Following up on my previous posting, some people believe that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore is a choice.
Putting aside the notion that someone would choose to be of a group that was persecuted because of it's main reason.
Putting aside the notion that even if it is a choice it still should be protected under the laws of fairness.
Suppose is it. I don't know. I am of the theory that everything is genetic, we are mostly products of nature, but nurture, our upbringing, can either encourage or temper this,* or we can learn the ability to mimic and fake a certain behaviour to fit in.
But suppose being a LGBT person is a straight choice, writing the pros and cons or just to rebel or annoy your parents or whoever? Do you know what else is a straight choice? So much so that it's proponents loudly and proudly declare it, that no one can be born this way, they have to actively make the decision to become one?
Christianity.
That's all. . .
*The best (only) example I can think of is someone genetically predispositioned to lung cancer growing up in houseful of smokers and being encouraged to take it up themselves.
Saturday, 3 December 2011
A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE
A law has been passed which allows churches to marry homosexual couples, ie officiate at gay weddings if they so choose.
Hot on it's heels comes a statement from the General Synod of the Church of England which declares that no Church of England church will automatically marry gay couples.
And, you know, through the hysteria on both sides, the General Synod have a point.
Just imagine if a vegetarian went to work at McDonald's and tried to force the restaurant to not handle bits of murdered animal? Not just that restaurant but all of them? It wouldn't be right, would it?*
It's not like a chemist refusing to serve a woman with the morning after pill. It's us going onto their territory and telling them they must do things that in all conscience, not to cause trouble and annoy people (the CofE is very liberal in many ways)they believe are wrong.
Peter Tatchell is a good man and a courageous man and unlike a lot of armchair protesters puts his money where his mouth is, so to speak (suffered mild brain damage from beatings he received by the local police in countries where he stood up for gay rights). But to say churches have to follow their conscience and then saying they are being stopped from doing so only if they don't do what we want is not right.
Some people believe a certain way is wrong. Like the vegetarian in McDonald's, for someone to go onto that person's territory and tell them they must do what they believe is wrong shouldn't be.
Gay people are treated well under the law in the UK, unlike some countries where the religious are trying to (or have) take the rights of gays to even exist. Those who want to marry in church and aren't allowed should live with it. There are churches who will perform gay marriages ceremonies. To go to the CofE and insist they do something their conscience tells them is wrong is like (a milder form) tell a gay man or woman, yes you can marry, you have the right, but someone of the opposite gender. It's not natural, if you like.
Of course, McDonald's is a bad example. The example the CofE gave, of a gentleman's outfitters not being forced to sell ladies clothes is also not a perfect example. That is business, not personal. It isn't against McDonald's conscience or the gentleman's outfitter's conscience to go against what the business is about, but then today conscience is a state to be mocked and compromised with, overridden and gone round.
*Yes it would. Killing anything for any reason, apart from to end suffering and in (genuine) self defence is wrong, but that's another story.
Hot on it's heels comes a statement from the General Synod of the Church of England which declares that no Church of England church will automatically marry gay couples.
And, you know, through the hysteria on both sides, the General Synod have a point.
Just imagine if a vegetarian went to work at McDonald's and tried to force the restaurant to not handle bits of murdered animal? Not just that restaurant but all of them? It wouldn't be right, would it?*
It's not like a chemist refusing to serve a woman with the morning after pill. It's us going onto their territory and telling them they must do things that in all conscience, not to cause trouble and annoy people (the CofE is very liberal in many ways)they believe are wrong.
Peter Tatchell is a good man and a courageous man and unlike a lot of armchair protesters puts his money where his mouth is, so to speak (suffered mild brain damage from beatings he received by the local police in countries where he stood up for gay rights). But to say churches have to follow their conscience and then saying they are being stopped from doing so only if they don't do what we want is not right.
Some people believe a certain way is wrong. Like the vegetarian in McDonald's, for someone to go onto that person's territory and tell them they must do what they believe is wrong shouldn't be.
Gay people are treated well under the law in the UK, unlike some countries where the religious are trying to (or have) take the rights of gays to even exist. Those who want to marry in church and aren't allowed should live with it. There are churches who will perform gay marriages ceremonies. To go to the CofE and insist they do something their conscience tells them is wrong is like (a milder form) tell a gay man or woman, yes you can marry, you have the right, but someone of the opposite gender. It's not natural, if you like.
Of course, McDonald's is a bad example. The example the CofE gave, of a gentleman's outfitters not being forced to sell ladies clothes is also not a perfect example. That is business, not personal. It isn't against McDonald's conscience or the gentleman's outfitter's conscience to go against what the business is about, but then today conscience is a state to be mocked and compromised with, overridden and gone round.
*Yes it would. Killing anything for any reason, apart from to end suffering and in (genuine) self defence is wrong, but that's another story.
Friday, 11 November 2011
REMEMBERING ON A SPECIAL DAY
When You Go Home, Tell Them Of Us And Say,
For your Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today
Known as the Kohima Epitaph, it is to be found in it's original state carved in the memorial to the second division in the British cemetery at Kohima, in India, in memory of the battle that won the war in Burma.
I think it is the best epitaph for war and perfect for this day.
We shall never forget them.
For your Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today
Known as the Kohima Epitaph, it is to be found in it's original state carved in the memorial to the second division in the British cemetery at Kohima, in India, in memory of the battle that won the war in Burma.
I think it is the best epitaph for war and perfect for this day.
We shall never forget them.
Wednesday, 9 November 2011
DEADLY INTENTION
I've had a smart idea.
I was blowing my nose and some of the mucus went on my hand and I thought, just imagine if there was a virus that is air borne and 100% fatal and works by metabolising the oxygen in the body into C02 but there is one woman who for some reason is immune but a carrier, like typhoid Mary the Irish cook who spread the disease across New York in the eighteenth century and was locked away and died in isolation where she was forced for the safety of society.
She is absolutely brimming with the virus and whenever she breathes or blows her nose or touches anything with bare hands she spread it.
The scientists and doctors realise something is happening when she lives beyond the day and a half that people with the virus live.
"She doesn't seem to be dying, doctor."
Anyhow, they incubate her and experiment on her, and everyone she sees wears a bio suit and they have to take blood with great care and she doesn't need any treatment, she is kept in an isolated room where she is allowed books and television and is fed regularly but is not allowed outside.
There are groups of human rights people who say she isn't a guinea pig she is a human being, and scientists she has to be isolated and tested to save the human race.
I could involve politics and scientists and the Internet and all kinds of ideas.
And then one night, she escapes.
Remember, this 100% fatal virus that turns the oxygen in the blood to C02 has no effect on her and she can spread it by breathing in a room full of unprotected people.
While she is on the run, she wonders, should she kill herself, even going into shops and handling money can be fatal to those around her, but if she did she would be a biohazard, just lay there with the virus escaping and trying to find other hosts.
And I would call it;
DEADLY INTENTION
Actually, a bacteria would be worse (better?) because a bacteria can live on surfaces for hours if not days when a virus needs a host without a couple of hours or it dies.
I was blowing my nose and some of the mucus went on my hand and I thought, just imagine if there was a virus that is air borne and 100% fatal and works by metabolising the oxygen in the body into C02 but there is one woman who for some reason is immune but a carrier, like typhoid Mary the Irish cook who spread the disease across New York in the eighteenth century and was locked away and died in isolation where she was forced for the safety of society.
She is absolutely brimming with the virus and whenever she breathes or blows her nose or touches anything with bare hands she spread it.
The scientists and doctors realise something is happening when she lives beyond the day and a half that people with the virus live.
"She doesn't seem to be dying, doctor."
Anyhow, they incubate her and experiment on her, and everyone she sees wears a bio suit and they have to take blood with great care and she doesn't need any treatment, she is kept in an isolated room where she is allowed books and television and is fed regularly but is not allowed outside.
There are groups of human rights people who say she isn't a guinea pig she is a human being, and scientists she has to be isolated and tested to save the human race.
I could involve politics and scientists and the Internet and all kinds of ideas.
And then one night, she escapes.
Remember, this 100% fatal virus that turns the oxygen in the blood to C02 has no effect on her and she can spread it by breathing in a room full of unprotected people.
While she is on the run, she wonders, should she kill herself, even going into shops and handling money can be fatal to those around her, but if she did she would be a biohazard, just lay there with the virus escaping and trying to find other hosts.
And I would call it;
DEADLY INTENTION
Actually, a bacteria would be worse (better?) because a bacteria can live on surfaces for hours if not days when a virus needs a host without a couple of hours or it dies.
Sunday, 6 November 2011
AN OFFER
To all those who are 'pro-life' instead of 'pro-choice';*
Suppose a woman is walking home from church and a man grabs her and rapes her and then zips himself up and goes his merry way. She is traumatised and her husband gives her lots of love and support as does the rest of her family.
Suppose, when her rapist gets home he wakes up to what he has done and in his horror kills himself.
Then suppose the woman finds she has caught on. And she decides the best thing to do, her choice, is to have the foetus aborted. She feels nothing but disgust at the idea of getting rid of something that was put there against her will. She would rather die herself. Her husband and family are 100% behind her.
Suppose her husband and Mum escort her to the local clinic and as she gets out of the car and heads into the clinic you come running up to her begging her not to go through with it.
She shakes her head and gets back into the car and thinks about it for a minute and gets back out and says to you;
"OK, yes, I will exercise my choice and not get rid of the foetus if you are willing to come to a solicitor with me and provide the money and care needed to bring it to term and then after it's born take it and support it and see it's cared for till it attains it's majority. No 'go home and give us** a week to decide'. Decide now. If not, if you can't say 'yes' and put your money where your mouth is now, it's bye bye foetus."
What would you say, gentle pro-lifer?
*You know, I am pro-life. Sometimes, I astonish myself at how pro-life I am. My philosophy, which I live by, is that harming any living thing, even slugs and spiders is wrong unless my own life is in danger. But when it comes to a woman's body and what is growing therein I am pro-choice. That is choice. Not 'have an abortion or else' but, 'it's up to you and I support you no matter what'.
**I am, of course, using the word 'us' in the Lancashire way, which can mean 'me', as in; 'hey, give us a lend o' your pen'.
Suppose a woman is walking home from church and a man grabs her and rapes her and then zips himself up and goes his merry way. She is traumatised and her husband gives her lots of love and support as does the rest of her family.
Suppose, when her rapist gets home he wakes up to what he has done and in his horror kills himself.
Then suppose the woman finds she has caught on. And she decides the best thing to do, her choice, is to have the foetus aborted. She feels nothing but disgust at the idea of getting rid of something that was put there against her will. She would rather die herself. Her husband and family are 100% behind her.
Suppose her husband and Mum escort her to the local clinic and as she gets out of the car and heads into the clinic you come running up to her begging her not to go through with it.
She shakes her head and gets back into the car and thinks about it for a minute and gets back out and says to you;
"OK, yes, I will exercise my choice and not get rid of the foetus if you are willing to come to a solicitor with me and provide the money and care needed to bring it to term and then after it's born take it and support it and see it's cared for till it attains it's majority. No 'go home and give us** a week to decide'. Decide now. If not, if you can't say 'yes' and put your money where your mouth is now, it's bye bye foetus."
What would you say, gentle pro-lifer?
*You know, I am pro-life. Sometimes, I astonish myself at how pro-life I am. My philosophy, which I live by, is that harming any living thing, even slugs and spiders is wrong unless my own life is in danger. But when it comes to a woman's body and what is growing therein I am pro-choice. That is choice. Not 'have an abortion or else' but, 'it's up to you and I support you no matter what'.
**I am, of course, using the word 'us' in the Lancashire way, which can mean 'me', as in; 'hey, give us a lend o' your pen'.
Friday, 4 November 2011
PREGNANCY AND DISEASE
Another thing I've discovered about fundamentalist Christians; they hate the idea of someone just having fun without any unwanted consequences.
That's why all homosexuals deserve to get AIDS and all pregnant women should be forced to carry their foetus to term.
That's why all homosexuals deserve to get AIDS and all pregnant women should be forced to carry their foetus to term.
Saturday, 29 October 2011
Friday, 28 October 2011
TRUE, ANYWAY
I've been thinking about how many Bible literalists believe that evolution is a tale, made up, because it clashes with what the Bible says how Biblegod made every living thing in a set time as they were and none of them changed. They even have people with real science degrees and experience teaching this. It's called Creationism, or to use it's less political name Intelligent Design. There is even a small lobby of people who want to get it taught in schools alongside evolution to allow the children to make their own mind up.
Well, at one time the Church believed and taught that the earth was the centre of everything, was fixed, didn't move, and the sun and other planets went around it.
Today, the literalists have only got words, they can mock the theory of evolution or lobby against it, but when the Church taught that the earth was stationary they had real power to kill anyone who disagreed, who dared look through their telescopes and do the maths and work out the obvious truth, it moves, the earth moves, around the sun.
It took hundreds of years for the Church to admit, yes, we were in error, and those we burned or locked away or forced into house arrest to show we were right, well, they had it right.
That's how I know that, without the muscle, the Church, the Bible literalists, will carry on mocking and lobbying until one day they, maybe not in our generation, maybe in the generation of my little great nephew, or his children, will admit, we were wrong, evolution explains the diversity of life.
Because if the theists were wrong about the earth being the centre of everything, then they are wrong about Biblegod creating everything as they are, with no room for adaptation.
Actually, what an idea for a story! In an alternate universe where the Bible literalists hold the power and can legally condemn people to prison or even death if they teach the damnable heresy of change. And one scientist is forced to recant on his knees, he was wrong, animals never change, they were the same as God created them and at the same time he mutters under his breath;
"And yet they do change!"
Well, at one time the Church believed and taught that the earth was the centre of everything, was fixed, didn't move, and the sun and other planets went around it.
Today, the literalists have only got words, they can mock the theory of evolution or lobby against it, but when the Church taught that the earth was stationary they had real power to kill anyone who disagreed, who dared look through their telescopes and do the maths and work out the obvious truth, it moves, the earth moves, around the sun.
It took hundreds of years for the Church to admit, yes, we were in error, and those we burned or locked away or forced into house arrest to show we were right, well, they had it right.
That's how I know that, without the muscle, the Church, the Bible literalists, will carry on mocking and lobbying until one day they, maybe not in our generation, maybe in the generation of my little great nephew, or his children, will admit, we were wrong, evolution explains the diversity of life.
Because if the theists were wrong about the earth being the centre of everything, then they are wrong about Biblegod creating everything as they are, with no room for adaptation.
Actually, what an idea for a story! In an alternate universe where the Bible literalists hold the power and can legally condemn people to prison or even death if they teach the damnable heresy of change. And one scientist is forced to recant on his knees, he was wrong, animals never change, they were the same as God created them and at the same time he mutters under his breath;
"And yet they do change!"
Monday, 19 September 2011
LEUCISTIC GOOSE
Leucism is a genetic mutation that alters the natural colouring of the covering of an animal or bird.
Unlike albinism it isn't just the amount of melanin that is effected.
I took this photo of a leucistic Canada goose by the boating lake near where I live.
Apart from the colour, he was just like the others around him. And if the others noticed, they made no difference towards him in their attitude or behaviour. He was very much one of them.
Fascinating stuff.
Unlike albinism it isn't just the amount of melanin that is effected.
I took this photo of a leucistic Canada goose by the boating lake near where I live.
Apart from the colour, he was just like the others around him. And if the others noticed, they made no difference towards him in their attitude or behaviour. He was very much one of them.
Fascinating stuff.
Friday, 9 September 2011
ORCHID EXAMPLE
THIS is majestic, isn't it?
There are hundreds of them growing along the side of a main road that cuts through a green area within five minutes of my home.
I can detect the hand of the Grand Architect that cooked up the materials that led to the evolutionary path that is here at the moment.
Me? It's just come home to me in the most fascinating and delightful way that my cats are felids and that I am a primate.
There are hundreds of them growing along the side of a main road that cuts through a green area within five minutes of my home.
I can detect the hand of the Grand Architect that cooked up the materials that led to the evolutionary path that is here at the moment.
Me? It's just come home to me in the most fascinating and delightful way that my cats are felids and that I am a primate.
Tuesday, 6 September 2011
TOP TEN FREETHINKER SONGS : NUMBER ONE
And at last here we are, number one in my personal top ten freethinker songs.
I chose it as number one on purpose, because to me it rolls freethought, free expression, free everything, into one, and with no hint of any need for a deity at all.
This is the song.
It's:
Nina Simone-Ain't Got No (I Got Life)
OK, thanks for sticking around through this top ten, and it's back to the critiquing religious belief and religious people now.
I chose it as number one on purpose, because to me it rolls freethought, free expression, free everything, into one, and with no hint of any need for a deity at all.
This is the song.
It's:
Nina Simone-Ain't Got No (I Got Life)
OK, thanks for sticking around through this top ten, and it's back to the critiquing religious belief and religious people now.
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
TOP TEN FREETHINKER SONGS : NUMBER TWO
In at number two on my personal top ten freethinker songs;
Alice Cooper-School's Out
I remember it well, that sunny warm summer day in July 1979, thirty-two* years ago when I picked up my bag and walked out of school for the last time.
Up the small ramp onto the path leading up and along and onto the pavement.
Goodbye school.
I sang this all the way home. I'm still singing it now. Leaving school was the best thing I ever did.** I can feel an echo of joy at the sudden total freedom. Hated school, me.
And then I had to walk into work and grown up life.
No deity involved.
*Goodness, how the years fly!
**And even now I wake up from some flashback-dream and am thankful it's all over, I don't have to go anymore.
Alice Cooper-School's Out
I remember it well, that sunny warm summer day in July 1979, thirty-two* years ago when I picked up my bag and walked out of school for the last time.
Up the small ramp onto the path leading up and along and onto the pavement.
Goodbye school.
I sang this all the way home. I'm still singing it now. Leaving school was the best thing I ever did.** I can feel an echo of joy at the sudden total freedom. Hated school, me.
And then I had to walk into work and grown up life.
No deity involved.
*Goodness, how the years fly!
**And even now I wake up from some flashback-dream and am thankful it's all over, I don't have to go anymore.
Friday, 12 August 2011
TOP TEN FREETHINKER SONGS : NUMBER THREE
We're almost at number one in my personal top ten freethinker songs, and in at number three is;
Cat Stevens-Moonshadow
The tale goes that a kid from an urban environment with lots of artificial light is standing on the coast in a more natural place and sees his shadow by the light of the moon.
And nothing is ever the same again.
No mention of a deity or a need for one, just a kid discovering there is more to life than what he had always known.
Cat Stevens-Moonshadow
The tale goes that a kid from an urban environment with lots of artificial light is standing on the coast in a more natural place and sees his shadow by the light of the moon.
And nothing is ever the same again.
No mention of a deity or a need for one, just a kid discovering there is more to life than what he had always known.
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
TOP TEN FREETHINKER SONGS : NUMBER FOUR
In at number four of my personal top ten freethinker songs;
Stevie Wonder-Sir Duke
A celebration of music and it's effects and no mention of a deity or the need for one at all.
Stevie Wonder-Sir Duke
A celebration of music and it's effects and no mention of a deity or the need for one at all.
Friday, 15 July 2011
TOP TEN FREETHNKER SONGS : NUMBER FIVE
In at number five, the half way point of my personal free thinker top ten;
Joan Armatrading-Love and Affection
Although it's a celebration of love and self realisation and acceptance, I always heard the undertone of melancholy in it. When I discovered Ms Armatrading was gay, in an era when being gay, black and female meant physical harm,* I understood why.
She never calls on a god to assist her.
*Which era is that? Every flaming era!
Joan Armatrading-Love and Affection
Although it's a celebration of love and self realisation and acceptance, I always heard the undertone of melancholy in it. When I discovered Ms Armatrading was gay, in an era when being gay, black and female meant physical harm,* I understood why.
She never calls on a god to assist her.
*Which era is that? Every flaming era!
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
TOP TEN FREETHINKER SONGS : NUMBER SIX
At number six of my personal top ten freethinker songs;
Prelude-After The Goldrush
Brilliant song. When I first heard it, I understood it as the tale of the Twentieth Century so far (up to the early '70s), with the events in no particular order.
The Knights in Armour coming, saying something about a Queen. . .The death of Queen Victoria.
Fanfare blowing to the sun that was floating in the breeze. . .The idea of UFOs and those who acknowledge them, especially the event labelled the Miracle of the Sun in Fatima and
Mother Nature on the run in the 1917. . .the destruction caused by trench warfare in the Great War, both the Miracle of the Sun and the peak of destruction happening in 'the' 1917.
Lying in a burned out basement. . .The blitz, the aerial bombing of cities on and by both sides in World War Two.
The sun burst through the skies. . .Alamogordo, 16th of July 1945.
The silver spaceships flying. . .The V rockets on Britain or maybe the B29 bomber raids on Japan.
Banners flying all around the chosen one. . .Hitler's election to the Reichstag.
Flying Mother nature's silver seeds. . .the Apollo programme, especially the moon landings.
And it doesn't mention a god or the need for one at all.
I was wrong, of course. But not about it not mentioning a god.
Prelude-After The Goldrush
Brilliant song. When I first heard it, I understood it as the tale of the Twentieth Century so far (up to the early '70s), with the events in no particular order.
The Knights in Armour coming, saying something about a Queen. . .The death of Queen Victoria.
Fanfare blowing to the sun that was floating in the breeze. . .The idea of UFOs and those who acknowledge them, especially the event labelled the Miracle of the Sun in Fatima and
Mother Nature on the run in the 1917. . .the destruction caused by trench warfare in the Great War, both the Miracle of the Sun and the peak of destruction happening in 'the' 1917.
Lying in a burned out basement. . .The blitz, the aerial bombing of cities on and by both sides in World War Two.
The sun burst through the skies. . .Alamogordo, 16th of July 1945.
The silver spaceships flying. . .The V rockets on Britain or maybe the B29 bomber raids on Japan.
Banners flying all around the chosen one. . .Hitler's election to the Reichstag.
Flying Mother nature's silver seeds. . .the Apollo programme, especially the moon landings.
And it doesn't mention a god or the need for one at all.
I was wrong, of course. But not about it not mentioning a god.
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
TOP TEN FREETHINKER SONGS : NUMBER SEVEN
In at number seven of my personal top ten of freethinker anthems;
Frank Sinatra-Pass Me By
Except for number one, they are in no particular order, but I especially like this one. I am who I am, I'm never going to alter, I'm on my own in the world do my own thing and go my own way and if you don't like it, get on with your life and don't bother with me, I don't care. No mention of a god or anything.
Plus, it's by Frank Sinatra, and I'm getting to that age (it comes to us all, whether we admit it or not) where I'm starting to like Frank Sinatra.
Frank Sinatra-Pass Me By
Except for number one, they are in no particular order, but I especially like this one. I am who I am, I'm never going to alter, I'm on my own in the world do my own thing and go my own way and if you don't like it, get on with your life and don't bother with me, I don't care. No mention of a god or anything.
Plus, it's by Frank Sinatra, and I'm getting to that age (it comes to us all, whether we admit it or not) where I'm starting to like Frank Sinatra.
Monday, 13 June 2011
TOP TEN FREETHINKER SONGS : NUMBER EIGHT
In at number eight in my top ten freethinker songs;
Flanagan and Allen-Are you Having Any Fun?
The song was written in 1939 and recorded (with slightly altered lyrics) by Flanagan and Allen in the same year. The ex servicemen that make up the band are veterans of the 1914-1918 war, as were Chaim Reuben Weintrop and William Ernest Chesney Allen.
Flanagan and Allen-Are you Having Any Fun?
The song was written in 1939 and recorded (with slightly altered lyrics) by Flanagan and Allen in the same year. The ex servicemen that make up the band are veterans of the 1914-1918 war, as were Chaim Reuben Weintrop and William Ernest Chesney Allen.
Wednesday, 8 June 2011
TOP TEN FREETHINKER SONGS : NUMBER NINE
The second in my occasional series chronicling the songs I reckon would make good freethought anthems.
In at number nine;
The Pretenders-Back On The Chain Gang.
I didn't say they would all be happy, but there is a lot of hope without referring to any help from a god in this one.
In at number nine;
The Pretenders-Back On The Chain Gang.
I didn't say they would all be happy, but there is a lot of hope without referring to any help from a god in this one.
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
TOP TEN FAVOURITE FREETHINKER SONGS : NUMBER TEN
We are sometimes asked 'what are the freethought anthems?'
The ones that celebrate life without any kind of reference to a higher power watching over us to our benefit or detriment.
In that spirit, over the next few weeks, and with the assistance of YouTube, I am going to present my top ten favourite freethinker songs.
Starting with;
At number ten;
Bob Marley-Three Little Birds.
The ones that celebrate life without any kind of reference to a higher power watching over us to our benefit or detriment.
In that spirit, over the next few weeks, and with the assistance of YouTube, I am going to present my top ten favourite freethinker songs.
Starting with;
At number ten;
Bob Marley-Three Little Birds.
Saturday, 14 May 2011
A RETURN AND AN ANNIVERSARY
And I'm back.
The first post on my return coincides with the sixth anniversary month of me giving up my Christian faith and admitting I am a deist. I am going to ask questions, questions I asked myself in my years of struggling, and then I'm going to end with my personal conclusion;
(These are serious questions and deserve to be answered)
How do you know that God's word can be found in the Bible and not the Koran or Upanishads or Guru Granth Sahib or Avesta?
Is it possible that God's truth may be found in other scriptures? If not, why not?
Why does Biblegod behave more like Stalin than Jesus in the Old Testament?
Why did Biblegod drown all the other animals in the Great Flood? What had they done? Why didn't he just give everyone except the Noahs fatal heart attacks? The thoughts of men were evil and the earth needed to be cleansed, but the other animals were doing just what comes naturally and not wilfully disobeying their creator.
If Biblegod knew Adam and Eve were going to eat of the fruit of the tree and therefore be infected with the fatal, hereditary Sin Virus, why did he make the tree in the first place?
How could Biblegod, when he came to earth as a man, have experienced all men can experience if he never got married and helped raise a family? If he remained single all his life, he was missing out on a lot of what men experience.
If Biblegod wanted to provide the cure for the Sin Virus, to be found in a certain set of writings why did he leave it to fallible men to write his word down? Why hasn't he provided any additions or updates in two thousand years? Say a different Gospel every hundred years or so, to keep up with scientific discovery and free inquiry?
If Biblegod insists on us believing the right way, why is the Bible so ambiguous? Why if our souls depend upon it can the same Bible verses be interpreted in different ways;
(For example. Get ahold of Christians of different denominations and ask them these questions;*
Predestination or free will?
The Holy Spirit: from the Father or the Son or both?
The Holy Spirit or the holy spirit?
Jesus: God or God's son?
Mary: the Mother of God or Mother of Jesus?
Is faith enough or do we need works for salvation?
Once saved, always saved?
When Jesus turned the water into wine, was it alcoholic or unfermented grape juice?
Can a person be saved if they have never heard of Jesus?
Women priests: Yes or no?
Icons: Yes or no?
What were the last words from the cross?
Remember, these people are using the same words to arrive at different conclusions and then condemning those who disagree to hell.)
Is the Bible any kind of genuine science book?
Is is it fair that Biblegod would condemn anyone to eternal suffering for in all reason not being able to correlate what they read in the Bible with what they understand of life? Not because they love their sin but because the word of the Bible and the word of science does not mesh?
The God of the scriptures is too petty and small and too human to be the majestic remote Creator of the universe and all in it.
If God exists he is the Grand Architect, remote and magnificent and untouchable. I can understand why a body would prefer to think of him as a Father and not a scientist pottering about a lab with us in an unacknowledged Petri dish on a shelf, but it doesn't make it true, now does it?
We say he loves us, and we are the pinnacle of his creation, This is the height of hubris, of arrogance.
If God exists, he is to be found in the perfect clockwork rotation of the planets and stars, in the billions of planets in the galaxy, tick tocking to a beat governed by laws that humans are capable of understanding if they have the ability to reason and apply mathematical knowledge. He is to be found in a cat's eyes, an insects wing, a lizard basking in the sun, a bird's beak, a tree's trunk, a blade of grass and a tiny flower. He is to be found in the way we are born and grow and live and die. It is more reasonable to assume the God who laid the foundations for life, in all it's glories and pain, is not involved, doesn't know we exist, than to force ourselves to believe he cares and watches us suffer and struggle, become ill and die, to kill one another and other animals, anyway. AIDS or the Shoah or the Inquisition or the Ebola virus or Jihad or serial killers or the exploitation of the planet and other animals all have their place in the unconscious doings of the Grand Architect in the same way birth and love and kindness and self-sacrifice and charity have.
He is not to be found in the works of men, no matter how many labels, holy, righteous, just, we place on them.
I came to this conclusion reading and thinking, not because I love my sin, but it is more reasonable to assume that if a Creator, he is too big to fit in any book and is certainly unaware of what a single section of a single species on a single planet at the back end of one galaxy in a universe one hundred and forty-six million light years across is getting up to.
*I am not going to suggest you ask the Christians whether there were one or two beasts carrying Jesus on his final entry into Jerusalem or if he went more than once, and when, because they are glaring, obvious contradictions which completely blow the idea of the Bible being the perfect and infallible word of the perfect Creator out of existence and which I will explore further in a future posting.
If you truly have nothing better to do, have a look at my other place on the Interwebs.
The first post on my return coincides with the sixth anniversary month of me giving up my Christian faith and admitting I am a deist. I am going to ask questions, questions I asked myself in my years of struggling, and then I'm going to end with my personal conclusion;
(These are serious questions and deserve to be answered)
How do you know that God's word can be found in the Bible and not the Koran or Upanishads or Guru Granth Sahib or Avesta?
Is it possible that God's truth may be found in other scriptures? If not, why not?
Why does Biblegod behave more like Stalin than Jesus in the Old Testament?
Why did Biblegod drown all the other animals in the Great Flood? What had they done? Why didn't he just give everyone except the Noahs fatal heart attacks? The thoughts of men were evil and the earth needed to be cleansed, but the other animals were doing just what comes naturally and not wilfully disobeying their creator.
If Biblegod knew Adam and Eve were going to eat of the fruit of the tree and therefore be infected with the fatal, hereditary Sin Virus, why did he make the tree in the first place?
How could Biblegod, when he came to earth as a man, have experienced all men can experience if he never got married and helped raise a family? If he remained single all his life, he was missing out on a lot of what men experience.
If Biblegod wanted to provide the cure for the Sin Virus, to be found in a certain set of writings why did he leave it to fallible men to write his word down? Why hasn't he provided any additions or updates in two thousand years? Say a different Gospel every hundred years or so, to keep up with scientific discovery and free inquiry?
If Biblegod insists on us believing the right way, why is the Bible so ambiguous? Why if our souls depend upon it can the same Bible verses be interpreted in different ways;
(For example. Get ahold of Christians of different denominations and ask them these questions;*
Predestination or free will?
The Holy Spirit: from the Father or the Son or both?
The Holy Spirit or the holy spirit?
Jesus: God or God's son?
Mary: the Mother of God or Mother of Jesus?
Is faith enough or do we need works for salvation?
Once saved, always saved?
When Jesus turned the water into wine, was it alcoholic or unfermented grape juice?
Can a person be saved if they have never heard of Jesus?
Women priests: Yes or no?
Icons: Yes or no?
What were the last words from the cross?
Remember, these people are using the same words to arrive at different conclusions and then condemning those who disagree to hell.)
Is the Bible any kind of genuine science book?
Is is it fair that Biblegod would condemn anyone to eternal suffering for in all reason not being able to correlate what they read in the Bible with what they understand of life? Not because they love their sin but because the word of the Bible and the word of science does not mesh?
The God of the scriptures is too petty and small and too human to be the majestic remote Creator of the universe and all in it.
If God exists he is the Grand Architect, remote and magnificent and untouchable. I can understand why a body would prefer to think of him as a Father and not a scientist pottering about a lab with us in an unacknowledged Petri dish on a shelf, but it doesn't make it true, now does it?
We say he loves us, and we are the pinnacle of his creation, This is the height of hubris, of arrogance.
If God exists, he is to be found in the perfect clockwork rotation of the planets and stars, in the billions of planets in the galaxy, tick tocking to a beat governed by laws that humans are capable of understanding if they have the ability to reason and apply mathematical knowledge. He is to be found in a cat's eyes, an insects wing, a lizard basking in the sun, a bird's beak, a tree's trunk, a blade of grass and a tiny flower. He is to be found in the way we are born and grow and live and die. It is more reasonable to assume the God who laid the foundations for life, in all it's glories and pain, is not involved, doesn't know we exist, than to force ourselves to believe he cares and watches us suffer and struggle, become ill and die, to kill one another and other animals, anyway. AIDS or the Shoah or the Inquisition or the Ebola virus or Jihad or serial killers or the exploitation of the planet and other animals all have their place in the unconscious doings of the Grand Architect in the same way birth and love and kindness and self-sacrifice and charity have.
He is not to be found in the works of men, no matter how many labels, holy, righteous, just, we place on them.
I came to this conclusion reading and thinking, not because I love my sin, but it is more reasonable to assume that if a Creator, he is too big to fit in any book and is certainly unaware of what a single section of a single species on a single planet at the back end of one galaxy in a universe one hundred and forty-six million light years across is getting up to.
*I am not going to suggest you ask the Christians whether there were one or two beasts carrying Jesus on his final entry into Jerusalem or if he went more than once, and when, because they are glaring, obvious contradictions which completely blow the idea of the Bible being the perfect and infallible word of the perfect Creator out of existence and which I will explore further in a future posting.
If you truly have nothing better to do, have a look at my other place on the Interwebs.
Sunday, 23 January 2011
THIS IS IT
Because of the pressures of real life I won't have time to update this blog anything like I thought I would. Same goes for my other place on the blogosphere. So I won't be adding anything else to it.
Shame, really. You start a fresh page with high hopes and there is reality in the way and a while later you look with bitter dissatisfaction at your unfinished work and finally give in and end it on a sort of semi-regretful farewell.
I'm keeping up though (until someone who can notices it's just sitting here, unattended, and takes it down) as a tribute to the folly of humankind (?)
Goodbye from a misanthropic Brit deist.
Shame, really. You start a fresh page with high hopes and there is reality in the way and a while later you look with bitter dissatisfaction at your unfinished work and finally give in and end it on a sort of semi-regretful farewell.
I'm keeping up though (until someone who can notices it's just sitting here, unattended, and takes it down) as a tribute to the folly of humankind (?)
Goodbye from a misanthropic Brit deist.
Monday, 3 January 2011
MAKING IT CLEARER
I am not a theist.
I am not an atheist.
(Using the classical accepted meanings of these two phrases.)
I believe there is some Great Mind, Great Architect, Unmoved Mover, behind everything because it seems logical to assume that everything did not just happen.
I also believe that this Great Mind has nothing to do with us, therefore didn't write (directly, or through inspiring human hand) any books.
I don't believe that this Great Mind even knows there is sentient life on one planet on the back end of the universe, that's why he doesn't interfere.
I believe evolution and not intelligent design is the reason for the diversity of life.
I believe we are basically machines, invested with a life force.
I believe that every living thing is invested with this life force, whether self aware or not, that's why to harm any living thing is a crime.
I believe human beings are made, i.e., genetics explains the personality better than upbringing.
I believe that anti-social behaviour is a disability that can be controlled. For example, if a serial killer or paedophile, say, if caught, they shouldn't be shut away and forgotten, or hanged. (After all, what has extreme 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' or 'hang 'em' punishment done? It hasn't cut the crime rate at all. For you out there who think talking to and listened to and rewarding the perpetrator works, well it isn't, is it?) It should be discovered, through brain scans and blood tests and other medical interventions, why. This then should be applied to prevent others becoming serial killers and paedophiles. Maybe one day, in a more enlightened age, there will be an injection or table to cure such afflictions or at least keep them under control, just like any disability. If anyone cries 'it's against their human rights', then it's possible to argue treating any condition is against the human rights of the person afflicted.
In addition to the above;
I believe human beings should be left alone, and if they look as if they are struggling, if help is offered and refused, then their wishes should be respected, even if it means their own destruction. This applies to that person alone, if their behaviour upsets others, then they should be compelled to receive assistance.
More clarification;
If someone is born with diabetes or Down's Syndrome or autism or my own condition or some other debilitating condition, so long as it affects only them, as soon as they're old enough to decide, they should be given the choice to work out how the rest of their life would effect them. The rapist and serial killer and harmer of any living thing shouldn't be extended the same right because their actions harm others.
I believe that every human being should be allowed to live the life of a person who has diametrically opposite views before they come to their conclusion on any theory or philosophy.
I don't believe human beings are the superior animal. If you mean superior as someone invested with superior strength and reasoning abilities, yes. But human beings in general, are selfish and factional and are parasites and exploit other species and anyone who uses their strength and size to harm cannot be superior.
I believe every human being, except the dead and comatose, have something to offer, and should be given every chance to do so.
I believe that the borders should be brought down and everyone should become a citizen of planet earth, and all the arguments and factionalism and sectarianism will eventually die out.
I believe that human beings should not try to interfere with the members of other species and their land and every living thing should be given rights, the main of which; to be left alone.
I believe in doing as much good and showing as much kindness and charity as I possibly can.
I believe no one is perfectly bad, and no one is perfectly good, that there is too much grey, because someone deals with something in a certain way, doesn't mean someone else will deal with that situation in the same or even a similar.
I believe that no one needs more than two children and that this policy should be enforced, rigorously, around the world.
I don't believe everything has an explanation or a reason, but things just happen.
I believe one day human beings, for all their vaunted power and boasting will die out, probably due to someone one of them has done. I just hope they don't take members of other species with them.
I don't that is my final philosophy, and even that five years after given up my theism after almost a quarter of a century of being a Christian, I'm still trying on new ways of thinking. Therefore, this statement is subject to not only change, but complete overhaul, and by this time next year I publish another statement of belief that negates all I'm saying and says the complete opposite. (Except maybe the idea that other species should be allowed their lives and rights. That won't ever change.)
I am not an atheist.
(Using the classical accepted meanings of these two phrases.)
I believe there is some Great Mind, Great Architect, Unmoved Mover, behind everything because it seems logical to assume that everything did not just happen.
I also believe that this Great Mind has nothing to do with us, therefore didn't write (directly, or through inspiring human hand) any books.
I don't believe that this Great Mind even knows there is sentient life on one planet on the back end of the universe, that's why he doesn't interfere.
I believe evolution and not intelligent design is the reason for the diversity of life.
I believe we are basically machines, invested with a life force.
I believe that every living thing is invested with this life force, whether self aware or not, that's why to harm any living thing is a crime.
I believe human beings are made, i.e., genetics explains the personality better than upbringing.
I believe that anti-social behaviour is a disability that can be controlled. For example, if a serial killer or paedophile, say, if caught, they shouldn't be shut away and forgotten, or hanged. (After all, what has extreme 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' or 'hang 'em' punishment done? It hasn't cut the crime rate at all. For you out there who think talking to and listened to and rewarding the perpetrator works, well it isn't, is it?) It should be discovered, through brain scans and blood tests and other medical interventions, why. This then should be applied to prevent others becoming serial killers and paedophiles. Maybe one day, in a more enlightened age, there will be an injection or table to cure such afflictions or at least keep them under control, just like any disability. If anyone cries 'it's against their human rights', then it's possible to argue treating any condition is against the human rights of the person afflicted.
In addition to the above;
I believe human beings should be left alone, and if they look as if they are struggling, if help is offered and refused, then their wishes should be respected, even if it means their own destruction. This applies to that person alone, if their behaviour upsets others, then they should be compelled to receive assistance.
More clarification;
If someone is born with diabetes or Down's Syndrome or autism or my own condition or some other debilitating condition, so long as it affects only them, as soon as they're old enough to decide, they should be given the choice to work out how the rest of their life would effect them. The rapist and serial killer and harmer of any living thing shouldn't be extended the same right because their actions harm others.
I believe that every human being should be allowed to live the life of a person who has diametrically opposite views before they come to their conclusion on any theory or philosophy.
I don't believe human beings are the superior animal. If you mean superior as someone invested with superior strength and reasoning abilities, yes. But human beings in general, are selfish and factional and are parasites and exploit other species and anyone who uses their strength and size to harm cannot be superior.
I believe every human being, except the dead and comatose, have something to offer, and should be given every chance to do so.
I believe that the borders should be brought down and everyone should become a citizen of planet earth, and all the arguments and factionalism and sectarianism will eventually die out.
I believe that human beings should not try to interfere with the members of other species and their land and every living thing should be given rights, the main of which; to be left alone.
I believe in doing as much good and showing as much kindness and charity as I possibly can.
I believe no one is perfectly bad, and no one is perfectly good, that there is too much grey, because someone deals with something in a certain way, doesn't mean someone else will deal with that situation in the same or even a similar.
I believe that no one needs more than two children and that this policy should be enforced, rigorously, around the world.
I don't believe everything has an explanation or a reason, but things just happen.
I believe one day human beings, for all their vaunted power and boasting will die out, probably due to someone one of them has done. I just hope they don't take members of other species with them.
I don't that is my final philosophy, and even that five years after given up my theism after almost a quarter of a century of being a Christian, I'm still trying on new ways of thinking. Therefore, this statement is subject to not only change, but complete overhaul, and by this time next year I publish another statement of belief that negates all I'm saying and says the complete opposite. (Except maybe the idea that other species should be allowed their lives and rights. That won't ever change.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)