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.

 

 

U.S. Was Founded By Christians For Christians


Every time I hear someone say that the United States was founded on the principle of religious freedom I get frustrated. The belief that the first settlers came here to practice their religion freely is grossly misunderstood. The freedom our founding fathers were in search of was the freedom to not be persecuted for their religious beliefs by the Catholic Church. By religious beliefs I mean Christianity, or better yet Protestantism. The idea that this country was not founded by Christians, and that our founding fathers were not Christians is ignorance. The writers of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and all or our laws  were Christian men. White Christian men. The idea that women were considered is ignorance. This is apparent throughout the Constitution. There was no idea of any other non Christian religion, no religion, pagan or Jewish religion to any documents written when the forming of our government was happening.

Let me give you some examples in the form of quotes by our founding fathers.

John Adams:

“I must not write a  word to you about politics because you are a woman.”

“Our Constitution was made only for the moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

George Washington:

“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that natural morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

“We are persuaded that good Christians will always be good citizens, and that where righteousness prevails among individuals the nation will be great and happy. Thus while just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.”

John Quincy Adams:

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this, it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”

James K Polk:

“The Bible is the rock on which this Republic rests. Under the benign act providence of almighty God the representatives of the states and of the people are again brought together to deliberate for the public good.:

Patrick Henry:

“It cannot be emphasized enough to strongly or to often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Angels


I have always taught my daughters that if they see an angel to RUN. I don’t know where anyone got this whole guardian angel idea from. If any angel is guardian over anything it isn’t humans.   Angels don’t like us. God favored man over angels. God forgives us, not so with angels. And I have yet to find in the Bible where it says that when someone dies they can get wings and become an angel.

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

Join 846 other followers

Post Calendar

June 2017
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  
%d bloggers like this: