Apathy

 I confess that I never owned a Wham! album or cassette tape. I confess that I never bought a George Michael CD. I did(and still do), however, have an appreciation for George Michael's voice, which I consider to be strong and soulful. I especially like the Queen covers George Michael did..e.g.."Somebody to Love", since Queen is an all time favorite band of mine. And let's face it, not just anybody can jump into Freddy Mercury's shoes. George Michael could. Goosebumps every time.

With the recent publicized death of George Michael, my Facebook feed was blowing up. But not all feedback was positive. One *Facebook friend asked,

Is anyone really sad that George Michael died?

*Disclaimer: by "Facebook friend", I just mean someone who happens to be on my friends list. Often times people friend-request me based on being fans of my music. Many if not most of my Facebook friends I've never met nor will I ever meet.

I don't know what would possess someone to make such an insensitive remark, except maybe to seek attention. But in this particular case, it's fine by me if I never meet such an individual, as I don't want to be associated with anyone who is apathetic about people dying.

But to actually answer their question, yes, I'm sure George Michael's family members and friends are sadden by his passing, not to mention the millions of fans who loved his music. Could it be that this person is just jealous? Hard to say, but one observation I'd like to make is that he was a Trump supporter. Now, is this to say that all Trump supporters are insensitive jerks? No, of course not. But it is rather telling that most of the insensitive jerks I see posting their insensitive opinions are by and large Trump advocates.

I've said it before, and it's worth repeating: Apathy, racism, bigotry, elitism, are nothing new. What's new is that it's apparently trendy to be apathetic, racist, bigoted, and elitist. Someone has made this "en vogue".

BTW, the following was included in the deleted friend's profile pictures:

    

Very profound, isn't it?

As mentioned on other occasions, I still celebrate Christmas as a cultural holiday. Thus, I am not the least bit offended if someone says "Merry Christmas". For those who opt for "Happy Holidays", I feel that these people are just trying to include people of all faiths, and/or, religious persuasions; I don't feel that they are trying to strip anyone of their right to celebrate Christmas or whatever else one chooses to celebrate. The common denominator is that we are all human beings.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!!!!!

Festive Feet

This is something that I can not only enjoy for the holidays here in the South, but year round. Every day is flip flop weather in Florida! Oh, and by "holidays", I mean including Christmas. Yes, I've posted it before, but it's still a nice change from looking at decorated palm trees and houses.

In the End

I've often said in the past that if I could get just one religious person to put fear aside and to really examine the belief-system that they've likely been handed(just as it was handed to me), then it would all be worth it in the end. But who am I fooling? Come on....... really? Do I really believe that deep down?

I'm starting to wonder. I mean, is it really worth leaving the impression with the people I encounter online that I'm "difficult", trying to "one-up" everyone, and overall, just a big meanie because they are the ones who can't see that being an atheist blogger doesn't define me? Is it really worth the thousands of hours of blogging/discussing/debating, and yes, sometimes arguing, just to have most people write-off what I have to say with the wave of a hand, simply because they've been indoctrinated to do just that? Is it really worth putting aside the things in life that bring joy, as opposed to conflict and derision, just so someone can tell me with straight face that I'm "blinded by Satan"?......::sigh::

There's only one thing worse than having an invisible friend, and that's having an invisible enemy.

Church Marquees Continued...

The words of wisdom for today are:




Feed your faith.......

......starve your doubts.

 I suppose that there could be worse advice than this, but I can't think of any at this present moment. Of course, this is straight off the church marquee I saw just a few hours ago, so it's fresh in my mind. Then again, viewed from within the Christian bubble it makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Yes. If a thought that conflicts with your Christian worldview attempts to enter your mind, DON'T let it in! Thought be gone!...vamos! This is the devil tempting you!.......::sigh::


But today, being on the outside of the Christian bubble, there stands a herd of elephants in the living room. When it comes to religion, "doubt" is bad thing. Amen. Yet, interestingly, doubt and skepticism, which go hand in hand, are tools that we use in our everyday lives that keep us from being duped, and at times, doubt and skepticism keep us from being physically and/or emotionally harmed, and in some cases even killed.

I've said it before and it's worth repeating: Being skeptical weeds out error. Doubting the used car salesman whose sales-pitch seems too good to be true might very well save you from investing your hard-earned money in a hunk of junk or a lemon that might break once you drive it off the lot, and if not then, a week later.

See, in no other facet of life but religion (or "spirituality") do we cast skepticism aside and just believe, unquestionably. It's almost as if the redactors of the Bible knew damned-well that what they were selling was outrageous and unbelievable - mind you, this is coming from people who didn't even know where the sun went at night - so they needed to include a clause or two that admonished the reader to NOT allow doubt into their minds.

The red flag unfurls.

'Merica

Welp, you know what they say: nothing divides people like politics, which of course runs a close second place to religion.

I'll weigh in briefly on what I see taking place here in America, take it, or leave it:

Okay, in one corner we have Donald Trump; in the other corner we have Hillary Clinton. From what I gather, most people at least agree that this race is a case of the lesser of two evils, or put another way... which dog has the least fleas.

For sake of discussion, I'm willing to concede that this is precisely the case. There is no doubt in my mind that there's shadiness on both sides. I would never deny that. Shadiness comes with the turf when it comes to politics.

Since I'm in the music business, I like to use the band manager analogy: If your manager isn't crafty enough and smart enough to rip you off, then you don't want them as a manager. This is the person, after all, who is going to bat for you. It's the person who, while they might be nickel and diming you here and there, they are the one dealing with other shady people in the business, people who would love nothing more than to rake a bunch of unsuspecting musicians over the coals. A fight fire with fire sort of thing. But I digress.

Shadiness in politics is a given. That being said, I would never, even on my stupidest day, equate the level of crazy going on here. Allow me to be blunt: if you put both candidates on equal ground when it comes to having a sound mind, or in this case, an unsound mind, then you leave me not much choice but to think you are one deluded individual, or at the very best, you compartmentalize. In other words, you use subjective validation and confirmation bias to assess the political situation we see going on today.

But before I get into that, here's a few utterances of what I mean by "crazy":

"Why can't we use nuclear weapons?"

Note, not "why can't we" as in what would prevent us from using them, but more like.. what's the problem with using them? What's the big deal, in other words.

Okay, whoever asks such a question, rhetorically, or not, SHOULD NOT BE IN CONTROL OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Should someone call out a candidate for asking such a ballsy, ignorant question, especially in earshot of other world leaders, imagine that candidate responding......

"Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?"

To answer that question, we make them as last resort, for starters. What comes to mind would be in the case that some OTHER BAT-SHIT CRAZY world leader might start running around saying things like... "Why have them[nukes] if I can't use them?"

Seriously, folks. These things should raise an eyebrow. But mysteriously, for many people it's just normal banter from a candidate for the presidency. Call it into question, and some folks would prefer to focus on the "criminal" activity of *deleting emails.

(*as if no one has ever died on a Republican's watch)

But now imagine if the same above-described candidate was a male and that he went around saying things like, "Grab them by the pussy!", of the women that he encounters, stipulating that the target must be a "10", of course.

'Sort of lewd, don't cha think? 'Sort of disrespectful isn't it?  Note, I'm not going to sit here and act holier than thou and say that I've never used the slang word for a woman's nether parts. But then again, I'm not running for POTUS, am I? No. And on top of that, I'm a rock musician whose heyday was in the 80s. In other words, any "gabbing" that happened on the road was consensual. If I did any grabbing at all, it was more often than not because it was being thrown in my face. I'll stop here and save the juicy details for my autobiography. It makes Penthouse forum sound like a PTA meeting. Until then, I don't believe that I've ever once used the "P" word on this blog. And yet, one candidate has seemingly made using it en vogue. Hmmm.

Bottom line, the level of crazy is NOT equivalent. Not by a long shot. In fact, if you boil it all down, the names,  labels, mascots, and colors all disappear and you're left with the principles being espoused.

Whether Trump, or whether Clinton - again, the names don't really matter- you're either pro equality for women, or you're not. You either want women and their doctors in charge of women's health and reproductive decisions, or you want some grimy old men in charge of it. You either want a church/state separation, or you don't. You either want some sort of control when it comes to guns, or you don't.

 Boiled down, it's the principles that remain. Yes, the character of those espousing the principles matters, too. But I must reiterate: not all shady people are insane. E.g., Martha Stewart is surely a convicted criminal. She surely exhibited some shady behavior. But, oh, look, Charles Manson is a convicted criminal, too! Ordering that a pregnant women be carved up by a kitchen knife surely falls under "shady" behavior, doesn't it? 'Think so. Now, if one of them had to watch your kid for you while you were in the voting both, wouldn't the choice be a no-brainer? I rest my case.

The Virgin Run

Veering off the topic of religion/politics for a bit, my new band did its virgin run in front of 40 or 50 screaming metal-heads last Friday night, along with two bands from Atlanta. No bugs to work out in our set, really, well, except for our guitar player coming unplugged from his pedal board for about 15 seconds, which of course seemed like 15 minutes at the time. Whatever...bass and drum solo.

But anyway, the only real challenge now, is, a) finding places for us to play that welcome non-top 40 acts(acts that are all original), and b) finding places for us to play that will accommodate our drummer's monstrosity, albeit, badass, drum kit. The rest should fall into place, at least, according to the feedback from our local fan-base.

Here's a shot from Friday night.....

Notice bass drum heads illuminate our album artwork and logo. Ah, technology.





Here's our group photo taken from the back of our new EP entitled, "Encipher"....

If anyone's curious, yes, that's an inverted cross, but no, I/we don't worship "Satan" = )

The False Trilemma

Being bored while bouncing around the blogosphere, I begrudgingly decided to engage a theist that I encountered on the Patheos blog. This theist, a Christian theist, was refuting - or more accurately, they were attempting to refute - the "Problem of Evil".

Based on this individual's responses to other posters, I had a feeling that I'd ultimately be wasting my time trying find common ground. But hey, if nothing else, it's target practice, right? Yes, the more adept that the rational among us become at blowing holes in superstition and the various apologetics that, in particular, the religious-superstitious proffer, the sooner we'll have peace on earth, which ironically, is what religion and its adherents claim to promote now.

Early on in the conversation, this theist, hereinafter referred to has just "EWT", provided a premise from which we can work. His statements will be in red:

He writes.....

God apparently wanted a world with freedom more than he wanted a world without evil.

Notice right away that we're assuming that there's a "God" actually there for sake of discussion. Yes, because in a world with no gods, we'd fully expect that world to look exactly like the world we see right now. And aside from natural calamities(natural "evil"), in that world we'd see human beings exercising their free will for sinister purposes...e.g...rapists freely choosing to rape, murderers freely choosing to murder, muggers freely choosing to mug, etc. In other words, we'd see human beings perpetrating evil, no "devils" required. But I digress...


If we go back to EWT's premise, the suggestion here is that there was only two choices in front of "God".

Only two choices? An "omniscient" being with only two options from which he/she must pick one? Anyone who's been around the block a time or two when it comes to debating knows a false dichotomy when they see one. Welp, this is precisely the case with EWT's argument. In an attempt to square-up why his presumably all-loving, all-powerful biblegod allows "evil", EWT has employed a fallacious argument, also called a false dilemma. 

False Dilemma: A situation in which two alternative points of view are presented as the only options, whereas other are available.

I quickly pointed out that in fact, no, those are not the only two options, and I proposed that he offered a "false dichotomy". In true theist fashion, he came back and accuse me of "ignoring" his point. If I ignored his point, it's strange then that I concluded it was fallacious "point". He seems to be suggesting that unless I accept his "point" that, oh, I'm ignoring his "point". But, hey, this is the kind of thing that I've come to expect from Christian apologists, sadly.

Anyway, here's a brief rundown of just two more options that I, a mere mortal with limited intellect, can conceive. And mind you, if I, a mere mortal, can conceive of these sorts of options, then surely a being who's presumably light years more intelligent than I am can conceive of the same... and more.

1) If we think back to the world that EWT's biblegod originally intended - and note, I'm talking about before Adam and Eve's "Fall from Grace" -  it should bring to mind an "Eden", sometimes referred to as a "Garden Paradise", a place in which "God" was to place man and his "help meet"(sorry ladies!) so they and all their offspring could dwell along side "God" for eternity. Note, it was clearly intended to be a "sinless" environment, a place where man could lovingly and peacefully fellowship with "God", without "evil" throwing a monkey wrench into things.

Now, if we go back to EWT's premise, we are reminded that "God" wanted a world with freedom more than he wanted a world without evil.

So, by extension, we are being reasonable to conclude that "God" wanted a world in which people are free to rape children, more than he wanted a world in which children are safe. Moreover, if "God" wanted the former world over the latter, then I am being reasonable to conclude that "God" preferred one world to the other. From there I am then being reasonable to conclude that "God" somehow sees more value in a rapist's freedom to rape children than he sees in children being safe from rapists.

Except when I connected the dots and offered this in my rebuttal, EWT deflected it

He equivocates....

 It's not about valuing one person's freedom over another.

Exactly when/how/why does a child exercise their "freedom" to be raped? Seems we've now got a strawman on our hands, among the other fallacious arguments.

But in EWT's defense, he later offers a third option, and that is that "God" could have chosen to not create at all.

Welp, I actually agree with that. However, it's now a trilemma, because once more, those are NOT the only three options available. In fact, my second example of how "free will" is compatible with an absence of "evil" deals with "God" choosing to not create.

But first, a definition:

Omniscient adj 1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things

So,  by definition, a "God" who is omniscient has absolute prescience of all future outcomes.

Thus, a "God" who is omniscient can look into the future before he creates, and this "God" can know, in advance, which of his creation will choose "good" over "evil", and vice versa.

Thus, a "God" who is both "omniscient" and "omnibenevolent" can simply elect to not create those whom he knows will choose to be "evil"..e.g...rapists, murderers, etc., and this doesn't preclude the balance of his creation having freedom(free will).

Problem solved. The creation's freedom is fully intact; the option to choose "evil" is present, but obsolete.

BTW, this also applies to "Heaven". Christian doctrine states that there can be no "evil" in "Heaven", and for that matter, no "evil" in presence of "God", period. Are we to believe that the occupants of "Heaven" will be robots? No, of course not. This is just one more in a long line of double standards found in Christianity.

Conclusion: The theist's false trilemma is soundly refuted using two different examples of other conceivable options. God, if such a being exists, could prevent "evil" and it would not subvert his creation's free will one flippin' iota. Thus, "God" either doesn't exist, or he wanted evil in "His Plan", and in which case, "God" is a monumental d**chebag not worthy of my worship.

Final Thoughts for the Thoughtless

If you can stomach 3 and 1/2 minutes straight of high-pitched ranting and raving, one thing will become clear at the end of this video: This is not about a black man sitting down; it's about a bunch of pissed off, incensed white people.

See, you can love Colin Kaepernick, or you can hate him, but at the end of the day you must pick one of only two options: Either, a) you support Kaepernick's right to hold dissenting views, or b) you do NOT support his right to hold dissenting views. It really is that cut'n dried.

If you choose, "a", congratulations, because you show that you actually understand "freedom" and how it works, in which case, you know the alternative.

On the other hand, if you choose "b", then you demonstrate hypocrony(the compound word I just made up for "ironic hypocrisy"). If, as this vapid ignoramous points out, people have fought and died for our freedom, then advocating that things like flag-pledging and standing while National songs are sung be compulsory would mean that our soldiers are fighting and dying IN VAIN. Because, after all, what's the alternative to "freedom" again??? Oh, yeah, it's oppression, aka, suppression of dissent.

You can't have it both ways, white, Christian Republicans. 

Christian Morality Revisited

Hi, all,

Been involved in other things. Some things, really cool, other things, not so much. But that's life, isn't it?

Getting right to it, I was on a certain social networking site today, and, well, let's just say that there's a never-ending supply of blog topics to choose from in my news feed at pretty much all times. While I do have some new developments, both current, and on the horizon, to address them right now would be premature. So, instead, I'm going to revisit the subject of "morality", specifically, that of the Christian faith and its Bible.

One might ask, "Well, Boomslang, that varies from believer to believer, doesn't it?," to which I'd have to answer "yes". And yes, I know that I've already addressed this topic many times here. But alas, I'm stiiiiill waiting on any Christian, most of whom(all of whom?) are moral objectivists, to answer just one simple, pointed question.

Here it is:  How would you distinguish between hearing a "good" command from God, and an "evil" command from, say, an evil imposture?

And no, it's not a trick question, but you'd think that it was, because I'm still waiting on a reasoned response, and boy what a great ministry tool it would be to provide us "angry", "immoral" atheists with a reasoned response.

See, it's really quite simple: Christians are in the same subjective boat in which they like to place me, the atheist. While they claim that the command to love one's neighbor as you love yourself, yadda, yadda, is a prescriptive, "good" command, one worthy of imitation, the question remains HOW do they "know" it?? Is it because "God"/"Jesus"/"Christ"/the Bible said so? Or is it because it aligns with an external standard that's totally independent of the Christian's god and their bibles?

Something's got to give. If something prevents "God" from commanding something that we all agree is evil, then we can knock the idea that this "God" sets the moral standard right-the-hell off the table. On the other hand, if nothing at all prevents this "God" from commanding something that we all agree is evil, then the problem is staring right at us.


On social media, one Christian writes....

The truth is, violence, killing, war...has never really fixed us or anyone else. I'm not a fanatical Christian, but Jesus was right when he recommended that we love our enemies. We simply don't have the balls to do that.

So there you have it. A Christian, and a female one at that, opines that we don't have the balls to love our enemies. My, my, my....I sure hope she doesn't have balls. But that's for another discussion.

But seriously, the reasonable among us can see that it's not about "balls" or lack of; it's about applying common sense. It is not practical - and in fact, I contend that it's downright idiotic - to force ourselves to LOVE someone who's trying to cut our effin' heads off. In other words, we have to apply common sense here and examine and weigh out the circumstances before we just set out to obey a bunch of blanketed commands. Christians know this, but many pretend that they don't know it.

Another Christian jumps in and tries to pinch-hit...

we can love our enemies AND crush them on the battlefield at the same time. Jesus was not at odds with his spokesman, Paul. 

Um, whaaaa?!?!? I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this stuff half the time.

 So, let's see, you can simultaneously LOVE someone and be standing on the battlefield about to turn them into red confetti? Oh, really? In what world is loving someone and turning them into swiss cheese with your M-16 not "at odds"? Answer: The Christian world.

See, instead of just taking a position like, "Well, Jesus was probably just trying to say that we should strive to love people, even if some people make that very difficult for us to do" - at least that contains a kernel of reason in it - you see Christians like the one quoted above making bloated rationalizations to avoid having to admit that it's either really, really crappy advice, or it was meant as a poetic truth, NOT an Absolute Truth.

Christian #2 adds.....

I'm sure you don't believe in objective morality. If you did, you'd have to ask where it comes from, and that's just a drag.

Uh, no drags or dilemmas on my end, buddy-boy, because guess what?.. I can do this really, neato cRaZy thing, which is to ask a question under the pretense that something is true, when I don't actually believe that it's true. A rhetorical question? Hello? It's not unheard of. No. See, the "drag" is that each time I ask someone who DOES believe that there is an Objective Moral Standard to square-up the moral dilemma I laid out above, you can hear a rat pissing on cotton.

Instead of squaring it up, they resort to red herrings, such as asserting that if morals are subjective and just opinion, IOW, not objective, then atheists can't say anything is actually "wrong".

Christian #2 continues.....

If morality is subjective, you cannot say murder is wrong. It is only an action committed by someone with a morality different but equal to your own

Poppycock. The minute that you choose to live in a group of people..e.g..a society, as opposed to alone on your own island, that is the minute that you either agree to not kill anyone unnecessarily, or you get your rear end out of that society. That is the minute that you either understand and agree that you don't do anything to another person that you wouldn't want someone to do to you, or you leave. Yes, if you can't agree, then you take your butt to another society, or take your chances and get taken out of that society. You don't agree to that society's rules? Fine. Lose your rights and freedom.


UPDATE:


In a PM on social networking, one of the above Christians has given counter-arguments to my responses. Since I'm fairly certain that he's reading along right here, I will address these below as a continuation of this blog post on the topic of Christian morality(how it's not objective, but subjective). My responses will be in red text.

 Christ commanded us to love our enemies.

Yes, and again, I opine that if it's meant to be an "objective" command..i.e..the moral, "right" thing to do in every conceivable situation, that it's really, really stupid advice. If, on the other hand, it's meant as a poetic truth..i.e..meant to illustrate how we should strive to love others even when they make it difficult for us, then we'd need to apply common sense, and in applying common sense, we are using our own, innate sense of morality, in which case, it's subjective, not objective.

Paul, a spokesman for Christ, said government bears the sword to punish the evil-doer. I can love my enemy, but if he's breaking into my house, and I call the cops, who come and shoot him dead, God is ok with this.

Moving the goal posts..i.e.. logical fallacy. Look it up. Previously we were talking about killing one's enemy one's own self, not calling someone else to do it. Your previous analogy talked about how you can "crush" your enemy on the battlefield and love them "at the same time", meaning, simultaneously. I maintain that that is preposterous... well, unless you have a really perverted, twisted, effed-up definition of "love".  

If you can't square that, I'm sorry.

Don't be sorry on my account. You evidently can't square your original remark about how blasting holes in your enemy's chest on the battle field is an act of "love". You're the guy who's stuck having to defend nonsense. If there's anything to be sorry about, it's that. 

But by all means, pick out a hyperbolic statement I made about loving the enemy and crushing him on the battlefield to give people an idea of what I believe about a very complicated subject.

Pick it out? You gave one example, so if the example that you picked to illustrate your position is a poor example, that's not my fault; that's your fault. But you're right about one thing---it's a complicated subject, and rarely are complicated subjects solved with "one size fits all" answers. In other words, the type of answers that Christianity tries to give.

If a man who believes murder is wrong, goes and lives in a society where murder is acceptable, does that make murder acceptable?

Acceptable to who? The concept of "murder" is applicable to human beings, exclusively. Humans must exist for the concept of "murder" to have meaning. If society X agrees that existing is better than not existing, then society X will see to it that the unnecessary taking of life is kept at a minimum in the case that someone starts to disagree or change their mind. Laws prohibiting murder would seek to accomplish this. On the other hand, if, in society Y, no one agrees that existing is better than not existing, then yes, "murder" could be acceptable..... to them. Remember, I'm not the one arguing for an objective morality. I'm the one saying that morals and ethics are relative. And BTW, a society in which the members of that society can murder someone for any reason at all would eventually go extinct. Thus, to make discussion on this topic meaningful, we must agree that existing is better than not existing.

He's outnumbered after all.

His being outnumbered needn't change his view of "murder". He can roll the dice and stay, or he can leave.

 When a person with one morality goes and lives in a society that has another morality, he can abide by that society's laws or leave. No one is saying otherwise.

Then I fail to see the problem or conflict with my position. 

But all this shows, is that a person has been given the choice of leaving, or adopting someone else's morality. It says absolutely ZERO about who's morality is right or wrong.

Yes, and it's a false dilemma. The only real dilemma is which society this person wishes to be in, and you offered the solution yourself: You either LEAVE, or you stay and you abide by that society's laws, or lack thereof. Each side is obviously going to believe that their policies are "right", so the question about which side is "Right™" is moot. You can't force people to agree that existing is better than not existing. Take people who commit suicide. They reach a point where they think not existing is better than existing.    

Forget about society for a second. You have two people. One believes murder is moral. The other believes it is immoral. Who's right? If you agree with the man who says murder is wrong, it's because YOU believe it's wrong.

Yes! You appear to be "getting" it, by jove! If I agree with the person who says murder is wrong, then it's implicit that we agree that existing is better than not existing. Hence, the unspoken agreement to treat him as I wish to be treated, which would be the avoidance of unnecessary harm. And BTW, we know that killing is not wrong in every conceivable situation, hence, why we make a distinction between killing and murder. If the Bible makes the same distinction, then this is compelling evidence that morals are relative(subjective), not Objective.



And BTW, after all of this, my question still goes unanswered.

Here it is again: How would you, the Christian moral objectivist, distinguish between hearing a "good" command from God, and an "evil" command from, say, an evil imposture? Anyone? How do you distinguish between a slab of commands that are "good", and a slab of commands that are "evil', if they were laying side-by-side? Listening.

This Filthy Generation: A Refutation Part II

So, in Part 1 we examined some of the assertions of a Calvinist blogger who contributes to a blog called "Saved by Grace". We've already shown that this person doesn't know the things about others that they claim to know, namely, when it come to atheists.

You see, "lyn", like your typical evangelizing, fundamentalist flavor of Christian, subjectively interprets scripture to match and validate her own subjective view of the world, including her own sentiments about anyone who happens to disagree with her religious views. "Lyn" has a hobby horse, and that hobby horse is judging other human beings, subjectively using her bible as a pseudo-license to do so.

In point number 2 of the article that's under examination, "lyn" writes something very, very revealing.

She asserts....

2. There is a generation of ignorant persons, that know not God, know not religion, know not the principles of Christianity; they are grossly and stupidly ignorant, notwithstanding the means of know­ledge: they are artfully ignorant, neglecting the opportunities of in­struction, diets of examination, and other seasons of learning.

So, it's unambiguous: "Lyn" and her constituents in Calvinism believe that anyone who disagrees with them about their religious doctrine is someone who does not know God. Keep this mind.

As some of you probably know, there are 5 "Points" used to sum up what Calvinists believe about how God works, aka, T.U.L.I.P.

To reveal what is perhaps the strongest argument against "lyn" and her constituents in Calvinism, I'm going to focus on the 4th Point of Calvinism for right now, i.e..."I", which stands for what is referred to as "Irresistible Grace".

Encapsulated, "Irresistible Grace" says this: When God has chosen to save someone, he will.

Did you catch that? It's as simple as it is crystal clear. When "lyn" remarks that the "stupidly ignorant" of today's generation "know not God", she effectively shoots herself in the foot. She becomes crippled. Her argument becomes crippled. Her belief-system becomes crippled.

"Lyn" categorically states that we "stupidly ignorant" people "know not God", while out of the other side of her mouth she asserts that we cannot know God until/unless....::drum roll, please::.....God chooses to give you his Irresistible Grace.

So, if God chooses who he will give "grace" too, then by extension, God is also choosing who he will not give it to.

Being "saved" is up to God, not us. The ball is clearly in Mr. Sovereign's court.

'See where I'm going with this? Do you see where "lyn" ends up once you evaluate her claim and contrast it with the 4th of the 5 crucial Points of Calvinism, "Irresistible Grace"?

To illustrate by analogy how what "lyn" is proposing is problematic, imagine that a school teacher is standing outside of a building and has locked 30 students inside. The only link to the outside world is a locked door and a single transaction window. Only the teacher has the key to the door.

Person X happens upon this and inquires, "Hey, what's going on, here?"

Teacher: "Well, the students have all been bad because they didn't turn in their assignments in time, however, they can be exempt from the punishment just as soon as they write the magic word on a flashcard and give it to me through the window."

X: "Ah, I see. But what if none of the students ever guess the magic word?"

Teacher: "Don't worry, I intend to give some of them the magic word."

X: "Only to some of them?"

Teacher: "Yes, I'm the teacher and I make the rules."

X:  "Okay, but that hardly seems fair."

Teacher: "Hardly seems fair? Okay, I'll tell you what, if you go along with it I'll share half of my yearly bonus with you until the day I retire. How's that?"

X: "Really? Well, I could use the money, so you've got a deal."

[Twenty minutes later the teacher calls 7 students to the window one at a time, giving them the magic word]

7 students are promptly let out of the building.

Vowing to go along with the plan that the teacher laid out, person X frantically runs up to the transaction window and starts shouting at the remaining children, "Wow, you are an ignorant bunch, aren't you!?!? Just look at you! The teacher CLEARLY has the password, and yet, you sit there whining because you think you're being unfairly punished! Look here, you stupid little brats, you were bad and now you're being punished! What? You want a 'get out of jail free' card, or something? How would that be justice, you whiny little punks?!?!"[/ analogy]

Any person who values things like "justice", "compassion", and "empathy" must agree that person X sold out for a reward. Person X surrendered their reason and sense of compassion for personal gain later on down the road.

Person X should be ashamed. Person X = "Lyn"(and other Calvinists just like her)

This Filthy Generation: A Refutation Part I

Over on the "Saved by Grace" blog, one of the contributors who goes simply by "lyn", authored a recent post entitled, "There is a generation that is not washed from their filthiness".

Okay, so this "lyn" person - someone who, best as I can tell, is a Calvinist/Reformist - wastes no time at all in pretending to know that which she cannot possibly know. What I mean is, we don't even have to wait for her to get into the body of her voluminous, mega-sermon to know that she is about to once again use her religion as a "license" to JUDGE her fellow human beings. How can we know this? Easy, because "lyn" makes it pretty clear that she is about to go on one such judgment-casting/aspersion-casting affront when she suggests that those of this generation who do not think like she does are "filthy". Nice, huh?

So, yeah, as we know, it is religion, and particularly religious "faith", that perpetuates/facilitates this sort of judgmental, invidious mindset. Now, while I understand that some (many? most?) nonbelievers opt for not rocking the boat, but instead, prefer to abide by a "live and let live" sort of mantra, there is a growing number of nonbelievers today who have simply had enough. Welp, I am one of those people, and I make no bones about it, not that this is any secret, or anything.

In any case, "lyn" the Calvinist confirms my suspicion early on.

She writes...

1. There is a generation of atheists, that neither fear God nor regard man; that say in their heart, “There is no God;” and vainly wish there were none.

Cling cling!! True, story!... I don't "fear God" for the same reason(s) that you don't fear the boogie man, "lyn". See, it's just not rational for me to fear something that I don't even believe exists.

As for what atheists "say in their heart", I don't know about anyone else, but my heart doesn't have vocal chords, ergo, my heart cannot speak to me, to you, or to anyone else. Nope, my heart, aka, my cardiovascular organ, pumps blood. That's it. My heart can't think, nor can it speak the human language.

But to give benefit of doubt, there's a chance that what was said was meant in a figurative or metaphoric sense, in which case, yes!...there are some gods that I "say in my heart" do not exist, and yet, there other other conceptions of "God" upon whose existence I am agnostic. The god that you (pretend to) worship, "lyn"? Welp, that is the former type of god.

In other words, "lyn", I know that your and John Calvin's conception of "God" is an impossibility, and therefore, I know that that god cannot exist, and therefore, it does not exist. And please note that I can state this with as much certainty as I can state that "married bachelors" cannot exist, and therefore, do not exist.

For just one quick example of how I arrive at this, I'm nearly certain that the Calvinist conception of the Christian deity is that it is "Sovereign" and has a "Will". If I'm correct on that character assessment, then said deity would necessarily possess the free agency with which to be "Sovereign" and to implement its "Will". E.g..to be "Gracious", to exact its "Perfect Justice", or maybe to be pleased that some people are bound for hellfire, etc. You know, the sort of things that your "God" evidently does as it sits around in the cosmos.

But in all seriousness, the glaring problem with this is that if the Calvinist conception of God includes a knowledge of the future set of events; and if this God was in possession of this knowledge "before the foundation of the world"(Ephesians), then "free agency" goes bye-bye. Yes, kiss it goodbye, "lyn", as an omniscient god cannot also be an omnipotent god, and vice versa. John Calvin claimed his god is both, and so, John Calvin was wrong. You are wrong. It really is that simple.

Lastly, I don't need to "wish", vainly, or otherwise, that "there was no God", thank you very much. Y'see, "lyn", what we "wish" is a point of zero practical value, aka, moot, simply because reality doesn't care what you, me, or anyone else wishes. Seriously. This is perhaps the most asinine of all the Christian arguments against atheism instances of Christians projecting onto atheists. The idea is that we atheists really believe that "God" exists, but, um, that we wish God didn't exist. You know, so that we can "sin", "mock" gawd, drink ram's blood, 'n all that junk.

This sort of mindset is plain preposterous. It really, really is. Imagine what you'd think if you overheard someone telling someone else, "Hey? Y'know what? I've always wanted to go skydiving without one of those clumsy, cumbersome parachute things, so today I think I'm just going to wish that gravity doesn't exist so that I can go skydiving without a parachute!!!"

Would you not think that this person was off his or her rocker? And yet, this is precisely how "lyn" and her Calvinist brethren sound when they say that we atheists "vainly wish there were [no God]". No sane person is going to "wish" something that they know to be true to not be true just so they can live recklessly or satisfy some other fantasy.

Arg. The stupid.....it hurts.

The Problem of God's Complicity

The other day there was a discussion taking place on a website that I peer into from time to time, and in this instance that discussion was centered around whether or not God was complicit, specifically, when it comes to, a) those who reject God, and b) the Problem of Evil, a problem for which we are to believe "sin" is a consequence.

The author of the submitted article to which I refer is someone who goes by "Ben Love", and this author contends that for any person who rejects the Christian god, that God is therefore complicit in the matter, calling this dilemma "The Problem of God's Complicity". The author maintains that it was these problems, mainly the latter, that were the leading factors for him leaving the Faith.

To encapsulate, his argument is as follows.....

"The one who enables the choice must be considered complicit in the end result".

Before I jump into this I'd like to iron out a few things: For starters, I don't advocate when the non-believer's position is portrayed as "rejection"[of "God"], whether a theist does this, or whether an atheist does this. To "reject" someone (or something) implies that said someone (or something) exists. From an Atheist POV, there is nothing to "reject". Notwithstanding, I do understand how and why some atheists discuss the issues under the pretense that God exists, which is usually in an attempt to make a rhetorical point. I do this often. Of course, some theists take this and run with it - that is, they assume that because an atheist might make a reference to "God" in a discussion, that, oh, this is evidence that atheists really, really do believe in God after all, and that they just reject God. This sort of "gotcha!" mentality is as ridiculous as it is false.

To illustrate just how flimsy this sort of mindset is on the part of believers, just imagine if I'm having a conversation with a UFOlogist and I ask them, "Okay, then why do you supposed that alien abductions are never documented, given that nearly everyone these days has a recording device on their person a large percentage of the time?"

Do you see what happened there? I used the words "alien abductions" in a sentence to make a rhetorical point.

Now, which of us here, if any, honestly believe that my using those words in a sentence must mean that I truly, deep down, in my heart of hearts, believe that aliens travel here and abduct the inhabitants of Earth? I sincerely hope that no one does, but yet, I know that some people have unfortunately adopted such a mindset.

So, it's no different when it comes to "God". In other words, I just may discuss "God" as if such an individual exists, and I may do so for no other reason than to illustrate to my interlocutor that in fact no such individual exists. For instance, I may rhetorically ask, "Why do you suppose that God stands by as little children get raped and molested?"

Now, in the context of my question, is my using the words "God stands by" necessarily indicative that I believe that God is necessarily standing somewhere? I maintain that the answer is "no" and that the reason I use those words is to make a rhetorical point.

But getting back to the subject at hand, the author of the above-referenced article was getting some feedback from various people, a few of whom I safely assumed to be Christians attempting to defend Christianity. They were arguing that God gave its creation "free will", and that without it, we'd be the equivalent of "robots".

In other words, their defense is that since we were endowed with the ability to choose between two or more options, e.g..right/wrong, good/evil, etc., then God is therefore not complicit. They argue that all of the responsibility is our own.

Okay, at face value this might seem like a fair enough argument. But let's do the usual and dig a little deeper.

I think we all must first agree that if the God in question exists, then this God also has things like options and free will, yes? Yes, I think so, otherwise, this God couldn't be a free, personal being. A God who that cannot do things like make choices and change its mind is not a "who", but rather, a what. It's essentially an automaton.

Thus, if god X has the free will with which to make choices, then god X can simply choose to endow its creation with a nature that is consistent with the image of god X, a nature that is consistent with what it would require for the creation to not disappoint god X. For example, if Christians define their god as a being who can do no wrong and one who is incapable of error; and further, if this god seeks to not be disappointed by its creation, then the solution is so obvious that a 6th grader could probably figure it out.

But before we talk about that solution, let's look at what we have on the table so far:

1. the Christian god is a personal being who can freely make choices

2. the Christian god has a nature by which this god has no inclination to error(e.g.. "sin")

3. the Christian god has a will(e.g...has dreams, desires, plans, etc.)

4. the Christian god's will is that his creation not displease him, yet, retain free will

Does *anyone disagree with those 4 premises? If so, please feel free to speak up.

*unless you are Reformist/Calvinist, since according to Calvinism's 5 points, your god had prescience of who will be saved and who will be damned to hellfire before the foundation of the world. In which case, this is all moot to you; everything is preordained. We are all puppets following the Puppeteer's script.


The Solution:

Per 1, above, the Christian god of the bible could have chosen to endow its creation with a nature that is consistent with achieving its will(see 4, above). Note, this would not adversely affect..e.g..circumvent, render useless, etc., the creation's free will(see 1 and 2 above).

Conclusion: Based on the above premises, having a nature that is devoid of the proclivity to error does NOT preclude free will. Note, this is in accordance with Christianity's very own doctrine. In other words, this is not merely my "opinion"; this is a logical, reasonable conclusion, even allowing Christianity to define the terms.

So, here's where the reasonable among us should see the first red flag:

The Christian god did not choose(when it could have) to give his creation a nature that is consistent with 2, above. Nope. The Christian god mysteriously chose to give his creation a human nature, which, by definition, includes the proclivity to error. It is human nature to make mistakes, just as it is the nature of a goldfish to be "wet". You would not create a goldfish with gills and then turn around and blame it for being "wet", now would you? No, of course you wouldn't.

The same should hold true for a being whom we are to believe transcends our mere mortal intellect a bazillion fold. This god, the Christian god, chose to give his first two prototypes a nature that allows for error, or more in line with Christian theology, an evil inclination.

Thus, where "The Problem of God's Complicity" is concerned, the Christian god is most certainly complicit should those two prototypes make a choice that displeases this god. This is especially true considering the chronology error in the Bible, and the error of which I speak is that Adam and his accomplice were expected to know right from wrong(ergo, good from evil) before they had eaten from the very tree that presumably would give them that sort of knowledge.

Time and time again Christianity comes up intellectually bankrupt when put under the microscope. And what are we told? That "God is mysterious."

 Now, really...is it? Is it  that God is mysterious? Or could it just be that there isn't such a thing?

Who Ya Gonna Call?

Okay, suppose that you want to know more about, say, anti-lock braking systems. Do you consult an auto mechanic? Or do you consult a botanist?

How about if you want to learn which snakes are venomous and which are harmless? Do you phone up a herpetologist, or a seamstress?

Suppose that there's a Hindu and a Mormon sitting at the bar and you want to know what Hindu's believe. Do you ask the Hindu, or do you ask the Mormon?

I think most of us get the picture. I found the above meme on Facebook. 'Dollars-to-doughnuts a Christian whipped up this little gem of a meme. How can I tell? Okay, well, it's full of misinformation, red herrings, and generally just plain idiotic rhetoric, and we see this sort of thing being perpetuated by the far Christian Right these days. So, that's how I can tell that a Christian whipped it up.

So, Christians, if you genuinely(key word) want to learn more about what we atheists do or don't believe, then I suggest that you ask someone who's actually an atheist. It only makes sense, doesn't it? I think so. Seriously, you really need to cease and desist from projecting onto atheists, and it would be nice if you would stop getting your information on what atheism entails from other theists. Please, just stop it.

With that little request out of the way, please know that it is secularists who believe that there should be a church/state separation. In other words, not all secularists are atheists. Please stick that in your memory bank, Christians.

Now, as far as those who believe that one's religion "should be behind closed doors", again, this isn't solely atheists who advocate this. No. Because if one's religion happens to be, say, Islam, then you can bet the farm that Christians want that sh*t hidden behind the church Mosque doors. In fact, many(most? nearly all?) Christians don't even tolerate the Mosques, themselves, never mind what goes on inside them.

Of course, I don't want to sit here and resort to the very same sorts of tactics that I decry and turn around and generalize. For that reason, I need to be clear: Certainly not all Christians advocate the lovey-dovey parts of the bible, exclusively. No. In fact, very recently I encountered a few Christian bloggers who argue that other Christians who extol God as the "God of Love" have it the wrong way around. To them, the Christian deity is way more about things like "justice" and "wrath".... grrrrrrrr.  See, their rendition cherry-picked version of "God" gets its jollies creating human beings just so that he can turn around and torture most of them mercilessly for all eternity. It "pleases Him", they say. In their eyes(and according to their blog), doing so is an example of God's *"Perfect Justice".

*except when their "God" is feeling "Gracious", then "Perfect Justice" becomes "selective justice".

Anyway, about one's sex life being paraded down the street, yadda, yadda. Again, this is a feeble attempt on the part of some Christians to demonize all atheists. Maybe some atheists don't mind one's sexuality being paraded around town; maybe some do mind it. Either way, what most atheists who've read the bible can probably agree on is that the bible gets the Adult Video AwardXXX for explicitly lewd and lascivious behavior. Let's see, there's the instance of two sisters getting their father drunk and taking turns with him in the sack. But that's somehow not nearly as offensive as two same-sex people holding hands in public, right? Which would you have a harder time explaining to a child? I think I'd have a harder time explaining the former.

In closing, for those of you Christians who are getting your information on atheism from your churches, from your favorite Christian websites, and from each other, please just stop it. If you have questions about what atheism entails, you can ask those questions here, or if you wouldn't dream of asking a question here because of my "trashy", direct approach, fair enough, you can find the "Friendly Atheist" blog and ask him. But posting memes like the one above just tells me and other atheists that you're not really interested in what atheists believe and that preserving your beliefs will always take precedence over reality, even if it means lying. You know who you are and you fool no one.

A Quote by James Montgomery Boice

Clicking around the blogosphere this Sunday morning I stumbled upon an interesting post. And by "interesting", I mean eyebrow-raising. But then again, since this blog(Boomslang's Lair) is pretty much dedicated to putting theism and particularly Christian theism under the microscope, perhaps my readers, both vocal and silent, already know that when I say that something is "interesting" that I'm more or less saying it's sketchy.  

But in any case, the post to which I refer today is centered around a quote by a man named James Montgomery Boice. Boice was a Reformed theologian. So, yeah, we're talking Calvinism again. I've said it before and I have no problem saying it again, but as far as Christianity goes, it is the theology of John Calvin that I find to be the most repugnant, and by extension, it is Calvinism that I find to be the most deserving of scorn.

So, the author/owner of the blog on which this quote appeared was focusing on how one gets "saved", and in fact, said author/owner must be fixated on the topic to some degree since the name of the blog itself is "Saved by Grace". Not the most original name, but either way, it is pretty clear that the blog's author/owner believes that one can only be saved by "Grace"(in other words, not by "works" or anything else), hence the Latin term, Sola Gratia  (.i.e.."Only Grace")in the above graphic, which also appears on the post in question.

Now for the quote, itself.....

"The words sola gratia mean that human beings have no claim upon God. That is, God owes us nothing except just punishment for our many and very willful sins. Therefore, if he does save sinners, which he does in the case of some but not all, it is only because it pleases him to do it. Indeed, apart from this grace and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit that flows from it, no one would be saved, since in our lost condition, human beings are not capable of winning, seeking out, or even cooperating with God’s grace. By insisting on ‘grace alone’ the Reformers were denying that human methods, techniques, or strategies in themselves could ever bring anyone to faith. It is grace alone expressed through the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ, releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from death to spiritual life." ~  James Montgomery Boice

Okay, line by line, let's have a look at this and try to figure out why people put their faith into such things.

"human beings have no claim upon God"

Really? Okay, isn't it strange then that theists of opposing religions claim to know that their (version of) God is the true God, and all other versions are counterfeit and their adherents, mistaken? And more damaging to the claim that humans have no claim upon God, even within a given religion, take Christianity and its One Truth 33,000+ denominations, believers claim to know God's Will. In fact, the very idea of knowing how the (supposed) creator of the universe "saves" people is a claim to know something about God that they could not possibly know. Interesting, that.

"God owes us nothing except just punishment for our many and very willful sins."

If God only owes us "just punishment" for our "sins", isn't it curious how this God turns right around and makes an exception for some people? In other words, when we think of the word "just" or "justice", I don't know about you, but I think of someone getting precisely the punishment they deserve. That's what "justice" actually means. But yet, while in one breath we are being told that their god is "just", in the next breath we're being told that their god is also "merciful". So, which is it? The two things exclude each other. Any Reformists out there who want to take a stab at it?

 "Therefore, if he does save sinners, which he does in the case of some but not all, it is only because it pleases him to do it."

So, by extension, I guess it also "pleases him" to not save those whom he arbitrarily decides to not "save", those whom we are told get incinerated in hellfire as a consequence of God just, oh, deciding to not save them . Nice "God" you've got there, Calvinists. 'Good thing there's not one scrap of evidence that the doctrine known as "Calvinism" is true.

"Indeed, apart from this grace and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit that flows from it, no one would be saved, since in our lost condition, human beings are not capable of winning, seeking out, or even cooperating with God’s grace."

Or for that matter, everyone could be saved if God so chose to do it. But alas, being the "good" parent that God is, God has zero qualms saving some of his children, while letting others burn. And BTW, what's with this whole "regenerating" rigmarole? You mean God subcontracts this "Holy Spirit" thingy to regenerate people of his choosing?...people that might not otherwise choose him of their own volition? God makes it so that some people literally cannot resist him?? So much for that "free will" junk, I guess.

"By insisting on ‘grace alone’ the Reformers were denying that human methods, techniques, or strategies in themselves could ever bring anyone to faith."

Noting that in Calvinism, even if someone is brought to "faith", this is still no guarantee that John Calvin's god has elected them. Remember, John Calvin's god could be toying with his creation for no other reason than that it pleases him. But as far as what "the Reformers" were insisting, human beings have been insisting stuff since time immemorial. People can insist things until kingdom come(no pun). But here's the rub: The insistence, itself, doesn't make the stuff they are insisting true.

So, again, "the Reformers" were pretending to know things that they couldn't possibly know, and via indoctrination, they passed along this operating under the pretense meme onto today's Reformists. Welp, the thing is, today we have more information and better ways for acquiring it. In other words, today we can know that the Reformists of the past had mistaken ideas about how the world works. We can know (if we choose to know) that what Calvinism proposes is not in the realm of possibility for the same, exact reasons we can know that "square circles" and "married bachelors" are not in the realm of possibility. Or...we can choose to not know it.

Make America Great Again!

Oh, cutts. Really?

Altogether, now....... BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Okay, with that out our systems, let's attempt to understand what Trump-supporters are talking about when they promote this idea that America has taken a turn for the worse, you know, since President "Obummer" was elected, and that Donald Trump is the guy who is going to save the day.

So,  Trumpers, let's hear it......."great", as in..? What? Do you mean prohibiting anyone who isn't white from drinking out of public water fountains? "Great" like that?? Or maybe you mean that we should go back to making it illegal for women to vote? After all, women should be seen and not heard, you know.

 Or wait, maybe we need to go further back in time to when America was really, really "great". Like, back to the wild, wild west era, you know, when everyone was packin' heat. 'Gotta disagreement on where to park your horse car? No prob'....shoot 'em! Cut in line at the saloon McDonald's? BANG! Pop a cap in their butt with your open carry six-gun Mack-10. Not far enough back? Okay, how about when witches people with mental illness were burned at the stake? Or wait, how about when being non-Christian could get you a seat on the Judas Cradle?

Okay, okay. Let's go ahead and give benefit of doubt to Trump and his supporters and say that Trump's readiness and willingness to speak his mind and tell it like it is really is a good quality, one that is surely indicative of a great leader.

Okay, done.

Uh-oh! 'Know who else speaks his mind(if you let him)? A guy named Charles Milles Manson. Yup, and this Manson guy doesn't give a rat's hindquarters about political correctness, either. Nope, he calls it like he sees it. He's happy to tell you exactly what's on his mind. And this of course makes him a good candidate for POTUS, yes?

Did I mention that Trump has gone on record to say that he admires his daughter? And noooo, not just her mind, because after saying that he'd "date" her if she wasn't his daughter, he comments on how she's got a "good figure". Eww. Weird fetish? This is the kind of guy we want representing America in a room full of other world leaders, is it? I'm going to build a wall....and it's gonna be huuuuge!  

I know, I know.....there's going to be hell toupee for this post! But, whatever---I'll take my chances :)

%$#@ cancer!

Disclaimer: If you are offended by certain four-letter expletives, please either skip to the next post or simply navigate away at this time, because I won't censor these words for the remainder of this post. Thank you.



Interlude begin: 

Interlude end:



Fuck cancer. Yes, you read that right...FUCK cancer. For a lot of people who've dealt with losing loved ones to this totally despicable, dignity-robbing, life-destroying disease, saying "FUCK cancer" might actually feel good, and as well, it might release pent up anger and/or ease the helplessness we often feel, even if for only a few seconds. At least, for me it does.

But in any case, you know what they say when it comes to anger, don't you? Yes, they say, "Don't hang on to anger!"? From men of the cloth, to your New Aged gurus, from your family, to your coworkers----people admonish us to not hang on to anger.

Okay, on its face, that seems like reasonable enough advice, doesn't it? Sure. So, now what? What's the best way to not hang on to anger? Welp, best as I can tell, you let that shit out, that's what. Yes, so that's just what I'm about to do, and again, if you are easily offended by four-letter expletives, I suggest that you navigate away at once, although, I've already typed "fuck" 3 times and "shit" 1 time, and you're still reading, so....

Anyway, yeah, cancer can fuck off. And by the way, I'm not only talking about anger and frustration that tends to arise when one feels totally helpless when faced with having to watch a loved one wither away to nothing - sometimes in a matter of months, other times in a matter of days - but in this case, I'm also talking about anger and frustration that arises when I witness something else that's truly mind-boggling. It's something that certain people with whom I share the planet, do. They do it, and the shit needs to stop.

So, let the record show that my sentiments towards the disease called "cancer" extend beyond the disease, itself. Yes, my sentiments towards cancer are extended to this notion, the bullshit notion, that cancer is somehow a warranted, necessary consequence. And no, I don't mean in what some might call a self-induced instance of cancer, like from smoking or chewing tobacco - although, I do confess that it can be unnerving to listen to some of the excuses that come from people who have a nicotine addiction - I mean a consequence to an imaginary trespass called "sin".

I should be clear: If someone believes that cancer and other human suffering is a direct result of "sin", then it's them I'm addressing. However, it should also be noted that I'm not saying, "Fuck cancer... and fuck you, too". No, I'm talking about an idea, here. I'm talking about a despicably horrible idea, one for which there is not one shred of evidence for being true. I'm talking about in instances when people will tell you with a straight face that cancer and other human suffering is because of "sin", well, except when it's someone they know. In that case, we hear things like "God needed another angel!", or "They're in a better place!", and the like.

Let's get one thing straight: There is no "better place" for a child than with his or her parents, the people who love them the most; the people who are actually, physically present, providing the things that, you know, a child actually needs? Seriously, now, does anyone really believe that a child would rather be singing some goddamned gospel hymns to a ghost, than be with his or her family pet??? If you do, you must've somehow forgotten what it's like to be a child, or maybe you never had a pet.

But that's animals, and that's one thing. There's our moms and dads, to consider, too, and that is quite another thing. 'Anyone ever see a small child become separated from his or her parents in a public place? Okay, now imagine that child being separated for another 40, 50, 60, etc. years from his or her parents(assuming for sake of discussion that a deceased child doesn't age in "Heaven" because the "spirit world" is not bound by space-time).

If you are a Christian, fine. And if you mean well, even better, but please think before you attempt to console grieving people by saying stupid shit. Yes, stupid shit. "They are in a better place!" is just stupid, unless by "better place" you mean dead, even though "dead" isn't technically a place.

Here's a suggestion, how about.... "They are no longer suffering"? Look, it's thoughtful, and it's actually factual, too. Imagine that.

Last month my aunt..i.e..my mom's younger sister and only sibling died of lung cancer that spread to her brain. She fought it for around 9 months. In a bizarre twist of fate, I and another family member went in one evening to visit her at hospice and noticed that she had fallen asleep early, so we decided to leave and check back later, since the hospice wasn't too far from my house. But then I noticed and even mentioned how bad my aunt looked, and a fraction of a second later I noticed no respiratory movement in her chest. She was dead. We had gone in, actually walked past a few nurses and into my aunt's room, and we discovered for ourselves that she had died only moments before.

Do I still have anger over certain things? If I said "no", I'd be a damned liar. My aunt, a life-long smoker, started smoking when she was 9 years old, and she died from it at age 66.

How does one respond to a heavy smoker who started smoking, essentially from the age of a flippin' child, when, in the midst of disease, they interject..."I was the last person I thought this would happen to"? Um...whaaa?...? No, god dammit, you're at the very top of the list of people who get lung cancer! Sheesh!

Of course, I didn't say that, but did I think it? Yes, I most certainly did think it. Anger? Yup, got it---angry at such mindsets; angry at myself for not handcuffing her and dragging her to the doctor approximately 5 years ago at the onset of symptoms, because that's what it would have taken to get her to the doctor. Yes, my aunt, along with my maternal grandmother, had the ol' "I know my own body better than anyone else!" mentality.

My aunt self-diagnosed, writing-off her daily morning dry cough as "allergies", and now she's dead because of it. This is not to say that cancer would not have taken her life eventually, but she could've bought more time had they caught it earlier, and they could've caught it earlier had she listened to our multiple pleas to get it checked.

But alas, you cannot make adults, especially ones with substance addictions, do what they do not want to do.

As time goes on, the anger (and guilt) has subsided... some. Make no mistake, I loved my aunt very much. She was the most selfless person I had ever known, next to her mom(my grandmother) and her sister(my mom). I am writing this mostly to vent openly. It is like therapy, in a sense.

While I loved "Tia" very much, I very much hated some of her mindsets, one of which, directly shortened my time with her on this planet. Look, we can love people, but yet, hate ideas. There are, yes, some ideas that I hate, and it's particularly unnerving when we can demonstrate some ideas to be bad and even false, but people still cling to them. But that's what "faith" is for, isn't it? Whatever.

But no matter how you slice it, human suffering is part of life, whether we contribute to it directly, or not. I just choose to accept this, and in doing so, the need to make flimsy excuses for why we suffer vanishes. And besides, in a world with no "Divine" overseer, we'd fully expect to see disease and human suffering, and voila, that's precisely what we see. There just isn't enough "faith" for me to write that off as a big "coincidence".



RIP "Tia"

My Opinion Vs Facts in the Bible

Opinion: 1. a belief, judgement, or way of thinking about something: what someone thinks about a particular thing

Fact: 1 something that truly exists or happens; something that has actual existence. a true piece of information

ref: Merriam Webster

Welp, in another short-lived, face-palm inducing discussion between myself and a Christian blogger/apologist, I was eventually admonished to check out a link that they provided after I chimed in and poked a hole or two in what they had written. The provided link took me to a page called "101 Cleared-Up Contradictions in the Bible". The article dealt chiefly with how certain Muslims contend that the Bible contains contradictions, and how any document that claims Divine authority by an omniscient being must be consistent with itself and not contain any errors, including contradictions. I agree with that criterion, BTW. Any document claimed to be authored by a perfect, all-knowing entity should be 100% free of error, including contradictions, both internal AND external.

To back up a bit, the link was provided, in part, because said Christian blogger, by their own admission, gave a simplistic example of how two or more people can discern something and formulate completely differing opinions - in this case, it was the temperature outside - but yet, they opined that those opinions can, quote... "support each other in describing the real facts of the matter". 

They write.....

Today is a gloriously sunny day, much like last Easter (resurrection) Sunday was, except the day before yesterday it was warm and sunny and today it is quite chilly. It had me thinking about the seeming contradiction in it. One person describing today might talk about the beautiful sunshine, birds singing, etc, and another might describe it as very bone chilling cold, the need for extra warm clothing, etc....and on the surface at a quick glance the descriptions might seem to be opposing and contradictory, and yet they are not, the two depictions actually give added information and support each other in describing the real facts of the matter.

Okay, so if you're thinking....'Huh?!?', well, that was exactly my sentiment when I read this particular attempt at Christian apologia. 

For starters, the above analogy ventures into subjective territory. That is, despite there being an objective way with which to measure the temperature outside, two or more people may still have drastically differing feelings on whether or not that temperature is comfortable. Ergo, feelings are subjective. E.g...one person may feel that it's "warm" outside, while another person may feel that it's "bone-chilling". I don't disagree that that is possible. 

Another example, maybe one person says that they saw three people standing at a tomb, and maybe another person says they saw twenty-three people standing at a tomb. Me? I frankly don't give a rat's patooty about that at the moment, simply because I was raising a different type of Bible contradiction, specifically, those of the external type. Examples of external Bible contradictions would be when the Bible contradicts knowledge/information that we acquired independently of the Bible. For instance, knowledge acquired via modern scientific discovery. 

Here are some examples of external Bible contradictions:

In the Bible it states....

• that smearing bird's blood on someone with leprosy can cure them
• that the earth is geocentric
• that demons cause mental illness
• that bats are birds(fowl)
• that a firmament holds up the sky(which they believed was "water")
• that the earth is stationary
• that the moon emits light

I could go on and on, but the astute among us get the picture. Yes. Those "Bible facts" that the apologist speaks of? Well, those are contradicted by science. And this isn't merely my opinion; this is a hard fact. 

The Bible's redactors were not "inspired" by any omniscient entities; they were pulling things out of their hindquarters. Sure, they might've been doing their best with what they had, but that is beside the point: The Bible got those things and gaggles of others, wrong. FACT. 

Now, why would someone be so disingenuous as to contend otherwise? The answer is simple: They have a religious conviction that they are not willing to examine, much less change. Sure, they examine that which confirms their beliefs all the day is long, and they would like those of us who were brave enough to examine our own convictions and who now opt for critical thinking over "faith" to examine that which they believe confirms their beliefs. Well, no thanks. As I said, Christian apologetics are not for winning over skeptics. No. Christian apologetics are for quelling the doubts of the already-convinced. 

It should be noted that in this particular encounter, part of the discussion was later censored. I know, shocker, right? No, this is nothing new. We come to expect these sorts of tactics from Christian apologists. What happened to... the truth has nothing to hide?  'Odd, because apologists censor, delete, dodge, ignore----basically, whatever it takes to avoid having to face their greatest fear, that being that their lives are based on a lie. 

For those who might say, 'Gee, Boomslang, aren't you being a bit crass about it?". Perhaps so. But as long as there are those who use their "faith" as a pseudo-license to second-guess the personal experiences of their fellow human beings---in other words, as long as people use their "faith" to pretend to know things that they cannot possible know, then I have zero qualms about being "crass". I am keenly aware (and thankful) that there are some Christian bloggers who actually refrain from judging nonbelievers, at least attempting to imitate Jesus the times that he wasn't being judgmental. That Jesus never judged? That is debatable.