Blogs
Featured Entries
-
Last Goodbyes
By TheBluegrassSkeptic
Death for me over the years has rarely been difficult to process and move on. I've buried quite a few, only mourned a couple. The two I mourn are now memories I guard so earnestly a mother bear could not rival my ferocity. These two people immediately bring on the wet eyes and short tight breaths when I just so much as think on their lives, their influence, and my loss. This past January I experienced a third loss of someone very important in my life. It's hit me very hard, and I am surprise- 0 comments
- 1,676 views
Our community blogs
-
- 2
entries - 0
comments - 4691
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
The Christian God Is Too Small.
The Christian god is male. His character is conveyed through a book, the Bible. He is loving, and he has a son (John 3:16). He has experienced feelings of regret (Genesis 6:6, Exodus 32:14, 1 Samuel 15:35). He laughs (Psalm 2:4). He takes revenge on those who do things of which he does not approve (Romans 12:19).
According to the Bible, the Christian god has human attributes, and he can be made known. He acts very much like the gods of other pantheons.
Why? Because this god is of human origin. This god is man-made.
If a God exists, then that God is beyond us, and cannot be named or known. Yet, even to say that this God cannot be named or known is to set up limitation. This God has no human parameters, and is thus the culmination of all possibilities.
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
- 2
-
- 4
entries - 4
comments - 25601
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
The Kingdom Of God And The Law Of Love
The Kingdom of God and the Law of Love
Was Jesus really a true character of history and if so, were the claims about him as the son of god or The God, true? The answer still comes up as a 'no.' He could be real or not, and the argument is still 'no, he is not who he claimed to be.' The NT was written to legitimize the Christian church's doctrine as much as the OT was written to legitimize the priest class over the Jew that did not exist until then. There were no Jews in history until they gathered together after the return from Babylon. The books of the OT were fraudulently written and were claimed as such by the OT prophet Jeremiah who recognized the Law of Moses was a pack of lies written by scribes to give credibility to the Law over the Jew.
(Jer 7:8) Behold, you trust in lying words that cannot do any good.
Jer 8:8 How do you say, We are wise, and the Law of Jehovah is with us? Lo, certainly the lying pen of the scribes has written falsely.
Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh yourselves. For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices...But they did not listen, they paid no heed, but went ahead with their own plans with the most stubbornly wicked and evil hearts...Speak to them but they will refuse to listen to you. Call to them but they will refuse to answer... truth has perished from their lips and it is no longer heard in the land. (Jeremiah7:21)
Jeremiah denounced the law in a manner that would not get him killed by the Jews for blasphemy.
The simple believes every word, But the prudent considers well his steps. --Proverbs 14:15
In the NT we find where someone wrote:
But avoid foolish questions and genealogies and contentions, and strivings about the Law, for they are unprofitable and vain. (Tit 3:9)
How is it possible to to preach the Law and it be unprofitable and vain unless it were not true?
James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their afflictions, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.
True religion shows there is no sin because of love, mercy, and forgiveness (Hosea 6:6). True religion is acceptable to everyone because it shows those with this religion practice love and mercy.
How can religion be pure if it only involves caring for others and showing them love and compassion, mercy and forgiveness? Because the law delivered to Moses is not true. Because the law was not given to Moses then there is only one thing that is true and that is love against which there are no Laws and love hurts no one. Where love reigns there is then forgiveness and with forgiveness there is no arguments of the Law because when a person is forgiven a crime, there is no conviction and there is no judgment. That is how love conquers all things and covers a multitude of sins. Jesus is not needed for salvation because with love, mercy, and forgiveness that the gentiles show without the Law, it demonstrates the law has no affect beyond the confines of the Law of the Jew, not the gentile. Gentiles are a law unto themselves because they show the law is a natural occurrence of the heart. The Jew thought the law was required of all men. The gentile proved they already understood what love, mercy and compassion was all about and they never received it from anyone. How is that possible unless the law the Jew received was a lie written by scribes to subject the Jew to the will of the priests and Pharisees. Paul, supposedly wrote thousands of pages of words describing how the law works in a christians's life and what did Jesus himself say about the Pharisee and scribes? Paraphrasing, he said, according to your own bible, he said that unless a man' righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisee he will not enter heaven. How is that possible without Jesus? You don't need Jesus because we already know that forgiveness covers sin, no sin equals no crime and no crime equals no judgment. This found in Romans Chapter Two. Jesus' gospel was not to the gentile, he said so himself. He even referred to gentiles as 'dogs.' Jesus' gospel was to the Jew to shame them into leaving the Law and pursuing common sense through acts of kindness towards one another coming from love, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. This is the gospel of the Kingdom of God. It is found where? Within you. How? Through unfeigned love of others. The writers of the NT wander from one extreme to the other and once they focus on Paul every writing is made in reference to what Paul teaches. You either follow the gospel of Jesus or you follow Paul and Paul wrote of all kinds of things he believed were necessary for salvation and unless you are holier than Paul, a Pharisee, you will not be saved. In the first part of Jesus' ministry he claimed he did not come speaking of himself but the kingdom of god. Then the writings take a different course and all one reads about is Jesus speaking of himself and the unbelievable miracles right out of the pages of the other religions before and after the period of Jesus. That is what makes Jesus unbelievable and his ministry is not known because the gospel he brought is mired in lies and deceits and the workings of the false apostle Paul. What do we know about Jesus beyond church tradition? Not one thing!
Mat 15:8-9 "This people draws near to Me with their mouth, and honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. (9) But in vain they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
What are the commandments of men? The ten commandments. To worship god in vain is to preach the ten commandments because in doing so, one teaches the traditions of men that become law over time, not the commandments of god. God never gave any commandments to Moses. The commandments were lies written by the scribes which Jeremiah confessed. This continues to the writings of the NT. Tradition is preached, not gospel. The gospel has no affect because of the traditions of the church. There is no Holy Ghost because everyone has their own idea of Jesus and the church. Otherwise there would only be one body of believers worshiping god in the same way and instead there are hundreds of denominations and thousands of variations of these denominations and all of them preach PAUL not Jesus. Jesus did not live, he is a figment of the christian imagination. And, if he lived, his gospel is so written over and fragmented by the mindless drivel of Paul that anything that jesus brought is fictional because it cannot be separated from the nonsense of Paul.
The only theme throughout the OT and NT that is repeated over and over is what? God demands mercy and not sacrifice. God demands love that covers up sin and not the insane ramblings of the Law that points fingers at everyone and accuses everyone for no reason. Behold, you trust in lying words that cannot do you any good! God demands mercy and not sacrifice because that is the only works not covered by the Law that Moses never got from god. Even the prophets knew God never told moses anything but how were they going to tell the Jew without being killed by the Jews?
The Law of love was not delivered to Moses so Jesus brought it. That is what the Kingdom of God is within you. Mercy and not sacrifice, and an accusation that traditions were taught as law, as commandments, when there were none given. To prove Jesus lived is impossible. To prove we need Jesus for salvation is impossible because you cannot prove he was sent by god to save us from what a talking snake did. Too many myths and not enough factual accounts. Every time we forgive each other we save each other because where forgiveness abounds there is no strife, no anger, no hate, no feelings of guilt. We don't need Jesus. We need common sense and the willingness to forgive.
This is the Kingdom of God, showing unfeigned love to one another and the forgiveness of each other's 'sins' or wrongful deeds they may commit against us. That is the Law of Love and the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is without sin. How? By forgiveness of sin. We forgive each other, that law is within our hearts. Where forgiveness reigns, so does the Kingdom of God.
- 4
-
- 14
entries - 2
comments - 20037
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
The Use Of God # 2
There is times to me, that between having the Atheist trying to explain to the Theist out here in this world. Why some of us don't care to buy into a GOD belief.
I saw a member here: 'QuidEstCaritas?-' who had his comment on: ANY GODS: "God is a political control device" Which is exactly what I think also. Further into The Use of God. "God is a political control device"
In my mind. For the History of having a Jesus, Jesus was a Robot. He represented what the Jewish Culture has always believed in and Jesus was only representing what the Jewish Culture only wanted to be represented for. Everything was conditional & dictated to Jesus and became the Jewish Spokesman. That's what I believe. And I think life has more value beyond this biasness. Restricting ideas outside of a closed mindedness box of living life on Earth and the Universe. I had a saying "Penguins lead and walk among ice frolics and ice bergs. It's not all in green pastures for which I get annoyed about."
(Noting how I got my Avater here? *)
With what is all going on in the world, if it isn't the Use Of God, it is the Use of those trying to have Power to control humanity.
I have been watching Jessie Ventura on channel TruTV49 on Wednesdays on the Conspirasy Theories. And he has really been digging into the High Powers going on in this world that want to get control of us. Probably with God or something else (??? I don't know).
For me in trying to expect of finding me a woman from the Love of God is as trying to find my life's mate. I always hate it, when woman want all the focus on God rather on the them. Women that don't really want intimacy from men, but only wanting protection for themselves. Yet they still don't get it, when I tell them. I don't see any real Love from a GOD. When all hell breaks lose from trying to find the harmony.
Since I can't find this woman for my life. I would say it would be a miracle from God if I ever was able to find her. But actually if I could get that Miracle even in a world that is void of such things. That would be assume yet. It would just be the common grounds, if that would ever get noticed.
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
- 14
-
Latest Entry
Adam And Eve And My 12 Day Challenge
Hummm....
There is no way I could type-ache-ly...Disclose all the things that have conspired since my last posting. I am sure that what I ever I would have to say will seem to be coming straight out of left field. And remarkably sure, but that is nothing new with me.
I am having several moments at the same time, you see.
Many different levels of thought one could amusingly get stuck in.
Lately I have watched some director's interpretation of John Steinbeck's wonderful human foray into the Adam and Eve story. Which gives the "mythology" certain validity beyond the talking snake.
Oh ha, how preposterous, them fools, believing in a talking snake.
Oh shame, oh thinker, who is so limited in vision that the ridiculous blinds him as he conquers "belief".
Also in my real life there has been the nursing of a TWO could be divorces of circumstances which , are nobodies bloody business... though I'd tell if it didn't just plain suck, and bore with drowning dramatic intensity.
one outcome of which was my quitting pot.
and i WILL to do so......(most of the time, now, seriously)
But i am imperfect in the face of the bore and stacking resentments that are natural to reality.
And I have been reading "The manipulated mind" by Denise somebody, and that Cialdini book "Influence, science and practice." I mistakenly bought the same book twice, so i have both old and new additions. These books are teaching me how easily duped the general human race is. And I wonder, why would a human be content with himself knowing he is so freaking Human? Would he not wish to evolve?
I have wondered that if I study too much, will I become like Freud, and hate humanity? I feel so alien to them now. I wish to be part of the Ex-Christian, site's regular posters. But suffer afraid of humiliation and lack of actaul non deluded intelligence.
So many of those chatters seen like very interesting folk, and with my desire to seek-out a god-positive argument, when I try to approach them they get defencive.
I wonder if god ever has this problem with me.. ermm humanity. And to Chat with these folk I have got to tone down my rather flamboyant and crazy writing style. But...I simply cant write well in a formal "clearly logical" stance. At least not without coming off as a troll, or a challenger, or a fool. Oh gawd, what if i am a crazy fool and my "questions" are impossible?
duuuuuudeee, i need a Zolft.
I have also been re-connecting with my inner self. And slowly growing, to be able to recreate the frames of mind that I so crave from .....Pot... the other master of me.
I have been meditating quite clearly upon some certain words.... but we will get to them later, maybe.
I am trying to stay on "topic". There is a dollar prize for the reader who has the eyes to discern what the freak my point is.
But these days I would rather have my 1 yen, turned into 12 dollars American...sooooo you should wish I was giving a yen prize so you can come to america and live like kings. (HA! we are the new mexico). And the yang will take care of themselves.
cooolllllllll...that last bit is like a koan.......there in is my hope for quitting pot. (for real)
I don't waaaannt to be a slave.. so I am teaching myself how to say no, to the impertinent guest and be a Host in my house. Well do know that i am "cheating" today. But I think of it more as training wheels. Now i can focus my fight against addiciton where i live... and besides it IS my birthday!
I can have the stuff, and STILL say no. ( so i thik it should be for me). It is my one toke test. Though I will confess it has been 15 days since I failed the three day test miserably (nic bag= 3 days, not bad; nic bag= 3 months, priceless)
SO lets talk about Adam and Eve for a while and how it is that God had to kick them out of the "garden". But it is ok to visit But only after they set up houses...... I also mean that I can live sober and take authority of the actions of me. And to not let my senses be pulled about to needful panicky extremes. And calmly say No to my Other Master.
WHY should I give up my freedom for the illusion of "connection", greatness, art? And why should it be that the only way to best enjoy such of my human mental attractions, be under YOUR control?
See I figured pot out. He can only employ mind control techniques on me; but I think I should have access to my OWN mind on my will, not His. I have sold my creativity and enjoyment of games, and the interactions with ultimate reality to the whim of my Other Master. What.... if my dealer isn't home, i simply CANT understand, connect, write, be motivated or LIVE.........WHAT!
IMPERTINENT GUEST.....I am Master and creator of YOU.
These are some thinks I like to dream upon and create weapons to live sober by willing force. This is why I had to be kicked out of the garden, and have my offering rejected. (ie the reason that i know that i dont want to live High and I want seek self control but i dont seek abstinence. To liberate the parts of me held captive my my other Master.) So that I could be productive.
And man, I enjoy my functionality while sober. I had never been allowed and able to be free before, though sometimes pure rebellion or irresistible opportunity wins over pride. Most people call that a cheat, or a failure. or ekk a re-lapse! ... especially because they have the same fault, and if EVERYONE would just behave according to "their" perfect idea of "how things ought to be" (especially themselves) there would be no damned-able problem!
This is in the nature of WHY humans need personal individual freedom, and need to balance law with considerable circumstance. There is no such thing as "zero tolerance." Perhaps there is no such thing as zero god or true atheist, as well as true christian etc. Every thing we label and try to attach "god" to is false. (if no true scotsman applies this way, might it also apply that there is no true..complete.. knowledge?)
Could it be because....well........this will sound odd but....maybe this physical place is evil, and purity or corect blissfull happening. CANT, operate omnipantly in this realm a a whole self but needs people to do the individaul bits of holy dirty work. (i might mean rather that god both acts and creates itself via our evolution) .... hence all the "rules" the physical people must go through to reach objectives. Things like meditation, diet, philosophy, logic, and pain. Perhaps we suffer so and god won't fix it because we actually need it to evolve for "god-self" to be able to fix it?
(post edit. hum it seems i can be countered with the question of " am i suggesting that if we find a proper way to exist here and relate to the higher self; IE the right religion trademark; that we should be able to not lift a finger to create our will? And that is a fine observation, but aren't we already attempting to remove the human work effort amongst all our other world domination desires?
So nature is as nature does. If i was better studied in philosophy, I wonder if I could reason and defend that telekinesis and technology are to human Being as knowledge and the understanding of functionally is to God being. But i am pathetically daft at defending my poetically rambled preposterations. _ end edit)
And the clearer in mind, the individual who "GETS, it unto them self" is; he is as if, removing more and more veils that separate purity and evil, knowledge and ignorance, control and freedom? Now purity does not necessarily have to MEAN, lack of bad things happening. In another word, deuality can't have one side conquer the other but can only achieve open balance and use of itself in whole. Many times no matter how non psychotic and perfectly logical you fancy yourself, favorable conditions with favorable meanings simply happen. And if you follow the logical series of natural events that where touched by your experience, you will find , in that chain, evil. If not for the starving child in africa, you would have never found the perfect wedding ring. Or the butterfly effect.
Hence all things ever created by humans, all mind-sets, all views are sacred. They all combined..... well it...... and this might sound a wee bit odd.. but they might be that thing that would be god.
Hummmm
SO like, We are the act of omnipotence yielding to limitation and ignorance.....ya know just like that Jesus Claimed he did...therefore... WE evolving is conquering the "other Master"...erm...wait for it...
hummmm
damn i love my "functionality.".... but i honestly would prefer to live sober... this has been a nice trip to the garden of no sin... but dang it I have to live in the sinful..er real world with all the suffering I need endure. Or I can simply change the way I view things with the power of my own functioning entertainment machine that I just demanded back from my, impertinent guest! (IE gimme back my remote)
God kicking Adam and Eve out of the garden of perfection is because that was the only way "god" could communicate with himself. But somehow individual egos violently and ignorantly took over but that's not easy to explain and mankind has been trying to get the words out all of Anthropology, Psychology, Biology,, Physics and Cosmologically long for-ever.
But the "it according to you" has it's own eternity. Man may only guess what it is for others, and hopes he builds well his own.
Well it is time for me to proof read, likely when I come back my vein of muse will sifted into another gear. I do hope my humble ramblings might paint something and that be beautiful to you, as it seemed to me when i thunk the thinks with every fiber of my being. ( hint it was not here during my typing... nor even in the anxious fearful re-readings due to follow)
My wishes for the best to all, until i see you again.
IZM
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
-
Latest Entry
The Athiest Religion Geek...genesis
"Only people who are personally weak go to church or believe in gods." ~ My Mother
Unlike a lot of Ex-C'ers I wasn't raised Christian. I was raised in agnostic/atheist household. The extent of my exposure to Christianity was being baptized as a baby to appease my fundamentalist grandparents, and that was the end of it. My parents were both ex-Christians. My mother came from a highly religious and fundamental Presbyterian household in the Deep South, and my father was a Danish Lutheran. My mother never spoke of her upbringing much, I just knew she had suffered a great deal of religious abuse at the hands of her church and my grandmother, whom she hated, and that's why we weren't Christian. I don't know what she said to my grandmother on the subject, but my grandmother and grandfather never dared try to influence me either.
My father...well, I didn't even know his side of the family was Lutheran till I was 25 and I received a beautiful Italian mosaic cross that belonged to my Farmor (Danish for "grandmother") for Christmas one year. When I asked about it, my mom told me my Dad's family had been Lutheran. Considering his side of the family still lived in Denmark and we barely ever talked, I never knew much about them.
My mother was an avid student of various religions. She saved all her old textbooks from college in the 1960's (the ones that still called Asians "Orientals"), and had multiple analytical books about the Bible, the Dhamapada, the Bagahvad-Gita, the Torah, basic old "religion for dummies" type texts, and so on. We had a huge built in bookshelf in the wall dedicated to these texts. Most of which sat undisturbed for years and are now currently sitting in my storage unit. I have old hymn books and Bibles from before the Civil War era that belonged to my ancestors.
It was a bit rough being an atheist child. I found myself at a disadvantage and feeling like an outsider many times growing up in middle-class suburban America. It was like the rest of society was in on something important and no one was telling me what it was. We did celebrate Easter and Christmas in our house, but without the religious bent. Simply from being American, I picked up the stories of Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, Moses, the birth of Jesus (thank you Charlie Brown and Rankin Bass), and Jesus teaching and healing the sick, and finally being crucified through daytime television. I remember listening to Jimmy Bakker and wondering what he was on about. I just didn't get it.
I wasn't a very popular kid and other kids liked to take advantage of my ignorance about Christianity. I remember once in fifth grade and it was the rise of the AIDS epidemic and homosexuals were being especially persecuted. I didn't pay much attention to the news then, just briefly heard the word "Homosexual" and that it meant men had sex with men. One day in class someone stuck a sign to my back that said "Lesbian" on it. When I finally pulled it off and looked at it, and I didn't understand what the word meant. I asked another student, and they giggled and told me it meant I loved other women. I knew from the cruel sniggering this was some sort of an insult, but I didn't understand why. When someone finally told me it was taboo for girls to love girls or boys to love boys and we were supposed to hate them because the Bible said so, I suddenly laughed and blurted out aghast, "Seriously?! That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard!" I could not believe that there was actually a "rule" out there over something so silly! I knew that people loved and had sex with each other, so why not girls with girls and boys with boys? It seemed like the most natural conclusion in the whole world to me that boys would fall in love with other boys or girls with girls. Especially since I actually DID find girls attractive. I thought that was normal. I had never heard otherwise.
Apparently that was really the wrong response, because the students got pissed at me, and I got a stern talking to from the teacher about respecting other people's beliefs, and I was not to call their religion stupid. My mother wasn't best pleased with that, and told me that I was the one who was right.
I also remember being asked in sixth grade "Are you a virgin?" and I blinked and asked them what that meant. Cue a lot more taunting about how I could POSSIBLY NOT know what that meant. Then they finally explained it and the virgin Mary, and how you are a virgin until you have sex for the first time. Again I thought that was pretty stupid. Why would anybody care enough about something like that to give it a name and make a big deal out of it?
My mother explained the origins of the word to me after school and how it used to be used to denote a woman who had chosen not to marry and handed me a book on Greek Myths.
It was instances like that and many more that sparked my interest in religions. Being a teenager however, I didn't just want to learn about them, I was awkward and wanting desperately to fit in...I was weak. I wanted to know this God I'd heard about all my life and this peace He was supposed to bring me. So I converted to Christianity at around age 12 and prayed to Jesus. My mother needless to say was quite disappointed, but she stood firm in her convictions that my spiritual choices were mine to make alone...just don't drag her into it.
I thank my mother for her own insatiable curiosity and vast education. I'll save my exploits as a newborn-for-the-first-time Christian (since I wasn't born "again") for the future, but that's the background needed for my further thoughts in this blog.
Thanks for reading, I hope to be mildly entertaining.
-
- 2
entries - 8
comments - 8859
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
Religious Rites And Pathetic Prophets
This weekend has been an entirely religion-filled weekend. Or, if you like, a God-be-praised hallelujah Spirit-filled weekend! I prefer the former. Be aware that this entry will likely turn into a rant. But you'll probably enjoy every minute of it. Anyways, let me go on about my weekend.
On Saturday, my youth pastor got ordained. Because 1) I haven't told anyone about my de-conversion, and 2) I wanted to support him (although not what he stands for), I went to the ordination ceremony. This is the ordination for the PAOC - Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. There were fourteen people who got ordained, and it was a pretty long and boring service for the most part. The district superintendent (I believe that's his title anyway) railed on and on about one verse in 1 Timothy about being in ministry. However, I noticed that he subtly compared himself to Paul, which I found quite arrogant. He went on about how he was thankful to be counted faithful just as Paul was, blah blah blah. I'm glad to know that the people of the Pentecostal persuasion get bloated egos as well - makes it easier to separate myself emotionally from the church environment. At any rate, they had a big long ceremony where this guy ordained each one and then anointed each on on the forehead with oil. After this, they had a time where the presbyters and leaders laid hands on them - to the accompaniment of music, of course. No Pentecostal prayer-time is complete without the soft, ethereal keyboard in the background.
After that, people were invited to my youth pastor's parents place for a big celebration. I went up with my youth pastor (big mistake...didn't get to leave until everyone else had), and before the actual festivities started, he gave me and another friend of mine a tour of his parent's house. This house was...amazing. Honestly, it was ridiculously nice. His parents live on the edge of Lake Ontario, in a well-to-do subdivision that literally overlooks the lake. Did I mention that his dad is one of the head honchos for the PAOC district? Right. Great way to get filthy rich, apparently. I mean, the house wasn't a mansion, but they still had the standard deck and patio, hot tub, nice boat, huge master bedroom suite with a balcony coming out of it, a fully furnished guest bedroom down in the basement with a kitchenette, etc. Very nice place. Oh, and let's talk about their cars. My youth pastor drives a BMW. Yeah, I'm sure he's pretty much the only youth pastor in existence who drives one. But now I know where he gets it from. His father - also has a BMW. His sister - yep, she's got one too. The only one in the family without one is his mother, who has a crappy Lumina, but that's apparently almost dead, and they are talking about getting her a BMW very shortly. Talk about flaunting your cash. And this guy is in charge of the PAOC? Hmm...seems to me that they need to put more into missions and outreach and less into their salaries. But of course, when Jesus said "sell all you have and give it to the poor", he was only speaking metaphorically, of course...
Anyway, I could go on about that night, but I won't. Today was Sunday, and since I was at home this weekend to celebrate my and my mother's birthdays, I went to church this morning. Today we had a guest speaker, someone who runs an outreach ministry in Israel. (You'd think they'd be less worried about converting God's chosen people, but apparently not.) Anyway, the first fifteen or twenty minutes was essentially him trying to sell books, DVDs, and calendars, and trying to get people interested essentially. He was like a salesman giving a pitch. After that, the senior pastor came back up and took up a second offering for this guy's ministry. (I'm sure you can tell how much I gave to him. I was thoroughly impressed...
) Once the offering was over, he came back up, and tried to do a sermon on the seven churches in Revelation. However, he spent about ten minutes on that, and then the rest of the time talking about himself and how he can see visions and dreams and stuff. He went on and on about a vision that God gave him that convicted him, and then started going into "prophetic mode." Here was my first very visible, in-person demonstration of cold reading. And boy was it bad. He pointed to one woman and told her that what she was doing would blossom. Didn't give any details, that was about it. At this point, I had picked up on the scheme of things. Here was a guy claiming to be in touch with the Holy Spirit right at that moment. I have prayed over and over during the past few months for God to give me some sort of sign, and I picked this opportunity to tell God, "Here you go. I said I wouldn't give you another chance, but here you are. If you get that guy to come over to me and tell me something specific, then you'll prove yourself to me." What happened? Apparently the Holy Spirit isn't that accurate - he missed me by two people. The guy pointed to one of my friends sitting in the same row as me, and told him some vague mumbo-jumbo about "God knows what you're going through and says that he knows about that thing that makes you angry whenever you think about it." Boy, what specifics there. Who couldn't that apply to? Anyway, then he went over to another woman and told her that he saw a "tree of God's covering" over her life. Something about palm branches and all that jazz.Anyway, after "proving" his godliness, he then asked anyone who wanted prayer to come up to the front. I'd say about thirty or forty people went up (a fair amount for a church our size). They stood along the front roughly in a single line, and this guy went and prayed for each one, giving them "prophetic" words that, from what I could hear at that point, were just as vague as the ones before. Of course, the music had started playing for this time (because again, you can't have prayer without soft keyboard music), and I just sort of sat there watching the whole proceedings. I gave God a couple more chances - I told him that if he wanted to get my attention, he'd have to bring the guy over to me and have him pray for me. You know, have the "Spirit leading him" over to me. I figured that would be pretty simple for God to do. But apparently not. The guy started making his way over to the other side of the auditorium, so I left. I set myself up for rejection, and so I got it once again. On the way home I told God that if he was really up there, that I hated him for ignoring me and rejecting me. I punched the steering wheel a few times, then felt better. There is nothing God has ever given me that I couldn't have given myself - since all those years, it was me all along. Nope, God is dead. If he exists, then he does not care about me enough to bother with my questions or my doubts. If God is my Father, he is an absent father. So now, back at my place in the city where I go to school, I am writing this to let any of you readers know - religion is nothing more than a power-hungry money-grab tactic used to keep the masses in line. While the leaders get rich with their nice comfortable salaries, we pay the tithes that line their pockets. Then the "prophets" come along and try to sell you a rotten bill of goods. Don't listen to them. Listen to your own mind and your own heart and decide for yourself who is telling the truth. Look into yourself and find out where the real source of power comes from.
- 2
-
- 4
entries - 0
comments - 356
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
Regina's Shoes
Gig drove like a madwoman. She was always running late and always speeding behind the wheel. Every other driver on the road was an inconvenience in her path, long before the term "road rage" had been coined. She would be incensed if another car cut her off. "Don't get in front of me and then drive slow!" she'd bellow. Without the choice of secular swear words, she would instead yell entire sentences and DOT laws out the car window. "In the state of Florida you can turn right on red unless otherwise marked!" We grandkids thought this quality entertainment.
One day when I was 10 or 11, Gig's manuscript needed to be sent out within a few hours to meet the publisher's deadline. Running to the last minute as ever, we scrambled into the car. We were about halfway to the copy shop when we hit bumper-to-bumper rush hour traffic. So what did my Giggy do? She drove in the breakdown lane for over two miles and pulled into the parking lot. We had been stuck behind a paper company semi before the off-roading-in-a-compact adventure. Half an hour later, with her freshly bound manuscript in hand, we were re-entering traffic. She pulled in just in front of the same semi.
Another time when I was maybe six years old we were on our way to pick my sister up from ballet practice when the old station wagon blew a tire on the interstate. Rather than pulling over and dealing with the implications and inconvenience, she kept driving, picked my sister up, and made the return trip home, driving on the wheel rim. Once the car was back in the driveway, Gig happily dumped the problem in my mother's lap and set about making dinner.
The worst of all these must have happened just a few months later. My older sister stayed home while my grandmother and I headed out to pick up my brother from soccer practice. It was dusk and she was flying down a residential street near my brother's school when Gig hit a pedestrian. The woman's name was Regina, I learned that night. She was blind and deaf and had wandered out the front door of her sister's house, wearing dark clothes. She died instantly from the impact. I was sitting in the front seat when she flew onto the hood of the car, and her head smashed into the windshield, leaving a circular crack in the glass. We were too poor to get the window replaced, and I refused to ride in the front seat for the rest of the time we owned that car. Someone called the police and they came to investigate the scene of the accident. I was a bit overwhelmed by it all, and while Gig was talking to the officers I walked behind the car to get away from the sight of the dead woman's body. That's when I found Regina's feet - bloody lumps of meat, still wearing brown leather sandals. I don't remember what Regina's face looked like but I have never forgotten her feet. I don't know how fast Gig was driving: fast enough to tear a woman's legs out from her ankles and leave them twenty feet behind the car before slamming on the brakes. I still have a hard time seeing abandoned shoes on the side of the road.
At the time, no one thought I needed any therapy or help dealing with the shock. It had happened. Nothing we can do. Move on.
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
- 4
-
Latest Entry
The Emptiness
This is the time when I get to say what's on my mind. If I could calm the raging voices in my head, maybe I'd say something lucid. My thoughts are chaotic, but my gut feels empty. It's like there's a disconnect between my brain and feelings. That may be a sign of mental illness.
I was taught in recovery to accept that I'm powerless and turn my life over to a Higher Power. I'd do that if I could find any evidence that such a being exists. So, my mind says I'm in this deal alone and my gut doesn't want to believe it. I can no longer pretend, or blame my situation on some nebulous cosmic daddy. God, the worlds most notorious absentee father. I never really got the loving father analogy anyway. My experience taught me that fathers are harsh, inconsistent, selfish, unapproachable and vindictive. Wait, I guess that pretty much fits with at least some of babble gods characteristics. Can I get an Amen!
That's the foundation for my expectations. Mostly negative. I'm stuck with the attitudes and coping methods I developed as a kid trying to survive in an extremely dysfunctional family. I can tell myself things are different now. I'm an adult, not a kid. I just have trouble making my thoughts line up with my feelings. What to do now? Fuck if I know. It won't be easily resolved and I'm getting tired of making the effort. Tired and angry, that's me. So screw serenity and let's go beat the shit out of whoever's responsible for this cluster fuck! Can I get another Amen!
-
Latest Entry
Sabbatical Journey 4 Year.
I am going to a sabbatical journey-that means some soul searching and info searching that kind of things.there's a lot of things that it my mind that i need to solve out.maybe i wont post here for a long time-year,yes.i am currently exploring a lot of books onscience,rel, literature,political,hsitory etc. .i need to mix with different cultural people and i need their understanding.well this is a full sabatical journey and i need to do a full consideration on my own stuf too.any recommend of books,etc will be welcome here.
-
Latest Entry
Mother
We argued again today around the kitchen table.
She said that god helped me find my glasses.
I said that my memory helped me find my glasses.
She showed me her book by E.G. White.
I showed her the elementry book on our founding fathers.
She told me that no proof was enough though my evidence was thoroughly convincing.
I told her that ignoring evidence was cult like behavior.
She said that God has a plan for me, and that I am such a fool, such a fool, such a fool.
I told her that Christianity was responsible for the crusades, the SDA church prophetess made false predictions, and any responsible psychoanalyst would call my position the sane one.
She said that the Catholics were responsible for the crusades and that the true christians were in hiding. She said that E.G. White predicted 9/11 and once more, I am such a fool, I am such a fool, I am such a fool.
I told her I have class in the morning.
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
-
Latest Entry
The Fence Of Morality
Last night at my parents' church one of the preachers was giving a sermon about how the reason why God gives us moral laws to follow and why hell exists is because it's like a fence to protect us from being harmed and he used the analogy of a recent news event where a tiger at a San Francisco zoo escaped from the fence and killed one of the people there. I admit that I was almost taken in by this argument and it almost had me accepting it until I realized that this was just another dressed up version of that "we can't have morals without God!" argument that's just so ridicilously pathetic. The fence analogy that God's morals keep us from being hurt and from hurting others sounds nice in theory but there are several major problems I have with it. The biggest complaint I have about it is that the entire argument is based on assumptions. First, it assumes that the fence of morality is universally wide for all moral situations. It assumes that issues of good vs evil are always black and white and ignores the fact that most moral issues fall into shades of gray and that there is almost always going to be ambguity with morals.
This is one of the reasons why I rejected Christianity because it's black and white style of thinking is very out-dated and useless and ignores situations where people have to choose between lesser evils vs greater evils. If we are faced with a situation where we have to choose between a lesser evil and a greater evil, then even if we choose the lesser evil, then we are still hurt and grieve over our choice even if it prevented an even greater immoral act. So, isn't the very fact that we still get hurt from choosing lesser evils prove that God's fence of morality failed to prevent us from being hurt? The second problem I have with this fence analogy is that it assumes that the fence of morality is the same length for all Christians.
If the length of God's fence of morality was so obviously clear that nobody could be "hurt" with it, then why is it that Christians can never agree on how long the fence is? One of the biggest problems I have with Christianity is that Christians themselves can't even agree with each other on what is moral and what isn't, so what makes them think that they are any more protected by this so called fence of morality than non-believers if they can't even agree on how long the fence is? If Christians want non-believers to start taking them seriously, maybe they should try to find some unity among themselves first. Wasn't it the bible that said to take the shard out of your own eye before you take the shard out of other people's? Another problem I have with this analogy is that it assumes that it is impossible to be hurt within the fence of morality. But Christians prove everyday that they go through the same trials and suffering that non-believers do, thus essentially proving that God's fence of morality is useless in keeping us from being hurt.
The preacher then went on some ramble about how there were some "studies" (funny how when preachers claim that there have been studies done, they never cite their sources) that showed that children felt more freedom to explore from being placed in a field with a fence, but when placed in a field without a fence, the children only explored the middle part of the field, and apparently this is proof that even children see the need for God's fences of morality. However, I disagree strongly with this assertion. I don't think this proves that we need God to create a "fence" for us. This only proves that even without God people can use their own common sense to create their own fences for themselves, so the preacher's own analogies defeated his argument. I do agree on principle that people do good things for others because it makes them feel good and that we shouldn't do hurtful things to each other because it creates feelings of distrust among us and makes living that much more difficult for us, but I don't think this has anything to do with morality coming from God. I think this is just people using common sense that if you want others to treat you the way you want to be treated, then don't act like a jerk to everyone.
-
- 47
entries - 1
comment - 19058
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
Stop-gap Answers
I was posting some of this in the Lion's Den for our Recovering Atheist and it occurred to me how seriously off-topic it was so I'll repost it here for further discussion. I was thinking about topics like the End of the World, the Great Judgment, where people went when they died, what the preachers said at funerals--and how things didn't hang together. It occurred to me that a lot of stuff religion tells us and forces us to believe on pain of excommunication may be nothing but stop-gap answers. I will share some things I learned over the years that turned out to be stop-gap answers. Feel free to add your own. Maybe we'll solve a few mysteries in the process.
I realized that there were a lot of things that I wasn't supposed to notice, and if I did notice, preachers and other church people would only say things like, "How glad I am it is not in my place to judge!" Wasn't the preacher really saying: This man really was a very nasty person and never kept the rules of the church very well and by all rights he aughta be in hell but it would be incorrect for me to say so in front of all his relatives so I will play humble and ignorant and let an all-wise God be the judge.?
If THAT is what he was saying, how much other stuff was the church saying that they really never said? For example, when I was in the class for baptism as a 17 year old, the normal age for my church, the preachers and other adults told us in their wise and solemn voices that we would not understand it all now and that was okay; we would learn as we got older. Of course, we were also invited--even begged--to ask if we had any questions. So I did ask a simple question of the lady I was working with. It was just a definition for a word I didn't quite understand. She was my mother's age and a preacher's daughter so I assumed she was very wise. I never asked another question because she didn't even get what I was asking and finally told me that I would understand after my first class. I most certainly did not understand but one thing was clear: Asking questions was not the way to get answers.
Many years later I asked a deacon a burning lifelong question and all he did was quote bible verses, as though I had not read the Bible and had not sat through twenty-five years of sermons. I guess perhaps most people comprehend very little of what they hear, and think about it even less. I was made to believe that this stuff was deadly serious so I took it that way and did all within my power to learn and understand it.
So that was then. I hung around for a while longer and hit forty. I realized I was now "older." I realized something else: I was not one bit closer to answers than I had been at seventeen or 25. Hmmm. I had kept all the rules. I had gone out of my way to be very faithful and obedient to the church. I had also read the Bible and everything else I could lay hands on. Life was totally not worth living. None of the wise sayings and home remedies and sure cures helped me in the least. I had tried EVERYTHING. God and the church promised all along that doing all these things would automatically bring peace. And I had never been further from peace and happiness.
After investigating absolutely everything and weighing every last pro and con (and believe me the cons were HEAVY) I decided to get myself a university education with the goal to become a counselor. I set things up with the hope to try it out without getting myself excommunicated before I knew whether I wanted to go that route. Excommunication from the church was a very real risk IF people knew what I was doing. My strategy worked so well that people didn't find out until I chose to come out of the closet fourteen months later; I had been studying all that time. And then the universe exploded.
However, I saw it coming and I was prepared. I had made arrangements that morning to go to the modern Mennonite church the following Sunday. (It happened on a Sunday.) Immediately after these plans were in place I had the new birth experience. It was a very vivid experience of liberation, peace, and joy the likes of which I did not know humans could experience. And it happened at the precise moment that I turned my back on all I had been taught to consider holy. That carried me through the debris of the exploded universe for months until I felt a bit more solid footing. Maybe years.
Probably every last person on these forums except me would say the church I started going to was hard-core fundy. And it was. Mennonite brand charismatic fundy. Coming from a horse and buggy community where piety was measured by length of dress on women and width of hat brim on men, and where all musical instruments were banned, a church with a worship band where women turned up in shorts and cut hair and men wore the same--well, you can guess that had I not been reading Norman Vincent Peale's Guideposts for fifteen years I might have been in for a severe shock. As it was, I had worked through these issues. I saw that people were smiling and I believed it was the joy of the Lord.
I interpret it differently today but I believe it was just as genuine and just real as the solemnity of the Mennonites I had been with all my life--just a different form of the same expression. The one group believed it was disrespectful to crack a smile during service; the other group believed it was ungrateful not to dance and clap for joy. All did it to the honor and glory of God--that was the conscious intent. (Not everyone danced and clapped and it's not my nature to respond like that, so I did not feel obligated. Some people always showed up in formal dress and so did I. However, I liked the small informal group.)
Here's what I was taught about how the end of the world would happen:
Jesus came like lightening and that was it. The Great Judgment followed right after and immediately people were divided into sheep and goats and ended up in heaven or hell (I always wondered how even God himself could instantly go through the Books of Life and judge billions of people that fast but so be it; all the songs mentioned "the Great White Throne"). The confusing part was that at funerals the newly dead people were assumed to already be in their final resting place and weirdly enough it was always assumed to be pleasant no matter how kind or unkind they had been in life, no matter how well or how poorly they had followed the church rules (who were the large number of bad people who went to hell? Jesus did say very definitely that most people would end up in hell because broad is the way and wide is the gate and many there be that find it). Thus a final judgment doesn't really fit in but there absolutely has to be one because the Bible says there is one.
Another thing I found out only when my own mother passed away. I saw her in the hospital only hours before she died. I saw her again after the undertaker was done with her. I also heard the comments people made about her "peaceful" expresssion. There is the belief that the expression on the face of the dead person shows whether that person died with peace with God, whether the soul is with God. I did not see Mom when she stopped breathing. However, I don't believe she had the expression at that point that she had in the coffin. What she had in the coffin is something I had never seen. Nor had I ever seen what I saw in the hospital. These were the two extremes: one in the hospital was the face of agony and the other was the face of perfect rest. I do not believe that conscience had a single thing to do with either. I had no desire to "enlighten" the superstitions of the religious person who commented on her peace. I believed that I was seeing for the first and only time the mother she was never able to be in life. I wanted to treasure the memory.
Thus, perhaps the "final judgment" is itself nothing but a stop-gap answer for people who cannot otherwise deal with the injustices of life. I do know that when I deconverted and one of my sisters tried to reconvert me I explained about waiting all these years to get older in order to understand and I still don't understand. You know what she told me? She said, "Maybe we don't have to understand." Talk about wanting to scream! I had not waited all these years to get "older" only to be told I would never understand. THAT was a broken promise if ever there was one.
I don't care that she's another generation and not the same person who made the promise in the first place. If she considers it to be in her place to take over where Mom left off when it comes to teaching and admonishing me, then she can take on the responsibility to fill Mom's promises that Mom didn't live to deliver. And I am quite sure Mom would have said the exact the same thing, word for word. It's STOP-GAP ANSWERS WRIT LARGE. This is the kind of thing that makes me want to break stuff.
It's one more piece of evidence that perhaps I did make the right decision. Every stop-gap answer we can dig up will help even more. So feel free to share yours.
This got a bit longer and more involved than I had intended....
PART TWO
That's good Ruby. I like that word "stop-gap answers". It sums up one of the sides to religion. I've realized religion is successful with many because it covers so many different areas in the human psyche, and this is definitely one of those sides. All the questions and wonderings we have - because of our evolved intelligence - and religion provides stop-gap pseudo answers like sugar-pills to help people's mind relax and forget to ask. It's the perfect tool for political control. Give a religion to people, and you can control their minds, their will, their dreams and their actions. This is why it is successful, but also why it is so dangerous.Thank you.
The person who helped me see that there was a certain thought structure behind religion was an atheist female professor from an Orthodox Jewish background. She talked about her cousin who was such a strict Orthodox Jewish rabi that he couldn't eat at just any Kosher restaurant, it had to be the right kind of kosher. (Don't ask me the details on it because I haven't a clue; I just know there are a heirarchy of holy and more holy details in Orthodox Judaism just like there are in ultra-conservative Mennonitism. And he adhered to the most holy ones.) She said her mother went half-way from Orthodoxy and she went the rest of the way. According to the pictures I've seen of Orthodox Jewish men, the Jews are barely distinguishable from the horse and buggy Mennonite men. This lady was not many generations removed from Yiddish, which is similar to Pennsylvania German. She and I shared a definite kinship on a lot of levels.
I'm not sure if she used the word "stop-gap" but she used terms awfully similar. "Closed system" was a term she used. The course I took with her was in anthropology of religion and we looked at many different kinds of religion and their spiritual practices. This included prayer and magic and other rituals among tribes all over the world. We watched many videos of these people and their rituals. She explained about answers for when the rules don't work. And that is basically what I mean by stop-gap answers. I think that is what she meant by a closed system.
Perhaps the most commonly mentioned "rules that don't work" scenario on exC is unanswered prayer and how Christians have answers to "stop the gap" or "close the system." I was taught God answers prayer if we pray in faith. "The prayer of the righteous availeth much if it is sincere" or something along those line was an oft-quoted verse. Thus, when a prayer is not answered, people can always say, "You didn't have enough faith," or "You didn't pray hard enough," or "You weren't sincere enough," etc. "A broken heart and contrite spirit, O Lord, thou wilt not despise," was another verse often quoted to prove that God does hear--and answer--prayer IF it is earnest. But it MUST be earnest. And you must pray BELIEVING it will be answered; otherwise it won't be answered.
In a way, this differs significantly from what a lot of people on here were taught. A lot of people here say they were taught God's answer is: Yes, No, or Later. That is so "cut and dried" compared to what I was taught. But still, it's a stop-gap answer, a closed system, that let's God off the hook no matter what the out-come. It also allows for human interpretation as to what constitutes an "answer."
I saw one situation that really had me scratching my head. It was a family that believed firmly that God would heal the cancer patient in the family. They seemed to believe that God's answer could not be No because they prayed with the right kind of faith and the Bible promised. The patient died and they proclaimed that God kept his promise; the patient was now healed of his cancer because he was now in heaven where there was no cancer. When Dad's baby brother (who was like a big brother to me) died of cancer quite a few years ago, Dad called very early one morning with a similar message. He said, "Well, Menno has overcome."
I was stumped. What did he mean? I thought Menno was on the mend. Did he take a turn for the worse? Dad continued talking almost incoherently and I pieced together that Menno had died. I concluded that the battle with cancer was over, and from a faith perspective it might be said he "won" the battle in a spiritual way, kind of like the story above.
If I remember correctly, I asked Dad plainly, "Did Menno die?" He answered in the affirmative. It seemed to drain him of all energy. I never heard any of the details around Menno's death. At one point when I started asking about it Mom hushed me up and said we had to forgive people--everybody did the best they knew. I take it there may have been serious disagreement around medication and that his death may have been brought on because doctor's orders were not strictly followed. But that's a lot of guess-work build on bits and pieces of hearsay. The point here is that Dad would have known all about it if there were any dusky goings-on and he would have needed stop-gap answers like never before.
I don't believe anybody intentionally killed anybody but I believe some people in the situation may have had limited intelligence. Menno never seemed like an overly intelligent person to me and the woman he married was not a person I would have wanted to be dependent on when critical life and death decisions had to be made. I saw how she cared for her babies, which was at times not at all. I don't think it was intentional neglect so much as lack of insight. They all grew up and and that's all that counts in a community that embraces the dumb-ass because Jesus commended the poor of the earth and denigrated the proud. (Proud for them automatically means high education and high fashion.) Lack of intelligence must be borne as a cross and accepted as God's will, no matter how many generations (or centuries) of in-breeding have contributed to the situation.
Anybody see a stop-gap answer in there???
- 47
-
- 16
entries - 2
comments - 20871
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
World Religion- A Few Basics
A few notes from Huston Smith's lecture Religions of the World:
The world's religions divide themselves into 4 groups or families-
The Western family or Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam
South Asain- Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism.
East Asian: Taoism, Confuciansim, East Asian Buddhism, Shinto
Primal (or tribal or oral) religions: no writing or sacred texts.
How religions view time-
Western: time is linear.
Asian: time is cyclical.
Primal: time is eternal or timeless.
What religions emphasize:
South Asian religions concentrate on the psychological question.
East Asian religions concentrate on the social problem.
Chinese religion compared to Western exclusivity:
"Let me mention a third point that illustrates the Chinese social emphasis. And this has to do with the way they fitted their religions together. If we think of our major religions in the west- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam- they are all exclusive of one another. If we were going to diagram them, why we might think of Judaism as a square, Christianity a circle, and Islam as a triangle. Well, you can put these together so they touch one another but they don't integrate. Whereas traditions in China- Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism as they imported it- fit together very differently. They fit together more like a jigsaw [puzzle] so they really do fit together. Traditionally every Chinese was a Confucianist, a Taoist, and a Buddhist at the same time... There was no conflict because on state occasions... everybody was a Confucianist. When disease fell they would turn to the Taoists... And then when death comes, that's the time for the Buddhist priest."
Judaism's underdog beginnings:
"...the Western idea of progress as having derived from the Jews who in their formative period were underdogs. As I say, neither of the other two families of religions had their formative outlook forged by underdogs. In the case of India, the outlook was forged by Brahmans who were at the top of the social heap. And in China it was the literati- those who could read- and the scholars who likewise were at the top of the social heap. ... If one is a member of the ruling class ...then there is no great urge to look to the future because things are already rather satisfactory... But with the Jews, as I mentioned, it was quite otherwise. They were always in a state of expectation, one of the symbols being they wanted to cross over into Jordan. ... It was this expectation of a better future, which as I say in Jewish theology crystalized in the doctrine of Messianism - the coming of a Messiah."
Primal religion and porous divisions:
"What distinguishes Primal religion is the absence of sharp divisions within the world and their experience of it. It is as if the lines that divide one thing from another... are perforated. They are not so severe, so sharp in dividing as we tend to make them...." For example, "the dividing line between the human and the rest of nature is perforated... humans can turn into animals and vice versa."
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
- 16
-
- 4
entries - 3
comments - 6515
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
"open Office Environments"
Thank Zod for my Ipod Shuffle. If not for this little baby, I think I’d have to kill all my co-workers.
A couple years ago, management established an “open office environment” policy.
What does this mean?
It means all the cubicle walls were taken down. We don’t even have the illusion of privacy any longer.
And absolutely NO sound buffering at all.
Some visual buffering would be nice….not everyone really needs to watch me blow my nose. I know I really could be spared the viewing pleasure, so I’m pretty sure others really don’t want to see it either.
When I’m trying to work out figures or something, and someone else gets some retarded dancing hippo e-mail, they have this annoying need to share it with everyone.
Do they simply forward the e-mail on so we can each choose when we want to enjoy it?
No.
They must verbally summon everyone within earshot over to their computer screen and have everyone huddle around it like a bunch of socially needy meekrats.
Meekrats with hyena laughs.
Fucking loud ass bastards.
Some of us are actually trying to work here.
And then there are the insecure twits.
I will be the first to admit that I personally am not the most social person. This is not a problem for me, so why should it be a source of anxiety for others? Shouldn't be a problem.
Yet it is.
These insecure people feel a need to inform me of their every damn movement. If they need to leave their desk, I don’t need an all points bulletin of exactly where they are going or what they will be doing. No one is a floor supervisor, and no one answers anyone else’s phone, so the information is utterly meaningless. I don’t need to know and I really don’t give a crap.
But they need to talk.
They need the interaction. I don’t need my ears stroked or cuddly comforting that “everything is fine” regarding doing things that pertain to my work. If I need to go do something away from my desk…I go do it. Nobody needs details.
One of these people, SUPER insecure….is overly excited about our both being in new romantic relationships.
Somehow….she thinks this means we have “common ground” and we can and should converse about it.
First off….there is no “common ground” between us. Our purposes for communication in general to begin with are completely different. She needs social assurance and reinforcement. I occasionally want to share things I find ironic, funny, or odd with other people to see if they have the same reaction as when I first heard something. I’m occasionally curious about others, she wants assessment for normalcy (so she can change to fit!).
It would certainly explain some of the dumb shit she asks.
She actually asked me how often my new love interest and I talk to each other. WTF? Who cares! My relationship is only of deep interest to me. And while I will say I’m happy she has a new relationship as well, I have no interest or need to analyze and examine her experience to bits.
I don’t want to socialize.
Which brings me back to the pleasure of my Ipod Shuffle. I can tune most crap out. I can still hear…but at least it’s now properly background noise and I can tune in or out as need be. I’m not the only one who has resorted to the Shuffle self-defense either. Another co-worker (one who understands) confided in me that sometimes, her Shuffle isn’t even playing anything. But the little earphones are indispensable as a subtle form of “do not disturb”. Your yakkin’ ass co-workers are less inclined to engage you in random conversation if they don’t think you can hear them.
Without it, you are prey for the roaming yakkers. Those co-workers who just need eye-contact to stand in your space wasting a good ten minutes of your time jabbering.
Speaking of my space….just because the cubicle walls aren’t there, doesn’t mean I like it when I’m working at my computer, only to get that “feeling” on the back of my neck. I turn my chair around and find someone in my workspace.
Worse…when someone is staring at my computer screen over my shoulder!
Dumbfuck!
Go away!
If you are physically close enough to be looking over my shoulder like that, you are in my intimate space! If you are close enough to kiss, and you aren’t cleared for that activity…you are invading my space!
Why are you looking at my screen anyway?
You are the reason I’ve altered my Windows XP taskbar to only become visible when my pointer is hovering at the bottom of my screen! You don’t need to know how many programs I have running, or all the windows I have open!
Especially my internet usage! So I goof off during the day! So do you! I’m not coming up behind you to curiously ask about the details of the websites you are visiting while you are on the clock! A manager might overhear you. Loud ass! Have some courtesy and discretion and act as though you don’t see the website, and I’ll be sure to extend the same omission when you are clothes shopping on Yahoo!!
Piss off!
And die!
- 4
-
- 3
entries - 1
comment - 13321
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
Morality Is Embodied
Embodied Morals
Do not say, “this is a stone and not God.” God forbid! Rather all existence is God, and the stone is a thing pervaded by divinity. (The Kabbalah)
Evolution.
Evolution as the source of the body is the source of morality, but not in the way commonly perceived. Evolution itself is amoral that is it doesn’t choose its path in a moral fashion. This is important to recognize because it is a natural thing for humans to judge everything in a moral way. To say that evolution is about the survival of the fittest is correct on one level. However, it is not correct on a moral level. The human tendency is to pick up on the moral metaphor of being fit and then suppose that evolutionary process is about being better, the winner, superior, more advanced, finer, and/or etc. This is the major mistake of social Darwinism. It is also the mistake of those that say that Evolution cannot be the source of morals.
Evolution is the source of moral behavior, but not in a directional on purpose manner. Evolution is not the source of morals in the sense that Frank Lloyd Wright was the source of Falling Water. It is only the source in the sense that the process produced social animals. The process in no way had to produce social animals in general or humans in particular. That means the process in no way had to produce moral behavior.
One objection that the religionist will raise is that the greater cannot arise from the lesser. This in itself is a moral judgment: Being moral is better than being amoral. This is true, but only for a social being. For the universe as a whole morality is unnecessary.
Only a moral being can be immoral. An amoral being or process cannot be either moral or immoral.
It is difficult (maybe impossible) for a human to move its mind outside of its moral parameters. Because of this moral judgment on a process is a default mental operation in a human, religionist or not. For the most part moral judgment operates in the unconscious mind like most of what we do.
(The outline of the following is from Lakoff and Johnson’s Philosophy in the Flesh starting on page 555.)
“A human is a body” is closer to what is real than “a human has a body.”
Embodied Reason
Conception is grounded in a physical body. That is human conceptual systems must use the physical senses acquire information that is consequentially shaped by the way the senses operate and the way they are placed in the world. If for example we could see nearly 360 degrees of the world like a horse does, then our concept of the world would be different, because our visual metaphors would be different.
Conceptualization can only take place through the body. Humans have no contact with what is outside of their selves except through their physical systems of contact and interpretation. Therefore concepts are framed and shaped by the physical construction of the human body.
Embodied Reason makes use of basic concepts shaped by the functions of the senses and the functions of motor skills as the body learns to move and actually does move in its environment. This is the mode in which humans have the most contact with what is real.
Sensual and motor information inform rational inferences. For example we assume that which is best is upright, because we feel best and physically function best in an upright position. If we happened to be rational worms, horizontal metaphors would perhaps predominate instead of vertical metaphors in describing the good.
Since our concepts of the world are inferred from our largely unconscious physical contact and interaction with what is out there truth and knowledge are embodied.
Because what we know of the physical universe comes from the physical nature of our bodies, the mind cannot be elsewhere then the body. The mind cannot be independent of the body, just as is shown by modern cognitive science. This does not mean that there is no mind, only that there is mind only with a sufficiently functioning body.
Metaphoric Reason
Human reason is grounded in primary metaphor like: Affection is warmth, “she gave me a chilly greeting.” Important is big, “Howard is Mr. Big now.” Happy is up. “I feel on top of the world today.” Intimacy is closeness. “Sally and I are beginning to drift apart.” Bad is stinky. “This deal doesn’t smell right.” Difficulties are burdens, “Jeff was given a crushing amount of paper work in hopes he would quit.” More is up, “That screaming is over the top.” Categories are containers, “Blue is in the electromagnetic spectrum.” Similarity is closeness. “That isn’t the right part, but it is near enough to work.” Linear scales are paths. “Sue’s understanding of our network has gone beyond John’s.” Organization is physical structure, “How does the substance of your argument fit our model?” Help is support, “support the troops.” Time is motion. “Time in prison drags by.” States are locations, “Go to your happy place more often.” Change is motion, “I’m heading towards the poor house.” Personal actions are self-propelled motion, “I think I can swing the new mortgage.” --- and so on. (see Lakoff and Johnson pp.50-54)
All of these metaphors can be shown to originate in physical being. Two examples from Lakoff and Johnson:
Causes are physical forces
Subjective Judgment: achieving a results
Sensorimotor Domain: Exertion of force
Example: “They pushed the bill through congress.”
Primary Experience: Achieving results by exerting forces with one’s physical body on physical objects to move or change them.
Control is up
Subjective Judgment: Being in control
Sensorimotor Domain: Vertical orientation
Example: “Don’t worry; I’m on top of the situation.”
Primary Experience: Finding that it is easier to control another person or exert force on an object from above, where you have gravity working with you.
The human is able to project these base physically derived metaphors beyond basic level experiences into more abstract areas of life: science, philosophy, religion and so on. Nevertheless the abstract understanding is always grounded in the mundane.
Because this embodied conceptual system is dependant on the subjective experience of individuals and on a range of biological differences in sensorimotor construction between individuals no exact agreement on the description of reality between individuals is possible. The differences in perception will increase as the experience of individuals diverge, however it will diverge only within certain parameters set by the similarities of physical construction of being members of the same species.
For this reason there will be no universal rational morality that humans can make for themselves. In addition for the same reasons no externally provided morality will bring uniform behavior between individuals or peoples that would have to relate to that externally provided morality with differing embodied constructs. Neither objectivists nor religionists will be able to supply the “one right way to live.” No objective morality is possible because people are always subjects.
Limited Freedom
Most of human thought takes place below the level of consciousness. Typing this paper is an example for me. I am consciously aware of the words I want to write while my finger/brain motor system takes care of finding the right letters without any conscious thought needed for the actual typing process. In addition the words I want to write are only appearing to my conscious attention a few at a time giving the impression that they are streaming out of nowhere – or elsewhere, when what is happening is that the words are being delivered to the conscious attention by the subconscious.
Consciousness is not capable of managing the whole of this task. If I try to pay attention to where my fingers are going the words I want to write come to me at a much slower pace, and my typing slows down to almost hunt and peck speed. If I try to attend to too many things the whole process will collapse.
The neural construct of my brain is relatively set by past experiences and practices. I can change it to some degree with new experience and practices by using conscious deliberate acts until the new thing is programmed into my unconscious. But I cannot make sweeping changes merely by consciously thinking I will. For example: I cannot become an Arabic speaking Arab thinking Muslim by deciding consciously, “I will now be an Arabic speaking Arab thinking Muslim.” My free will is limited by how my past experience has shaped me and my present physical limitations including brain/mental functions. I can decide that I will read the Koran if my copy is in English. If it is in Arabic then my will to read the Koran must wait on my learning Arabic. No matter how much will I may exert I will never read the Koran as one that was shaped by Muslim Arab culture.
For these reason we don’t have much conscious control of thought processes and subsequent behaviors as we would like to think. My will is embodied and therefore will not transcend the constraints of my body.
This constrains what people know as spiritual experience to the body. Spirituality is real but it takes place in the physical world via physical processes.
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
- 3
-
Latest Entry
Marilyn Adamson....ex-atheist retard!
Hey Guys...I wrote this a while ago, thought I'd share it.
I read it again and realise that I could do better. Maybe I will later...seems kinda pointless though.
Refutation to Marilyn Adamson’s
Is there a God?http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
If you look here, you will see the inane ramblings of a supposed ex-atheist woman named Marilyn Adamson. She posits 6 reasons why we should believe in God, not just a God, but the Christian God. So, I wrote an essay refuting her points.Marilyn Adamson’s article from EveryStudent.com on the argument for the existence of a God is interesting at best, and extremely misinformed at worst. Her arguments are as follows:1. Most cultures believing in God2. Irreducible complexity (Intelligent Design)3. Argument from probability4. Inherent sense of right and wrong5. God revealed in nature, and the bible6. Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God.These arguments are the core of Adamson’s argument, and from that, she attempts to give credibility not to “a” God, but to her bias for the Christian God. While “a” god in any form can be defined as anything and therefore never can be proved or disproved, defining this God as the Christian God allows me to further refute her arguments.
Refutation of Argument 1:
Throughout history, in all cultures of the world, people have been convinced there is a God. Adamson uses this argument to show that because the majority of people believe in a God, and have believed in a God, it must lend credibility to there being the Christian God. First of all, each culture who had the early religions, such as the Sumerians, Chinese, Indian, and Native American peoples, all have very different religions. From these religions, as cultures diverge into differing cultures, stems other religions, and so on, much like the denominations of Christianity. These early cultures were extremely primitive in thinking, believing that lightening and earthquakes were caused by God. Crops failing and crops flourishing, natural disasters of all kinds were attributed to this God. Not one of these cultures had the same ideas as to what this God was like. Furthermore, polytheism was inherent in many cultures such as Sumerian myth, Greek myth, among others. These Gods took on roles of different aspects of human personality, and different aspects of nature. Using this as an argument for the existence of God, would be adding credibility to all of the religions, which would not bode well for Christianity, nor does it offer support to the existence of the Christian God.
Refutation of Argument 2: The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Adamson, in her infinite ignorance, attempts to show that the apparent design found on our planet offers compelling existence for a God. More specifically, the Christian God. She explains that the Earth is the right size and shape for life. That if it were any further from the sun, or with a different combination of gases, that life would be impossible. This is a rather humorous argument, as it equates to an analogy made by Douglas Adams about a puddle of water: “Oh look at this hole I’ve found, I fit so perfectly into it that it must have been made for me!”. If you don’t’ understand this, the water thinks that the hole it has found is perfectly designed for it, because the water fits right into the hole, not thinking that the water itself conforms to the conditions the hole has. The only life we have seen, has been life on Earth, that does not mean that life can only exist in the way we see it on Earth. If conditions were different on Earth, it’s possible that life would have come about differently.Next, she uses the argument that the human brain is too complicated to have “come about by chance”. This stems from the belief that a) Evolution is goal oriented and that Evolution operates on chance. Through observation and other aspects of the Scientific Method, we know that there are rudimentary brains from which ours have evolved from. The ability to reason and function can be seen in related species such as Chimpanzees, and Gorillas among the Great Ape family. Our brain is no more or less special than any other organisms abilities. The ability to communicate and reason is nothing new among animals.
Refutation of Argument 3: Mere “chance” is not an adequate explanation of creation.
Adamson uses this argument to show that natural processes can not explain the complexity of our universe. She gives us an analogy about looking at Mt. Rushmore, and seeing the faces, and knowing that they must have been created. This is much like the idea that if one is walking in a forest, and finds a watch, the person deduces that the watch must have been created, and could not have come about naturally. This idea is fallacious, as we know that watches do not come about naturally, and have never seen a watch come about naturally. We can observe mountains forming through plate tectonics. We can observe the trees forming, and dirt being made. We can observe these processes happening naturally, without a God being right there all the time, creating every tree, and every human. Adamson also points to Sir Frederick Hoyle, who “showed” how amino acids randomly coming together in a human cell is mathematically absurd. I’d like to point out that Hoyle was an astronomer, and not, a biologist. His credentials equate to an english teacher trying to disprove complex mathematics. Anyways, I will get into specifics about Hoyles argument. Hoyle tries to show that life is statistically improbable. He wrote about it in his book “Evolution From Space”. He says that the statistic of life coming about naturally is 10^40,000 (p.24). Specifically, he states that a 20 amino acid polypeptide must chain in precisely the right order for it to fit the corresponding enzyme. Hoyle leaves this out, but there is a minimum specificity of this one specific possibility. That is 10^20. Hoyle mentions it by saying "by itself, this small probability could be faced" Even though it doesn't account that any number of the first organisms could be a possibility in having enzymes come together. He then states that the problem is there are 2000 enzymes. And therefore the chance of obtaining them is (10^20)*2000=10^40,000There are three flaws in Hoyles conclusion:1)Natural Selection is random.2)That all 2000 enzymes had to be hit upon all at once.3)That life began with complex enzymes working together.In answer to these flaws, natural selection is not random, but selective. It does not operate on chance, but on selecting what works from what doesn’t. What works moves on what doesn’t, doesn’t. Organisms do not use all 2000 enzymes, different organisms use different enzymes to function. Biologists all agree that life before is not as complex as it is now, therefore even if organisms today used all 2000 enzymes, it is not logical to believe they did in the past. Furthermore, calculating statistical probability on past events is a rather dangerous thing to do, as you cannot possibly account for all the factors that are involved in calculating the probability, one could come up with any astronomical answer, that doesn’t make it true.I would also like to add that current studies in science have shown that amino acids can come together “randomly” to form protocells, the studies have been done, and repeated:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htmht...el_sci/fox.html
Refutation of Argument 4: Humankinds inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained.
Adamson argues that humans have an inherent sense of right and wrong, and that these must have come from God. I would like to point out that children in their formative years, do not have an inherent sense of right and wrong. Where do they learn that stealing is bad? Where do they learn that calling names is bad, or that hitting is bad?? They learn these things from their parents. Before a child can properly function in society, it has to learn how to function in society. Humans are not born with the knowledge of how to function in society, or there would be no need for laws. The Bible itself has a bunch of rules and regulations (ie the 10 Commandments), if we are inherently born with this sense of right and wrong, then why is there the need for these laws, and commandments? I wonder….I would also like to add that different cultures have different ideas about what is right and what is wrong.
Refutation of Argument 5: God not only has revealed Himself in what can be observed in nature, and in human life, but He has even more specifically shown Himself in the Bible.
Well, first I’d like to add that God has not revealed himself in what can be observed in nature, and in human life. If he has, then everyone would all believe the same thing, which we don’t. Adamson uses an odd example showing that archaeological findings confirm the accuracy of the Bible. Such as confirming the existence of King David, the supposed author of many of the Psalms. The Dead Sea Scrolls, and other unnamed historical findings. Confirming the existence of King David offers nothing to the credibility of the Bible’s other stories, no more than the confirmation of finding the remains of the City of Troy confirms that Achilles really existed. It’s just another piece in the puzzle of history. As to the Dead Sea Scrolls, they do not offer credibility to the Bible arguments. These are not secular sources that confirm things in the Bible, rather they are actual books of the Bible, that show that scribes copying the books weren’t as meticulous as previously thought. Through the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have found stories changed, added to, and rearranged from our other manuscripts found and dated about about 800 AD.
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/...html
Furthermore, Adamson tells us that the Bible was written over a 1500 year span, by (allegedly) 40 different authors, in different locations and on separate continents, in 3 different languages, covering diverse subject matters at different points in history. And yet she says there is consistency in this?? I’m surprised Adamson claims she has read the Bible, and there is consistency! We find contradictions in stories, numerical errors in dates, false information, translation errors. Not only that, but even the personality of God is conflicting in the Bible. He ranges from loving and forgiving, to hateful and death oriented, killing anyone and everyone.
Refutation of Argument 6: Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God.
I would like to point out that claiming that your religion is unique because Jesus says this, or does this, is nothing new. Each religion has their own unique little quirks that no other religion has. This does not add credibility to your argument, nor does it discredit your argument. It’s a moot point.Adamson claims Jesus was divine because he did things that people can’t do. Performing miracles. I’d like to ask if she’s ever seen Jesus perform any miracles. If she can show us where Jesus is performing miracles right now that were discussed in the bible. And if these miracles can be repeated, tested, and verified to be true. If any claims of Jesus performing miracles can be shown to me, I will sell one of my kidneys on the black market. But wait a second…isn’t Jesus not on Earth? Well, if he isn’t, then I guess she can’t prove that Jesus did perform miracles. The Gospels were written by men, at the earliest 30 years after Jesus died, at the latest, 100 years after he died, by people who did not know him, and who, by many accounts, do not agree with each other on what he did, and how he did them. So, I would like to ask, why do you believe this book that claims Jesus did miracles. When there is no outside reference to Jesus doing miracles. There is more veracity that Bigfoot exists (which he does not), than there is that Jesus even existed, let alone performed miracles. Adamson also tries to pull at my heartstrings by portraying God as gentle, loving, and aware of our self-centerdness and shortcomings. She states that we are all sinners, worthy of punishment. God is not gentle. A God who willingly slaughters, and orders the slaughter, of men women and children, is not gentle, or loving. A God who destroys the entire Earth and everything on it, is not gentle, or loving. A God who claims to be wrathful! Who admits to creating evil!! (Isaiah 45:7) is not gentle and loving. How is this loving? As to humans deserving punishment, if God is all-knowing, and all-powerful (and created evil), and God is the creator of everything, then God knowingly created us to sin. We are destined to do his will, and to follow his grand Plan for the Universe. If this is true, then we are no more deserving of punishment than the chair I’m sitting on. This also negates free will and choice. If God is omniscient, and omnipotent, and he created everything, then we do not choose our path, he chose it for us. Anyways, Adamson also uses the tear-jerking story of Jesus’ crucifixion to compel her listeners to bow down and repent. I would like to acknowledge that if Jesus is God in the flesh, then God sacrificing himself (an all-powerful, all-knowing being), to a few hours of pain, isn’t exactly much of a sacrifice. Jesus may have died, but he was resurrected, and currently resides in Heaven. Where is the sacrifice? Did Jesus stay dead?? No.She also offers that Jesus’ resurrection is the most conclusive proof of Jesus’ divinity. Once again, I’m amazed that Adamson can claim to have read the Bible, and the Gospel accounts. On the points of Jesus Resurrection, all four books have something different to say. These accounts are so differing, as to render the veracity of the Resurrection to nothing more than a story. She melds the four accounts into one, without offering the different details, and states that over years of legal, historical, and logical analysis concludes that Jesus rose from the dead. Well…I’m going to let you analyze the four stories yourselves. But let me ask you some questions. Who arrived at the tomb? Who was there at the tomb at the time the people arrived? Who was told about the body being gone? What was Jesus’ lineage? How did Judas die? How was the field that Judas was buried in named?These are among the many strange contradictions in a supposed 100% infallible inerrant Word of God. Thank you for taking the time to read this refutation.
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
-
- 9
entries - 9
comments - 11751
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
Atheism Exercise For Christians #1
I am an atheist and an ex-christian, and contrary to what Christians may think about atheists, I willing to accept that the Christian god exists. Although I post this in the Colosseum, I am debating no one specific save for any one Christian that can show me their god exists. But because I have been subject in the past to believing lies as truth, I desire to remove falsehoods, lies, myths, speculation and such and have written the below test as the only way that a Christian may possibly aid my return to Christianity. Below the actual test is an example of where I myself am stuck. Christians, can you show me your god?
==== Atheism Exercise for Christians #1 ====
1. Provide your definition of "exist."
2. Using your definition of "exist", relate something that you know does not exist but reference thereof is available.
3. Using your definition of "exist", relate something that you know does exist and reference thereof is available.
4. List the type and specified evidence you use to support your answer for #2.
5. List the type and specified evidence you use to support your answer for #3.
6. To use types of evidence found specific solely to something that exists, deduct and list the types of evidence you listed in #4 from the types you listed for #5.
7. The same types of evidence used to support the existence of your answer in #3 can be used to prove the Christian god exists. Using only the types of evidence used to prove something that exists from your answer in #6, provide the specific evidence of each type that can be applied to proving the Christian god exists, so that you may supportively declare the same.
==== My example to show Christians where I am stuck ====
1. "Is real" is my definition of "exist."
2. Peter Pan is not real.
3. An apple is real.
4. Types of evidence in support of Peter Pan:
Types of evidence: Specific Evidence
books: 'Peter Pan and Wendy' by J. M. Barrie, 'Peter Pan in Scarlet' by Geraldine McCaughrean
movies: 'Peter Pan' (2003), 'Hook' (1991)
costumes: http://www.clicket.com/kidscostumes/hallow...umes/peter.html
bus line: peter pan bus lines http://www.peterpanbus.com/
belief: I can believe Peter Pan exists
followers: http://www.pixyland.org/peterpan/pixyFriendsPage.html
5. Types of evidence in support of an apple:
Types of evidence: Specific Evidence
books: I can read 'Apples' by Roger Yepsen
belief: I can believe apples exist
touch: I can pluck an apple from a tree and hold it in my hand
sight: I can see an apple with my eyes
scent: I can smell an apple
taste: I can eat an apple and taste it with my tongue
6. Remaining types of evidence used to prove something exists: touch, sight, scent, taste.
7. I am unable to provide specific evidence through touch, taste, scent, smell, or sight to show the Christian god exists.
- 9
-
- 29
entries - 19
comments - 29316
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
A Partial History Of The End Of The World
The End of the World is a common belief among all religions, but the Christians have really made a “career” of End of the World predictions:
2800 BCE – An Assyrian clay tablet declares, “Our earth is degenerate in these latter days, there are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end. Bribery and corruption are common.
634 BCE – Many Romans believe Rome will be destroyed 120 years following it founding as foretold by twelve eagles that once appeared to Romulus, each believed to represent 10 years,
6th Century BCE (actually written in 2nd Century BCE) – The Book of Daniel predicts the End of Time. He declares, “ I kept looking in the night visions and behold, with the clouds of heaven, one like the Son of Man was coming [7:13]. The author also mentions that many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. [12:2]
Early 1st Century CE??? – Jesus declared, “This generation shall not pass away until all will be fulfilled.” Early Christians believed the End would occur during their lifetime. Jesus also said, “Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” [Matthew 16:28]
66-70 CE – The Essenes, a Jewish ascetic sect with apocalyptic beliefs, man have interpreted the Jewish revolt against the Romans as the final battle.
70 CE – The founder of the founder of the 19th century Opeida sect, John Humphrey Noyes, claimed the Second Advent had already taken place with the fall of Jerusalem (naturally, with only believers seeing it).
Late 1st Century CE – The Book of Revelation foretells an apocalypse followed by the creation of a new heavens and a new earth.
The ecstatic Montanists held that Christ was to arrive during their generation and was to appear at Pepuza, in Phrygia (in modern Turkey), designated by the group as “New Jerusalem”.
247 CE – As Rome celebrates it’s thousandth anniversary, persecutions increase against Christians, making many of them believe the world was coming to an end.
365 CE – The famous Christian saint, Hilary of Poitiers, believes the world would end this year.
380 CE – A North African sect, the Donatists, asserted this year marked the End.
Late 4th Century – St. Martin of Tours declared, “There is no doubt that the Antichrist has already been born. Firmly established, already in his early years he will, after reaching maturity, achieve supreme power.”
500 CE – Julius Africanus (160-240) theorized that the world would end approximately 6000 years after the creation of the planet, hence the Second Coming would occur around 500 CE – The Christian apologist Irenaeus as well as Hippolytus also held to 500 CE as the date of the return of Jesus Christ.
793 CE – The Spanish monk Beatus of Lieband prophesied the end of the world on Easter eve 793, causing the present crowd to panic. Everyone fasted throughout the night and were relieved to discover they were alive and well the next day.
848 CE – The prophetess Thiota believed 848 was the final year.
970 CE – Catharingian felt they had calculated the exact date of the end of the world, with Christ’s arrival set for Friday, March 25 970 – for coincidentally both the celebration of the Annunciation and Good Friday shared this very same date. Furthermore, they were confident that this day also marked Adam’s creation, Isaac’s sacrifice, the Red Sea’s parting, both Jesus’s conception and crucifixion. They figured how could the End of Days manage to miss such a well-established tradition?
992 CE – Bernard of Thuringia believed the consummation of all things would occur in the year 992.
1000 CE – Many Christians in late antiquity and during the early medieval period (including St Augustine) were sure that the year 1000 marked the end of the world. Panic gripped many in western Europe and some people even left their homes to wait for the arrival of Jesus in Jerusalem.
1033 CE – When Jesus did not arrive a thousand years after the date of his “calculated” birth, various Christian mystics asserted that the end would occur a thousand years after his Crucifixion. The entire early eleventh century was a period of constant rumors that the end was near (as recorded by the Burgundian monk Radulfus Glaber).
1100 CE – Somehow the year 1100 became the next year believed to mark impending doom for all humanity.
1184 CE – Rather than Christ, 1184 was the date set for the arrival of the Antichrist.
1186 CE – john of Toledo foresaw the end of the world as encoded within the cosmos, noting that the planetary alignment occurring in Libra on September 23, 1186 would spell certain doom.
1200 CE – Once again, the end predicted based on the neatness of the numbers matched in hundreds. One of the advocated of this date was Italian mystic Joahim of Fiore (1135-1202), but he also added the end could happen as late as 1260.
1284 CE – It is recorded that Pope Innocent III expected the Second Coming to occur 666 years following the rise of Islam – and so calculated the year 1284.
1290 CE – Followers of Joachim of Fione decided their mystic really meant 1290 to mark the End.
1306 CE – Establishing the idea that the beginning of the Millennium began with the advent of Roman emperor Constantine’s reign in the year 306, Gerard of Poehide(in 1147) determined the release of Satan would occur about 1306.
1335 CE – Not willing to give up on their teacher’s calculations, the followers of Joachim of Fiore extended his predictions to 1335.
1366 CE – French ascetic, Jean de Roquetailiade determined the Milennium would start between 1368 and 1370, with the Antichrist’s arrival set for 1366.
1367 CE – Militz of Mromeriz, a Czech archdeacon, asserted the End would occur around 1367.
1378 CE – Once more, the followers of Joachim of Fiore (now called Joachites) cam up with yet another date – this was set by
Arnold of Vilanova, in his De Tempore Ativento Antichristia in his reinterpretation, the antichrist’s reign would begin in 1378.
1420 CE – The Taborites (directly related to the Hussites of Bohemia) predicted the finality of all things to occur in 1420 and calculated this event right down to the month, February. The main proponent of this belief was the Czech prophet Martinek Hausha.
1500 CE – Enamored by the mystique of the double zeros, 1500 became the next target date of the end.
1524 CE – According to certain English astrologers, the end of the world would begin in London on the first of February. The report is that 20,000 people fled their homes, expecting the first sign to be a giant flood. February 1st ended up being a relatively calm, rainless day. Because of the planetary alignment with Pisces, astrologer Johannes Stoeffler determined the End (again with a flood because Pisces was considered a water sign) would occur on Feruary 24th.
1532 CE – Aviennese bishop by the name of Frederick Nausea believed the end was near when he heard about crosses dripped in blood manifesting beside a comet.
1533 CE – During this period in general, a group called the Anabaptists began to predict the end of the world on various dates. The End occurring in the year 1533 was advanced by their prophet Melchior Hoffman, who thought Christ would first come to Strasbourg. According to his theology only 144,000 people would be saved, with everyone else burned by fire.
1534 CE – Another Anabaptist, Jan Matthys, calculated the End on Easter Day, April 5, 1534. Only those at Munster would survive the impending destruction.
1583 CE – At exactly noontime on April 28th 1583, with the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, Christ was supposed to come again, at least that’s what astrologer Richard Harvey thought.
1600 CE – It is recorded that Martin Luther believed the world would end before 1600.
1603 CE – Tomasso Campanella, a Dominican monk, had this hot notion that the sun would collide with the Earth this year.
1648 CE – A rabbi from Smyrna, Turkey, by the name of Sabbatai Zevi calculated using the Kabbalah that the Messiah would appear this year and that his Messiah was indeed him!
1666 CE – The Great Fire of London this year only encouraged Christians and Jews alike to believe the End was at hand; in a rare display of ecumenical apocaplyptism. Jews believed the Messiah was to appear and Christians expected the second coming of Christ. Christians simply figured that the first 1000 years represented the millennium and that if they added the number of the Beast, 666 to this number, they would reach the time of the Apocalypse.
1694 CE – The German prophet Johann Jacob Zimmerman believed Jesus would return this year in the New World, after intensive biblical as well as astrological studies. He gathered pilgrims to accompany him to America, known as the Woman of the Wilderness, but died before they could leave. Johannes Kelpius took Zimmerman’s place and led everyone to the Americas, but Jesus never appeared.
1697 CE – Famous witch hunter Cotton Mather believed the End out occur this year.
1733 CE – Long before, Sir Isaac Newton predicted the End for this year.
1736 CE – William Whiston of Cambridge said the Apocalypse would happen on October 13, 1736, destroying the Sodom of what was London of his day.
1757 CE – Emanuel Swedenborg in a mystical vision, was told 1757 was the big year!
1763 CE – George Bell, a follower of John Wesley, prophesied that this year marked the End.
1792 CE – The Shaker’s designated apocalyptic year.
1805 CE – Presbyterian minister Christopher Love, in the 17th century foresaw this as the final year.
1814 CE – Joanna Southcott, the 64 year old virgin prophetess, believed October 19th would mark the day of the re-birth of Christ and that she was chosen to hold the new baby Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus was to be born on Christmas Day. While she did look pregnant, she wasn’t and actually died of dropsy on Christmas Day.
1834 CE – First date set by William Miller for the End.
1836 CE – Second date set by William Miller.
1843 CE – Third date set by William Miller.
1844 CE – Fourth year set by Miller – and set for March 21st, but after no arrival, re-set for October 22nd.
1856 – The Crimean War was believed by many to be the Battle of Armageddon predicted in the book of Revelation.
1874 CE – Charles Taze Russell, founder of the group that eventually became the Witnesses of Jehovah, proclaimed that Christ had indeed returned this year – But spiritually speaking.
1881 CE – The End of the World according to some Jehovah Witnesses.
1891 CE - Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, estimated in 1825 that the Second Coming would occur in about 56 years which brings it to this year.
1896 CE – Michael Boxter, in his book, The End of This Age About the End of This Century, set the Rapture for this year, with 144,000 real Christians worth of this journey.
1900 CE – The Brothers and Sisters of the Red Death, a Russian cult, believed this year was the End of the World – specifically on November 13th. In this belief, over 100 committed suicide.
1908 CE – a grocery store owner in Pennsylvania y the name of Lee T. Spangler believed the fires of Hell would consume the earth this year.
1910 CE – Many believed Halley’s Comet was the sign of the End of the World. Some even claimed that the comet was poisonous and took “comet pills” to protect themselves.
1914 CE – Some Jehovah Witnesses saw World War I as the Battle of Armageddon.
1919 CE – Meteorologist Albert Porta believed the conjunction of six planets would trigger a magnetic tug that would destroy the earth on December 17, 1919.
1925 CE – The angel Gabriel appeared before Margaret Rowan and told her the world would end on Friday the Thirteenth.
Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God, believed the Rapture was a scheduled to occur this year.
1939 CE – World War II was seen as the beginning of the End of the World.
1953 CE – Agnes Carlson, founder of the Canadian Sons of Light, predicted this year as the End.
1954 CE – Dorothy Martin, leader of the Brotherhood of the Seven Rays, predicted a giant flood would destroy the Earth on exactly December 21, 1954.
1959 CE – The Founder of the Davidians, Victor Houteff, believed the End was near, but after his death, his wife Frances established the date as April 22, 1959. Many gathered on Mount Carmel near Waco, Texas, but nothing happened.
1966 CE – The Nation of Islam believed sometime between 1965 and 1966, the apocalypse would happen destroying the United States.
1967 CE – According to the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the Kingdom of Heaven was to be established this year.
1970 CE – In his book “The Late Great Earth”, Hal Lindsey said that the End of the World was taking place now.
1973 CE – The guru of the Children of God, David Berg, believed the United States would be destroyed by a comet this year.
1981 CE – Chuck Smith of Cavalry Chapel of TV fame predicted the world would end in this year.
1988 CE – In his book, “88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988”, Edgar Whisenam argued that Jesus would return on Rosh Hoshana, between September 11 and 13.
1989 CE – Since Jesus did not return in 1988, Whisenam revised his figures, because of a anomaly in the Gregorian calendar, to this year.
1990 CE – Whisenam next predicted this year as the End.
1991 CE – Whisenam tried again, predicting this year as the End.
1992 CE – In a fourth try, Whisenam predicted this year.
1993 CE – Figuring that the odds were with him, Whisenam predicted this year.
1994 CE – In his last try, Whisenam predicted this year and when this year came and went, quite trying….His book sales had tanked by then!
Heaven’s Gate has not been mentioned. Along with several other recent cults and predictions, but this will show you why non-Christians take Christian worries and predictions of the End with a grain of salt and a sarcastic laugh! Incidentally for those worrying about 2012, the Mayan’s did not predicate the End of the World.
- 29
-
Latest Entry
Follow This Link To My Bloggin's Spot..
Quit bloggin'..
Call me, got cell while outside or riding...
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
-
Latest Entry
My Posts On Ex-c
Sometimes I get very obsessive about my posts on the forums. Maybe I said the wrong thing or shouldn't have said it in that way or I could have said it differently or maybe I shouldn't have said it at all. I obsess over my posts and it takes awhile before I drum up the courage to look at the thread and see how people have responded. Usually, the posts I obsess about the most get buried in with everyone elses or the response is positive.
I think I'm neurotic.
Taph
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
-
- 12
entries - 2
comments - 18565
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
I Just Remembered, I Have A Blog!
The Lord has healed me!!!!! Yes that's right folks. I've been touched by the healing hands of God. GLORY!!!! Praise the Lord. Bless the Lord. Amen. Amen.
Not.
No. My "healing" came about by sacrificing 2 months pay, all my sick leave and all my annual leave, to spend hundreds of dollars travelling back to the mainland and my family to spend further hundreds of dollars to be treated by a physiotherapist who knows all about physiotherapy - one whom I have used before. She did well, restoring my back to what I would call 95%. Since then, and my return home, I've been seeing the local chiropractor. Man I wish I wasn't so skeptical, or should that be afraid, of chiropractors to start with. My back is now 99.5% better. As an added bonus, the receptionist, who is also the chiro's daughter, is HOT.
I've been going to the gym to workout and swim (physiotherapist's orders). I've discovered that gymnasia are handy, because of the general nature of gymnasia, being indoors, you can do excercise without getting rained on or blown away in bad weather, like what we're having now.
It was good to catch up with The Family (ie uncles & aunts & families) after nearly 5 years of self imposed exile. My mother probably spent those years praying and begging for God to reunite her son with her husband. Then, when I arrived at an aunt's place to stay, my mother, acting under the Holy Spirit, betrayed my trust and told her husband that I was back in town. So he drives out of his way between work and home past the house where I'm staying, and sees me sitting on the front porch. So he stops, get's out of the ute, and comes over to see me.
By this stage i was ready to run away, but my aunt, who was sitting with me, tells me to just stay put, so I do. My father approaches, climbs the stairs, we hug, Italian family style. Too many confusing emotions. Always on the edge. Ready to run. Ready to fight.
Anyway, I could sense a change in him. He certainly wasn't taking me for granted any more. He was on his best behaviour. I reckon he knew that if he screwed it up this time, he would never see me again.
I reckon mother would have gone back to her church that sunday and told everyone of the wonderful thing God had done in reuniting her son with her husband. If I could respond to this it would be in this way: At what cost? What did it cost her? 10 seconds of prayer every now and then? What did it cost me? 8 months of unmitigated pain? Hundreds of dollars on incompetent (non) professionals? Thousands of dollars lost in lost income? Paying rent on a flat I'm not living in for 2 months? Immessurable cost in lost experience, lost social life, lost life? I love my mother, but sometimes...
Anyway, that allowed me to catch up with his brothers + sisters + their families (ie, uncles, aunts + cousins). Man it was good to catch up + see what had changed and what hadn't. Mostly mostly waistlines really... (lol). All my baby cousins have grown up! (and some are quite teh hotne550rz?!?! Make good gf/bf for others I suppose).
I caught up with a friend in Melbourne on the way back home. I also made some new ones, I think, including a reasonably hot, and intelligent, chick! Went for a Sat morning ride down Beach Road for old times sake. Everytime I goto or pass through Melb. lately, it just gets better and better.
Went to NZ for easter weekend. Needed to get away. Didn't get everything done/go everywhere I wanted to. Not enough time. Still, worth every cent. I think I'm catching the travel bug.
I've now been considering my options for the future. Needless to say, the future has never looked so good.
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
- 12
-
-
Latest Entry
I Haven't Decided What To Write Yet, But Trust Me
I will come up with something to write here.
Let me just get my thoughts together....stay tuned.........
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
-
- 2
entries - 3
comments - 731
views
Recent Entries
Latest Entry
My Favorite On-line Books
Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?
Source: http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god-toc.htm
Biblical Nonsense by Dr. Jason Long
Source: http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/
The Emperor Has No Clothes by Wayne Adkins
Source: http://www.nakedemperor.netfirms.com/
Anyone who can read these and remain Christian is the very definition of a "lost cause". Walk away from them quickly and don't make eye contact.
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
- 2
-
Latest Entry
Update
So, yeah. I haven't been posting on ThinkingTeen because WordPress decided to be fucking retarded and not accept my password. fuck you too, WordPress. Nobody other than Ex-Cers even read this, so this is my new blog, if anyoen wishes to read it.
So I've officially left the Toxic Forum. For real this time. I know I've posted about it 9000 times in hte Rants section, but I'm done with it. I still keep in touch with the friends I made on there, though most of them left way before I did, either becuase they had school or they jsut hated the place more. I haven't been on in months. I did leave a very angry message... but still, they somehow don't hate me. Right. They jsut think I'm some shallow, whiny teenager who just wants attention, probably, which I'm sure they were thinking before when I was still there and "not contributing anything positive" and "being angry all the time" and shit. Yeah, they'd be pissed off all the time to if they were completely alone in a school they'd had plenty of friends in for the 3 years previous to that, and if they had a shitload of classes, and work, and just overall other bullshit going on. Sorry that I couldn't exactly keepmy temper in, assholes. And what's more is, anything they bitch about is automatically worse than anything I bitch about, jsut because they're 25 and I'm 1718 now. Anyway....
Now I have prom to worry about. I'm most likely not going, which sucks, becuase I want to. I jsut can't find a dress or a date. I could go with my friends, which I was planning on last year, but only one went and she had a date. The others decided to skip it, one because she was receiving death threats from someone else's date... yeah. Ah well. even if I do have someone to go with this year, either date or lesbian friend, I'm never going to find a dress. Ever. they don't make dresses that damn small and if they do, they're skanky (I've already browsed jsut about every site I can think of). Or they're $400 (not skanky AND $400). Why is it that the bigger girls can find cheap dresses that don't bare everything to the world? It gives a whole new meaning to "cheap hooker". It also feeds into everyone's stupid fucking misconception that skinny=skanky, and I'm the most prudish person I know. And among the smallest (that's my age). wtf. So yeah, no dress. I'm going to look awful thanks to the horrible band tan I've had since 9th grade. It doens't help that I'm uber-pale and the band tan is the only tan I have. If I need a tan, I need to start tanning now. Which means laying in a UV ray casket thing for 5 minutes. No, really, 5 minutes. Any more than that and I'd fry. fuuuuuuuuuck.
so there's my rants for today. enjoy.
- Read more...
-
- 0 comments
) Once the offering was over, he came back up, and tried to do a sermon on the seven churches in Revelation. However, he spent about ten minutes on that, and then the rest of the time talking about himself and how he can see visions and dreams and stuff. He went on and on about a vision that God gave him that convicted him, and then started going into "prophetic mode." Here was my first very visible, in-person demonstration of cold reading. And boy was it bad. He pointed to one woman and told her that what she was doing would blossom. Didn't give any details, that was about it. At this point, I had picked up on the scheme of things. Here was a guy claiming to be in touch with the Holy Spirit right at that moment. I have prayed over and over during the past few months for God to give me some sort of sign, and I picked this opportunity to tell God, "Here you go. I said I wouldn't give you another chance, but here you are. If you get that guy to come over to me and tell me something specific, then you'll prove yourself to me." What happened? Apparently the Holy Spirit isn't that accurate - he missed me by two people. The guy pointed to one of my friends sitting in the same row as me, and told him some vague mumbo-jumbo about "God knows what you're going through and says that he knows about that thing that makes you angry whenever you think about it." Boy, what specifics there. Who couldn't that apply to? Anyway, then he went over to another woman and told her that he saw a "tree of God's covering" over her life. Something about palm branches and all that jazz.
