"Truth for authority, not authority for truth"
Lucretia Mott
Friday, August 12, 2011
Beware: The Prince of Peace has a sword
"Jesus, whose ministry was all about the relief of human suffering, taught the principles of nonviolent direct action that Gandhi and King perfected two millennia later: the unconditional nonviolent love of friend and enemy.
Since killing was clearly outside of the mind of Christ that should be should be a no-brainer for the church."*
Really?! This, again.
Since killing was clearly outside of the mind of Christ that should be should be a no-brainer for the church."*
Really?! This, again.
"And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she cryeth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour." Matthew 15:22-28
Being a firm believer in "unconditional love" Christ found it necessary to refuse to help a non-Jew and only relented after the the mother of the afflicted child grovels.
"And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it." Mark 11:13, 14
Pissed that the tree is out of season and can't provide food Christ kills it. Short tempered, short sighted, selfish, and violent, and this is the "Prince of Peace."
Personally, I agree that war is despicable and should be avoided. Using religion to justify that position, however, is idiotic. It provides just as much justification for war as it does for peace. Why not oppose war because it hurts our fellow human beings? Why rely on a single authority figure, especially a mythical one? Mr. Kohl just can't seem to shake his self-induced selective ignorance.
*from Gary Kohl's Consortium News article "Nuking Japan's Christian Center"
I have previously commented on the News Consortium site regarding Kohl's "Norway's 'Christian' Killer'"
I have previously commented on the News Consortium site regarding Kohl's "Norway's 'Christian' Killer'"
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Not all is negative
While reading a piece form the book This I Believe: The Personal Philosophies of Remarkable Men and Women I realized all my blog posts tend to be negative. I don't generally think of myself as a negative person. After reading the follow passage from Oscar Hammerstein II's "Happy Talk" I really had to stop and think for a little while.
"I have an unusual statement to make. I am a man who believes he is happy. What makes it unusual is that a man who is happy seldom tells anyone. The unhappy man is more communicative. He is eager to recite what is wrong with the world, and he seems to have a talent for gathering a large audience. It is a modern tragedy that despair has so many spokesmen, and hope so few.
I believe, therefore, that it is important for a man to announce that he is happy even though such an announcement is less dramatic and less entertaining than the cries of his pessimistic opposite."
Well, I am happy. I have a great life! I have a loving wife and two wonderful boys. I have a job I truly enjoy. I have great friends. Even though we are by no means wealthy, we are not in jeopardy of losing our house or going hungry. I really do have a great deal to be thankful for.
As for the negative posts, I can only assume that it has to do with fear and passion. I never want to lose those things I all too often take for granted. I also firmly believe that everyone deserves a chance at happiness. I may sometimes take thing too personally or get caught up by a momentary instinctive or emotional reaction but that may not be so negative in the end. I will continue to criticize and fight but I'll also try to remember all the wonderful aspects of life that surround us.
It is not all negative.
"I have an unusual statement to make. I am a man who believes he is happy. What makes it unusual is that a man who is happy seldom tells anyone. The unhappy man is more communicative. He is eager to recite what is wrong with the world, and he seems to have a talent for gathering a large audience. It is a modern tragedy that despair has so many spokesmen, and hope so few.
I believe, therefore, that it is important for a man to announce that he is happy even though such an announcement is less dramatic and less entertaining than the cries of his pessimistic opposite."
Well, I am happy. I have a great life! I have a loving wife and two wonderful boys. I have a job I truly enjoy. I have great friends. Even though we are by no means wealthy, we are not in jeopardy of losing our house or going hungry. I really do have a great deal to be thankful for.
As for the negative posts, I can only assume that it has to do with fear and passion. I never want to lose those things I all too often take for granted. I also firmly believe that everyone deserves a chance at happiness. I may sometimes take thing too personally or get caught up by a momentary instinctive or emotional reaction but that may not be so negative in the end. I will continue to criticize and fight but I'll also try to remember all the wonderful aspects of life that surround us.
It is not all negative.
Christians do "have it both ways": or why the AVN are a bunch of assholes
I recently became aware of the American Values Newtork's "Ayn Rand or Jesus" Campaign. It is thoroughly despicable. Aside from being incredibly ignorant and extremely bigoted it is also irrational, unethical, and plain old false. It is premised on demonizing atheists as a whole. The basic idea is to bash conservative Christian politicians for their praise of Ayn Rand. It is both amusing and irritating that the AVN ends up acting as a mirror image of those they attack. Conservatives who praise her politics completely ignore her personal life while the AVN focus on one aspect of her personal life to the exclusion of all else. In any case, I've never understood why people insist on using the ridiculous "guilt by association" political attack. Personally, I think Ayn Rand was a horrible human being with terrible political views. I don't see what either has to do with her having been an atheist.
If these idiots want to get into generalizations and the guilt by association tactic they would do well to fact check. Ayn Rand was conservative (libertarian and/or fiscal conservative) but the overwhelming majority of atheists tend to lean liberal. Rand was an adulterer. There is a correlation between fidelity and higher levels of intelligence, as well higher levels of secular attitudes and/or non-belief. There is also a correlation between non-belief and lower rates of crime. Attacking her personal morality, or lack there of, says nothing about other atheists once you start generalizing. If you pay attention to studies and statistics, on virtually every measure commonly used to verify morality atheists fair far better than theists.
The AVN also seem to be a bit off the mark when they claim that you have to choose between Rand and Jesus as role models/idols. If they weren't so ignorant and self-deluded they may have noticed that Christ isn't that wonderful. They attack Rand and through her conservatives as being selfish and greedy. Apparently they skipped over:
"And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box and poured it on his head. And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of ointment made? For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? She hath wrought a good work on me. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always." Mark 14:3-7
Translation: The poor are always around so screw them. Me, I'm more important than the rest of you slobs so I deserve to be pampered.
Sounds to me like you can be Christian and still be an arrogant, greedy, selfish prick. Conservative Christians can have it both ways. In fact you can "have it both ways" on virtually anything you want within Christianity since the New Testament is loaded with contradictions. So why does the AVN find it necessary to demonize atheists. In politics, we could be allies. Instead, they have to behave like the scum they attack.
If these idiots want to get into generalizations and the guilt by association tactic they would do well to fact check. Ayn Rand was conservative (libertarian and/or fiscal conservative) but the overwhelming majority of atheists tend to lean liberal. Rand was an adulterer. There is a correlation between fidelity and higher levels of intelligence, as well higher levels of secular attitudes and/or non-belief. There is also a correlation between non-belief and lower rates of crime. Attacking her personal morality, or lack there of, says nothing about other atheists once you start generalizing. If you pay attention to studies and statistics, on virtually every measure commonly used to verify morality atheists fair far better than theists.
The AVN also seem to be a bit off the mark when they claim that you have to choose between Rand and Jesus as role models/idols. If they weren't so ignorant and self-deluded they may have noticed that Christ isn't that wonderful. They attack Rand and through her conservatives as being selfish and greedy. Apparently they skipped over:
"And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box and poured it on his head. And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of ointment made? For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? She hath wrought a good work on me. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always." Mark 14:3-7
Translation: The poor are always around so screw them. Me, I'm more important than the rest of you slobs so I deserve to be pampered.
Sounds to me like you can be Christian and still be an arrogant, greedy, selfish prick. Conservative Christians can have it both ways. In fact you can "have it both ways" on virtually anything you want within Christianity since the New Testament is loaded with contradictions. So why does the AVN find it necessary to demonize atheists. In politics, we could be allies. Instead, they have to behave like the scum they attack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)