental right of all people to practice their faith how they choose, to change their faith, or to practice no faith at all, he doesn’t say or to have no faith at all and to do so free from persecution and discrimination he doesn’t say from exclusion or forced inclusion. Today, as we pause in solemn reflection, we celebrate the religious liberty the secular and non-believers don’t celebrate religious  liberty, we don’t have religion we cherish here at home, and we recommit to standing up for religious freedom around the world the secular and the non-believing would not commit to  standing up for religious freedom, many of us like my self who are anti-theists would only commit to not standing up for any of them or commit to standing against all of them.  .

For many of us, prayer is an important expression of faith –– an essential act of worship and a daily discipline that allows reflection, provides guidance, and offers solace. Through prayer we find the strength to do God’s work: to feed the hungry, care for the poor, comfort the afflicted, and make peace where there is strife. In times of uncertainty or tragedy, Americans offer humble supplications for comfort for those who mourn, for healing for those who are sick, and for protection for those who are in harm’s way. When we pray, we are reminded that we are not alone –– our hope is a common hope, our pain is shared, and we are all children of God. He isn’t acknowledging those of us who do not believe in god; a pretentious gesture meant to purposely say that even though they are morally superior to non-believer they graciously give all people consideration with absolute pity for us who just don’t know any better.  Those of us who do not believe in god do not share this common hope, those of us who do not believe in gad have a common hope that no one else would either, believers do not share our pain and they are the cause of ours; and no we are not all children of god. There is no god. 

Around the globe, too few know the protections we enjoy in America. Millions of individuals worldwide are subjected to discrimination, abuse, and sanctioned violence simply for exercising their religion or choosing not to claim a faith. Presumptuously condescendingly saying we have faith we just don’t claim to. Communities are threatened with genocide and driven from their homelands because of who they are or how they pray Once again excluding concern for those of us who are threatened with genocide and driven from our homelands because of who we are or that we don’t pray, stating consideration for those that do pray. The United States will continue to stand against these reprehensible attacks, work to end them, and protect religious freedom throughout the world Add another deliberate exclusion of the phrase protecting freedom from religion throughout the world.. And we remember those who are prisoners of conscience maybe just a hint of the suggestion that conscience belongs only to those that have faith; fair enough to say giving the deliberate restating repeatably this thought is of the faithful and or those of any faith; not of no faith–– who are held unjustly because of their faiths or beliefs Is this to say that there aren’t any non-believers who are held unjustly because or their lack of faith and no beliefs? –– and we will take every action within our power to secure their release again restating their is no power used to secure the release of non-believers being held captive by the faithful. .

In the face of tremendous challenges, prayer is a powerful force for peace, justice, and a brighter, more hopeful tomorrow. is this to say that us non-believers don’t want peace or worse that we prevent it? That we are unjust with no hope for or of tomorrow?  Today, as we join together in fellowship, we seek to see our own reflection in the struggle of others, to be our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, and to keep faith –– in one another, in the promise of our Nation, and in the Almighty he had up until the Almighty. .

The Congress, by Public Law 100–307, as amended, has called on the President to issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a “National Day of Prayer.” Can we call upon him to issue a proclamation designating the second Thursday in May as a “National Day of No Prayer”?

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim May 7, 2015, as a National Day of Prayer. I invite the citizens of our Nation to give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths  How about we citizens thank ourselves in accordance with our own ideas, and consciences and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings for our hard work, and I join all people of faith yet again an exclusion, maybe even a stand against of non-believers in asking for God’s continued guidance, mercy, and protection because we can’t ask god since we don’t believe in him; from their judging eyes don’t accept him and therefore aren’t worthy of his mercy and not deserving of his protection as we seek a more just world.Slightly suggesting we non-believers are un just. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand fifteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty–ninth.

BARACK OBAMA”

What If God Didn’t Sacrifice His Only Son What If He Punished Him


Let me start by stating the obvious, I am a non-believer. But……what if god didn’t forsake Jesus but Jesus actually forsake god by breaking his commandments and preaching against the words and commandments given to Moses by god? From the get go Jesus comes out saying the way to heaven is through him, that we are to obey him as we obey god. Christians call him the Lord. Now, given the fact that the first two commandments, and to theologians the most important ones, clearly state we are not to worship anyone or anything but god. There you go. Was not Jesus blatantly and defiantly breaking these commandments?

In the New Testament Jesus says that Moses went easy on the Israelites because he understood their sinful nature. Jesus says that if you lust at another mans wife even just with your eyes if you notice her beauty then you have committed adultery. He says that god has sent him to tell them that they need to get to him by way of his son, not the way Moses had told them. He basically throws out Moses’ credentials and says he didn’t do what god told him to do.

God had already commanded the deaths of many people for crimes not much worse than those that Jesus commits. What if god told the leaders of the Jewish Temples to accuse Jesus, what if he told Pontius Pilot to crucify Jesus, what if at the very least he let it happen as punishment for Jesus defying god?

Just a thought.

 

Pope Francis; Progressive Thinker or Smooth Talker


There is a lot of hoopla over how progressive the current Pope is. But is he really? Well if you want to call finding new ways for the Catholic Church to take credit for years of scientific advancement and for Darwin’s revolutionary discoveries and observations and that this Pope is the most gracious and loving father because he can love all god’s children even homosexuals then I would have to say that this Pope is really good at saying the right words and phrases that get the people to think he is accepting homosexuals in the church and that he is scientific and open-minded.

Let me start with he ‘acceptance’ of homosexuals in the church and in the clergy. He is not saying that Christians shouldn’t have problems with homosexuals, he saying Christians can, by getting them in the church doors, stop homosexuals from having sex ergo stop them from sinning. By accepting gay men into the clergy they have to take a vow of celibacy. Problem solved. By accepting gay men into the congregation where abstinence until marriage is the rule and where marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman….well here again problem solved.

Now lets talk about what I consider to be even more underhanded and sneaky than tricking homosexuals into becoming Catholic; Pope Francis acknowledging that Darwin’s theory of evolution and the big bang theory are real. Now the big bang theory is pretty easy for Christians to hijack, all they have to do is say that god caused the big bang which still gives him credit for the creation of the universe. But trying to steal Darwin’s theory will be more difficult, as least to anyone with any amount of intelligence. This Pope very clearly does not have an understanding of Darwin’s theory, and most Christians don’t either. For the Pope to say Darwin was right he is saying that the Bible is wrong. Does anyone really believe that is what is doing? If it is does anyone really think the church will let him get away with this? Darwin says we all evolved from a single-celled organism. The Bible says god created man whole, walking upright and that he made woman from the rib of the man. Right there this whole acceptance of evolution fails. How exactly is the Pope saying humans have evolved if we physically are the same as we were when we were created? Even if he is only conceding that we have intellectually evolved how much can we have evolved if we were created with an understanding of how life began (biblically), with an understanding of language, with the knowledge of all living species on earth and what we could and could not eat, which plants and trees we could eat from, how to grow crops, how to live in a society etc.

Pope Francis needs to actually read ‘The Descent of Man’, ‘On Natural Selection’ and ‘On The Origin of Species’. Clearly he has not. Well somewhere someone in the Church had to of read ‘On Natural Selection’ because they used it to enforce anti-antisemitism and support Hitler’s perverse us of it for his eugenics experiments.

Bottom line is this, once again the lack of education that has kept Christians faithful has paid off for the church once again. If there is one thing the church is supreme for it is keeping its followers in the dark.

Reading Bible Stories As Fairy Tales


Some atheists, secular and non-believers struggle with the dilemma of whether or not to read or expose their children to the bible. I was raised by an atheist father and non church attending Methodist mother who took us to Sunday school so we could learn about the bible to help us one day decide for ourselves on matters of religion. (I wasn’t baptized). However, as much as I am thankful for my awesome parents for their decision to raise me that way, I did learn about the bible as being holy and to be god’s words. Because children of religious people are raised that the bible is the sacred undisputed word of god when they grow up they very often fear doubting this book even if their common sense tells them to. I raised my kids in a secular atmosphere and read the bible to them often and as a book to be taken seriously while pointing out it’s contradictions and flaws, most of which they saw for themselves and didn’t really need me to show it to them. I am now a grandmother of boys being raised without religion in secular homes. I have decided that I am going to read the bible to them also but not in the same way as I did my own kids. I am going to read it to them as fairy tales just like Mother Goose, The Brother’s Grimm or Aesop’s Fables. I think if they are raised hearing biblical stories as fairy tales they will never consider taking the bible seriously! Biblical stories are as silly and fantastical as fairy tales and mythological stories so why not?

Is The Supreme Court Ruling On Hobby Lobby Right Or Wrong?


I know that my readers and those that know me will assume they know which side of this issue I am on. But they will be wrong.  I have never been shy about my contempt for religion and though this Supreme Court Ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby’s objection to the company insurance covering 4 kinds of  ‘contraception’ on grounds of protecting their religious freedom I don’t necessarily see this as a religious issue; and the Supreme Court doesn’t see it as only a religious issue, it is a moral one.

It is important to understand that the objection is not against all contraception, it is against Plan B (the morning after pill), Ella (which works up to 5 days after sex) and 2 different IUD’s (Intra Uterine Devices). The argument is that these are aborticides and not contraception. Though I can see their view on Plan B and Ella I do not agree that IUD’s are aborticides, none the less this is the argument.

Here is the section of the ruling that I find to be the most important;
(3) HHS argues that the connection between what the objecting parties must do and the end that they find to be morally wrong is too attenuated because it is the employee who will choose the coverage and contraceptive method she uses. But RFRA’s question is whether the mandate imposes a substantial burden on the objecting parties’ ability to conduct business in accordance with their religious beliefs.The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. In fact, this Court considered and rejected a nearly identical argument in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707. The Court’s “narrow function . . . is to determine” whether the plaintiffs’ asserted religious belief reflects“an honest conviction,” id., at 716, and there is no dispute here that it does. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672, 689; and Board of Ed. of Central School Dist. No. 1 v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 248–249, distinguished. Pp. 35–38.

Let’s pull out this sentence and look at it on it’s own; The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. From that sentence let’s pull out the words moral philosophy. 

I will say that my own personal views on abortion are very conflictive. I think that morally abortion is wrong except in cases of incest and rape. However I do agree with a woman’s right to choose, to a point. This all boils down to ‘when life begins’ dilemma. I am of the opinion that an embryo is not ‘alive’ but a fetus is, this means that after 8 weeks I think abortion is murder. I also feel that by 8 weeks there is no reason why a woman would not have made the decision to have a baby or not. That being said the difficulty lies in what is moral and what is immoral. I find it rather hypocritical of Christians to preach morality given the immoral acts of God throughout the Bible. However we happen to agree on the immorality of abortion, but disagree on when life begins. I admittedly commend the owners of Hobby Lobby for standing by their convictions.

BUT; when I pull out this sentence It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. I have to say hold on. It is this stance of the Court that enables acts like female genital mutilation to not be illegal. Morality must be judged when it is inflicted on another human being. I a woman wants to cut off her own clitoris that is her business, but when she cuts of the clitoris of another female this is immorality at it’s peak. The same applies to circumstances involving keeping someone alive by artificial means and a loved one wants to pull the plug but another loved one cries it is against their religion to do so. If the person being kept alive would not want to be kept alive that way then pull the plug, in turn if the person being kept alive had the religious belief that it would be wrong then don’t do it. This goes for acts of rape and incest as well as any oppression of any other human being or acts of violence against them. One cannot commit an immoral act upon ones self.

 

 

Chrisitan Empathy For Nigerian Girls?


I by no means am trying to divert the focus of the kidnapped girls in Nigeria away from the Islamic terrorists that took them, but, I find it really disturbing to hear Christian leaders and clergy expressing empathy and outrage about it. Why? Because the only reason they are doing so is because they do it just to show how bad Muslims are. They do it to in a way that says Christians are better than Muslims. These are the same Christians who will be praying for the kidnapped girls AND for their kidnappers. These are the same Christians that will in the end forgive these Islam terrorists. I do not for a second believe that they have concern for these girls outside the scope of their being kidnapped by Muslims.

Jesus: Humble, Kind, Loving and Forgiving or Arrogant, Oppressive and Intolerant


Too often when the cruelty of God is pointed out to Christians, they respond with statements like ‘we are New Testament people’  or ‘I follow the teachings of Christ’. Conservative Christians speak out against same-sex marriage or stand behind God’s condemnation of homosexuality there are always those Christians who get offended and defensive arguing that not all Christians share those judgmental and hateful beliefs. They will say that Christ was loving, tolerant and accepting of gay men and the disabled, diseased or deformed.  These Christians will also say that Christ wants ‘Peace on earth’ and teaches mankind to be compassionate, kind, unbiased and humble.Humility is emphasized. They most definitely are not speaking about the Jesus on the New Testament.

Matthew 10:35 – 39 35

35Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword.

36For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law ,against her mother in law.

37And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

38He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

39And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Luke 12:51 – 53

 51Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

That is not a peaceful or humble Jesus.

Romans 1:24 – 32

24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts t impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,

25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 

27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 

29The were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,

30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,  

31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

32Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

1 Corinthians 6:9 -10

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, no men who practice homosexuality.

10nor thieves,nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. I would say Jesus shares his father’s views on homosexuals and lesbians, including that their sin is punishable by death.

That is not an accepting or tolerant Jesus.

Matthew 15:4

4For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’

This is not a loving kind Jesus.

1 Corinthians 11:3 –  15

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Ephisians 5:22 -24

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

1 Timothy 2:9 – 14

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

This is an oppressor of women, not a just Jesus, not a fair Jesus.

 

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 845 other followers

Post Calendar

April 2017
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
%d bloggers like this: