Saturday, February 25, 2006 

Jesus was mentally ill (assuming he ever existed)

So, i've been reading up on the Two Minds Theory. It states that Jesus had two minds: one divine/supernatural mind, which contained infinite knowledge (omniscience) and one earthly mind which experienced things as human's do ( or mere humans as Morris puts it). The earthly mind had no knowledge of the divine mind's omniscience but did have some small amount of restricted access to the divine mind in some unspecified way from what I understand. Thus, TMT somehow explains away conflicts between Jesus' omniscience and being perfectly moral, which, in the Bible, he clearly wasn't but should have been given his being the son of God and all. Unfortunately, for apologists, this still leaves a few contradictions with the Gospels' account of what Jesus did in life and it also doesn't explain the problem of Jesus' omnipotence, as Michael Martin has pointed out in The Case Against Christianity.

After reading a good chunk of Thomas Morris' The Logic of God Incarnate, I can conclude only the following from the thrust of his argument: Apologists are attempting to prescribe Jesus with a mental illness/disorder in order to SAVE his credibility. Good job, fruitcakes. I feel as though i'm the one developing the mental illness due to trying to understand what these people are attempting to say. Make sense, damnit!

I know, I know, someone is going to tell me that I have incorrectly interpretted Morris here. Guess what though? Up to this point, I haven't. And until, or if, I do, how about offering some idea, or evidence, that doesn't create a contradiction to support Morris before attacking me!

Tuesday, February 07, 2006 

Idiot: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

A couple of days ago, I was watching Attorney 'Genius' Gonzales show exactly why he is a shining example of the ruling class and their efforts to collectively pull the wool over people's eyes. He was at his little Senate hearing defending the actions of the Executive Branch of our government for unilaterally undermining domestic spying laws. Here is one of the ways he defended these actions:

(He gets asked a softball question which should've been easy enough to give a fuzzy answer to but...)

Senator Grassely: I think that as the American public hears examples of how Democrat presidents and Republican presidents alike have done similar things, they may begin to see this program in a different light, particularly in regard to the president's over 225 years' use of the exercise of the power of commander in chief.

Gonzales: I gave in my opening statement, Senator, examples where President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic[emphasis mine] surveillance of the enemy on a far broader scale -- far broader -- without any kind of probable cause standard, all communications in and out of the country.

Really, dipshit? President Washington ordered wiretaps? Lincoln demanded that our great, great, grandfathers' email be viewed by government agencies? Come to think of it, I vividly remember hearing stories from a friend's grandfather about how presidents Wilson and Roosevelt thought it necessary to dig through all his electronic purchases and library records.

I D I O T. At least try to make sense when you lie to people.

Sunday, February 05, 2006 

God ©

Due to the genocidal rage coming out of Islamic countries these past few weeks over a series of cartoons, i've been pondering the hypocrisy of this whole "graven image" rule. The vast majority of Christians, from my experience at least, should just forfit their mystical afterlives over to the devil right now, seeing as how graven imagery is needed in order to keep them focused. (The Passion of the Christ, public displays of the Ten Commandments, etc). Anyway, here is some scriptural mumbo jumbo:

Christianity: Exodus 20: 3,4,5 - "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me..."

Islamic law: forbids any graven images of it's Prophet(s) or god. There is also this bit from the Islamic Decalogues - "The charge to avoid dancing, song, playing music, and seeing shows." Miserable bastards.

Now, if we are to take religious scripture literally, as fundamentalists most often do, how is it possible for any piece of art to be made which describes, or shows, a living organism on this planet? (that is, without violating some sacred rule) All things are created by a god in both of these religions. Christianithy asserts that man is made in it's gods' image and the rest of the stuff just poofed into existence too. Islam doesn't put the "in Allah's image" line in it's text but it's god is claiming responsibility for life on this planet as well. So, if extremists are to follow their religion as ardently as they proclaim, it wouldn't be a quantum leap to assume that the only artistic depictions allowed would be of something, if anything at all, artificial. All things, to the theist, are contingent on God, so, life would be part of god's kingdom on Earth as said in the Bible. Now, i'm reaching a bit here but if one wanted to be a real nuisance to a Christian, or Muslim, this would be a way.

Atheologically, this makes theists - specifically the sort whom adhere to the nonsense mentioned above - look even more foolish; chasing their tails on some demented Möbius strip of indignation whenever one of these graven images pops up. My advice to these crackpots? Put down the flaming Allah swords, holster the Jesus cannons, and have a Coke and a smile.

[swear]Insert ubiquitous post-ending expletive here.[/swear]

Thursday, February 02, 2006 

Hating the state

"The State of the Union address was given Tuesday night by President George W. Bush."

That's the kindest thing I can say about the annual promotion of violence which just took place. It's taken me a day to gather my thoughts, and emotions, after those hate-speeches were delivered in succession (the response from the left included) Tuesday evening. Needless to say, i'm left, as I always am after these speeches, disgusted and with rhetorical questions.

There really is nothing like watching almost all of the ruling class stuffed into a room, wildly applauding declarations which further the theft-at-gun-point taxations of an unsuspecting populace. New programs are announced with little care of whom flips the bill. Have you seen the tax breaks politicians and the ultra-wealthy corporatists receive? Government does not thrive off of delivering good on their promises. They thrive off of lying to you, obfuscating the fact that they're robbing you blind in order to stuff their own pockets; acquiring the means to expand the 'Empire'.

How about listening to some smirking first-term governor follow up the SotU address by telling me that I an included in a group that "prays for the troops" in Middle East? Or that there is "another way" to approach the all important issues? What way is that? By stealing more of my money to deepen the papercut your statist brother-in-arms inflicted on the system?

And then there is the reninvigorated beating of the war drums. The stern look of our leader into a camera, addressing a foreign region, and professing the 'joy' it would bring to all Americans if we could plant our democracy seed in their back yard and laugh about it over a nice cup of coffee. Fucking brilliant sentiment, isn't it?

Watching a tiny minority (the ruling class) unilaterally superimpose their values over mine in public is not my idea of a fun evening. Why do I watch it then? Because it is morally reprehensible to ignore the coercion which looms over our society.

<a href="" target="_blank"><img src="" width="145" height="100" border="0" alt=""></a>
Get Firefox! Get Thunderbird!
Powered by Blogger
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Listed on BlogShares