Secretnude's Drabble Poetry Corner

Short Stories available for anyone to read
Forum rules
These posts are public, and will be searched by Google. If you want to maintain "First Worldwide Rights" on your story, post in the Short Stories (Member Only) forum. Story authors still retain ownership and copyright, either way.
User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Taking a Space Lance to a Space Fight in Spaceflight

Post by secretnude » Fri Jun 27, 2014 8:48 am

A Space Knight's
Spacesuit
is a powerful Exosuit
that's dark as the darkest night
to deliver thyself
from thy enemy's sight.

Powerful guns
are fun
for a Space Knight
to take to a fight
but a true Space Knight
would also take Lance
for a chance
at close quarter kill
to quarter thy enemy at will.

A Space Knight
could take flight
in thy spacesuit
that's a powered Exosuit
in the vacuum of Space
to face
an enemy face to face
if the Alien enemy hath a face
that thy Space Knight could face
and lay thy enemy to waste.

- links -
previous viewtopic.php?f=70&t=5327&p=49705#p49705
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Acquire a Position called a Space Squire

Post by secretnude » Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:10 am

Jousts
were held in plain sight
to determine at most
who hath the right
to be a Space Knight
with a Exosuit as dark
as the darkest
night
to evade thy enemy's sight.

I was at the Space Knight
Recruitment Center
that became thy center
of activity
in this small but active
community.

We only hath 144 slots
for Space Knights
that 303 hath to fight
to fill thy Space Knight
slots
and competition hath been hot.

Some acquired
a position called a Space Squire
that requireth no Space Knight Exosuit
to suit
such popular demand
as you might understand.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Not much Horses in Space

Post by secretnude » Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:22 am

The Jousts
were metaphorical Jousts
since Horses in Space
do face
an extreme deficiency in supply
and the fighters must simply
apply
himself
or herself
to naked hand to hand
combat as you might understand
as mixed martial arts
and quite advanced Medical Arts
came in handy after the fights
that were quite a sight.

A naked referee
was there to oversee
that the fights
were done right.

Most people were naked
as a custom
since it was customary
to be naked
from the very start
due to weight restrictions
when they departed
from Terra
via
a Spacecraft called Ascension.

- links -
Ascension viewtopic.php?f=70&t=5327&p=49407#p49407
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Much Hardship in a crowded Generation Ship

Post by secretnude » Fri Jun 27, 2014 2:46 pm

The Space Squires
were required
to live in the barracks
with thy Space Knight.

Racks
of beds
went head
to head
in the sleeping quarters
that gave privacy no quarter.

This was indeed the common
living condition
in this unhip
Generation
Ship
called Redemption
aside from the masses
whose asses
are bare
that do dare
to sleep in odd
Stasis Pods.

The Knights and Squires
now thus acquire some Military Dress
unlike the rest
of the naked masses
with bare asses.

It was a Privilege of Rank
that you do dress
unlike the ranks
of the masses that are undressed.

- links -
next viewtopic.php?f=70&t=5327&p=49738#p49738

Odd Stasis Pods viewtopic.php?f=70&t=5327&p=49414#p49414
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Of Kings and Days of olde

Post by secretnude » Fri Jun 27, 2014 3:20 pm

http://www.medieval-life-and-times.info ... y-laws.htm
Medieval fashion and dress of the Middle Ages was dominated and highly influenced by the Kings and Queens of the era. Only the wealthy could dress in fashionable clothes. Laws dating back to the Romans restricted ordinary people in their expenditure. These were called Sumptuary Laws. The definition of the word Sumptuary is derived from the  from the Latin word which means expenditure. English Sumptuary Laws were imposed by rulers to curb the expenditure of the people. Sumptuary laws might apply to food, beverages, furniture, jewelry and clothing. These Laws were used to control behaviour and ensure that a specific class structure was maintained.

English Medieval Sumptuary Laws
The Medieval English Medieval Sumptuary Laws were well known by all of the English people. The penalties for violating Sumptuary Laws could be harsh - fines, the loss of property, title and even life! The Medieval period had been dominated by the Feudal system - everyone knew their place! Clothing provided an immediate way of distinguishing 'Who was Who'. Medieval clothing and fashion like everything else was dictated by the Pyramid of Power which was the Feudal System and the Sumptuary Laws which were passed by the Medieval Kings of England.

1281 and 1309 - The first recorded English Medieval Sumptuary Laws
The first record of sumptuary legislation is an ordinance of the City of London in 1281 which regulated the apparel, or clothing, of workman. These related to workers who had working clothes supplied by their employer as a part of their wages. Fashions and trends between countries were frequently imitated and this first Sumptuary Law was probably copied from a European country. The second record of sumptuary legislation occurred during the reign of King Edward II (1284-1327) related to food expenditure. King Edward II issued a proclamation against 'outrageous consumption of meats and fine dishes' by nobles.

1336, 1337 and 1363 - The English Sumptuary Laws of King Edward III in Medieval Times
The next records of sumptuary legislation occurred during the reign of King Edward III (1312-1377). King Edward III passed these Sumptuary Laws to regulate the dress of various classes of the English people, promote English garments and to preserve class distinctions by means of costume, clothes and dress.

The English Sumptuary Law of 1336
The sumptuary legislation of 1336 attempted to curb expenditure and preserve class distinction. One of acts stated the following:

"no knight under the estate of a lord, esquire or gentleman , nor any other person, shall wear any shoes or boots having spikes or points which exceed the length of two inches, under the forfeiture of forty pence."

The English Sumptuary Law of 1337
The sumptuary legislation of 1337 was designed to promote English garments and restrict the wearing of furs
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
strawman
Member
Posts: 5966
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: South Georgia

Re: Secretnude's Drabble Poetry Corner

Post by strawman » Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:01 pm

A certain man had two sons. And the younger of them said to the father, Father give me that part of the property falling to me. And he divided the living to them. And not many days after, gathering up all things, the younger son went away to a distant country. And there he wasted his property, living dissolutely. But having spent all his things, a severe famine came throughout that country, and he began to be in need. And going, he was joined to one of the citizens of that country. And he sent him into his fields to feed pigs. And he longed to fill his stomach from the husks which the pigs ate, but no one gave to him. But coming to himself he said, How many servants of my father have plenty of loaves, and I am perishing with famine. Rising up, I will go to my father, and I will say to him, Father, I sinned against Heaven and before you, and I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me as one of your hired servants. And rising up, he came to his father. But he yet being far away, his father saw him and was moved with pity. And running, he fell on his neck and fervently kissed him. And the son said to him, Father, I have sinned against Heaven and before you, and no longer am I worthy to be called your son. But the father said to his slaves, Bring out the best robe and clothe him, and give a ring for his hand and sandals for his feet. And bring the fattened calf, slaughter and let us eat and be merry; for this son of mine was dead, and lived again, and was lost, and was found. And they began to be merry. But the older son was in a field. And having come, as he drew near to the house, he heard music and dances. And having called one of the children, he inquired what this may be. And he said to him, Your brother came, and your father killed the fattened calf, because he received him back in health. But he was angry and did not desire to go in. Then coming out, his father begged him. But answering, he said to the father, Behold, so many years I serve you, and I have never transgressed a command of you. And you never gave a goat to me, so that I might be merry with my friends. But when this son of yours came, the one devouring your living with harlots, you killed the fattened calf for him. But he said to him, Child, you are always with me, and all of my things are yours. But to be merry and to rejoice was right, for this brother of yours was dead, and lived again; and being lost, also he was found.
(Luk 15:11-32)
Never judge anyone until you have biopsied their brain.

"Be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle."
Known Some Call Is Air Am
Spoiler:
Non sum qualis eram = "I am not who I will be"

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Some Christians Do Annoy (arguing with Strawman is fun)

Post by secretnude » Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:34 pm

http://advocatusatheist.wordpress.com/2 ... hristians/
1. The OCD Bible Thumper type
This is the sort of Christian who is bound and determined to throw every Bible verse they can at you, regardless of whether or not it makes sense, and moreover, they are bound and determined to out quote you in the process.
2.      The Pete and Repeat were sitting in a boat but Pete fell out type
This is the type of Christian which will argue you in circle and keep on driving the same points home, or relying on the same fallacies, and even though their arguments crumble under scrutiny they don’t give you an inch edgewise and then prematurely declare that they have bettered you in the debate, even when you didn’t know you were actually having one.
3.      The Put a Fallacy in my back pocket for good measure type
These Christians rely on idiotic fallacy driven arguments to make their case for them (e.g., Paley’s Watch, Pascal’s Wager, William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological argument, and so on). Yet if you do engage them, once they have run through their list of arguments, all they have is a pile of scrambled up fallacies which, contrary to what they believe, only make their case harder to prove.
...
5.      The Apologist Wannabe Rambler type
I have lots of friends in this category. Usually they are of an evangelical streak, and they want to win you over to Christ, although reminding them that you were once a Christian and are happy to finally be free of that reason stifling dead end called religion, they continue to hound you with rambling, often disorganized, questions which try to get you to think about “spiritual” concerns. Typically they like to respond to your answers with a set of rehearsed phrases, like, “Did you know there are more original fragments and copies of the Bible than any other ancient text—even more than the Iliad?!” They may even throw in some numbers and statistics (most of them erroneous) just to sound more authentic. They also will quote stupid facts which are untrue—like, “Darwinism was the cause for Hitler’s atheism, and so clearly atheists can’t be moral.” Then they pretend that everything in that sentence was related and made perfect sense and put the burden on you to account for it—even as you are desperately pleading with them that whatever book they’re getting these twice-baked apologetics from, they need to put it down and pick up a real history book written by real scholars and historians.
...
7.      Jesus Freak Liars for Christ type
These are the shallow Christians who continually talks about all the good works Jesus does in their lives and loves to share it with you, hoping their anecdotes will be moving enough to emotionally nudge your from your realist, rational, common-sense mindset, even though A) they’re probably just attributing or mistaking normal happenstance as good blessings from God because they’re so saturated with God-talk as if it were a non-stop 24 hour radio station beaming straight into their heads, and B) their imaginary friend is nowhere to be seen even though they’re sure he’s everywhere all at once, all the time. On top of all this, they get so worked up about it they will often spread falsities about things they know little about just to make their cause look all the more appealing. I once had such a Christian brand me as a pedophile on an entire web forum because I defended the private use of pornography. Then he said Christ could heal my perversion, as if I was actually someone who was addicted to child pornography (which I’m not). Worse still, their uncritical, unquestioning, attitudes coupled with their credulity lead them to believe it, even though it was libelous slander and constituted a felony. But never mind, because they saw evidence for their convictions in the form of Mother Mary of baby Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich.
8.      The Judgmental Hypocrite type
These are Christians who use fear tactics, such as fire and brimstone lectures about your inherent “original” sin, and will claim you’re going to hell, often stipulating that you’re a no good, heathenish, materialistic, God-denying, rebellious, humanist/atheist and that you deserve to burn, but because God loves you he sent his only son—blah blah blah. After having condemned you to an eternal suffering of their own imagining they instantly begin trying to save you from it. At the same time, the derogatory or unflattering labels they give to everyone else as they unjustly judge others rings hypocritical, especially when they have the gull to claim it is you who are immoral. What the hell? Indeed.
http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/201 ... e.html?m=1
So, here you are. You believe that a god exists. You believe that objective morality is not possible without god.

How do you determine what is objectively right and wrong?

Yesterday, I wrote two stories. In one story, I wrote of a god who says "Love is love" and views homosexual love as equal to heterosexual love. The other was of a god that views reason as his greatest gift to humanity and faith as the rejecting that risk and in doing so, rejecting God.

Other people tell stories of a god that commands killing any young woman who is caught talking to a man, the slaughter of apostates, the slaughter of anybody who questions their claims about what God wants. Some say that god demands the execution of certain wrongdoers, and some say that god prohibits all killing. Some say blood transfusions are evil, others condemn cloning. Some say life begins at conception, others say the fetus as no soul until quickening.

All of these stories - in fact all similar stories that one can imagine - are consistent with, "There is a god, and objective morality would not exist without a god."

Even desirism, the moral theory I apply in these blog postings, is consistent with that view. There is a god. God is required for objective morality. Desirism accurately describes the objective morality the this god built into the world.

Now, how are you going to determine what is objectively right and wrong? How are you going to determine if your own actions are consistent with the objective morality god created, or a violation of that morality?

You could appeal to scripture.

Which scripture? There are a lot of scriptures out there. How do you know that yours is the right one.

Which interpretation of scripture? Even people who point to the same scripture disagree over what it says - what it commands. Does your interpretation capture what is really right or wrong? Or are you seeing a commandment to do that which objective morality forbids or to refrain from doing what objective morality requires?

It is the very essence of objectivity that where two people disagree, one must be wrong. There is no sense to the claim, "A person's religion gives them an objective morality." The only sensible claim to be made is, "A person's religion give them THE objective morality." However, where those "objective" moralities say different things, at least some of them must be mistaken.

We must also add the complication that, at some level of specificity, everybody's interpretation of scripture is unique. Nobody on the planet has exactly the same interpretation as anybody else.

This implies that at most one person in all of human history - at most one and almost certainly not even that - has the correct interpretation of scripture. And even this ignores the fact that a person's interpretation will change over time.

It seems quite arrogant for any person to claim, "At most one person in all of human history will have the correct interpretation of scripture, and that one person is me."

Is it objectively good to be that arrogant? Isn't a little humility a good thing?

So, where is your objective god-given morality and how do you know when you have found it?

Chances are, you have been warned about me - about the person who may temp you to question and to doubt. You have been told to ignore questions and doubt.

Are these truly virtues? Or are these vices you have been convinced to adopt by people who want your unquestioning economic, political, and social support. These religious leaders have a lot to lose if people go astray - if people quit contributing money and political and social power to them. It is only natural for them to fear the possibility of you questioning their word - questioning the claims that always end in a call to contribute money or power to them. But are they giving you a virtue? Or are they giving you a useful vice - useful to them?

Belief that there is a god, and that god is necessary for objective morality to exist, does not help a person one bit in determining what to do. It does not answer any real-world moral questions. When it comes to answering the question of what to do, the theist and the atheist are on equal ground.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
strawman
Member
Posts: 5966
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: South Georgia

Re: Secretnude's Drabble Poetry Corner

Post by strawman » Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:40 am

Just drives ya crazy? Is that whatcha mean to say?
Never judge anyone until you have biopsied their brain.

"Be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle."
Known Some Call Is Air Am
Spoiler:
Non sum qualis eram = "I am not who I will be"

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

I can ignore you but its fun to argue

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:46 am

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pensées
http://www.ushmm.org/research/the-cente ... -centuries
John which was compiled about this time. In several places John’s gospel associates “the Jews” with darkness and with the devil. This laid the groundwork for centuries of Christian characterization of Jews as agents of the devil, a characterization which found its way into medieval popular religion and eventually into passion plays.

In the second century and beyond, many of the principal Fathers of the Church began to write of Jews as a “rejected people” who were doomed to a life of marginality and misery. Jews were to wander the world as a “despised people.” This image persisted in Christian preaching, art and popular teaching for centuries to come. In certain countries it often led to civil and political discrimination against Jews and in some instances to physical attacks on Jews which resulted in death. While some Popes, bishops and Christian princes stepped up to protect Jews, they were clearly a minority. It was only in the mid-twentieth century that the Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations issued major statements repudiating this anti-Judaic theology and began a process of constructive Christian-Jewish interaction.


A page from an antisemitic book for children, titled Der Giftpilz (The Poisonous Mushroom), distributed by Der Stürmer’s publishing house in 1938. US Holocaust Memorial Museum

When the Nazis came on the scene in Germany they were able to draw upon the legacy of Christian anti-Judaism
It is great fun to argue
as long as the arguments
don't get to be too personal.

However, there's nothing as personal
as one's subjective
belief
and that belief
might claim to be objective
in matters of Morality
when it's really
actually
subjective.

Morality
may indeed be subjective
and claims of an objective
'God Given Morality'
maybe refuted historically
since historically
many that claim to do get Morality
from a God
acted immorally.

It was Christians
that hunted the Jews and Christians
that made wars with Christians
and Moslems because they can
be so sure
in how they interpret Scripture.
The crusaders often pillaged the countries through which they travelled in the typical medieval manner. Nobles often retained much of the territory gained rather than returning it to the Byzantines as they had sworn to do.[8][9] Encouraged by the Church, the Peoples' Crusade prompted Rhineland massacres and the murder of thousands of Jews. In the late 19th century this episode was used by Jewish historians to support Zionism.[10] The Fourth Crusade resulted in the sack of Constantinople by the Roman Catholics, effectively ending the chance of reuniting the Christian church by reconciling the East–West Schism and leading to the weakening and eventual fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Ottomans.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
Madden (2005) stresses the impact of Runciman's style and viewpoint:

It is no exaggeration to say that Runciman single-handedly crafted the current popular concept of the crusades. The reasons for this are twofold. First, he was a learned man with a solid grasp of the chronicle sources. Second, and perhaps more important, he wrote beautifully. The picture of the crusades that Runciman painted owed much to current scholarship yet much more to Sir Walter Scott. Throughout his history Runciman portrayed the crusaders as simpletons or barbarians seeking salvation through the destruction of the sophisticated cultures of the east. In his famous "summing-up" of the crusades he concluded that "the Holy War in itself was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God, which is a sin against Holy Ghost.”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Runciman
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Are you Judging me for Rejecting the Divinity of Christ?

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:17 am

http://www.hitler.org/speeches/04-12-22.html
the Jewish danger. And today people are saying yet again that we were 'agitators.' I would like here to appeal to a greater than I, Count Lerchenfeld. He said in the last session of the Landtag that his feeling 'as a man and a Christian' prevented him from being an anti-Semite. I SAY: MY FEELING AS A CHRISTIAN POINTS ME TO MY LORD AND SAVIOUR AS A FIGHTER. IT POINTS ME TO THE MAN WHO ONCE IN LONELINESS, SURROUNDED ONLY BY A FEW FOLLOWERS, RECOGNIZED THESE JEWS FOR WHAT THEY WERE AND SUMMONED MEN TO THE FIGHT AGAINST THEM AND WHO, GOD'S TRUTH! WAS GREATEST NOT AS SUFFERER BUT AS FIGHTER. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before - the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago - a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.
I do 'reject' Christ
like the abovementioned Jews.

Hence would Christians
persecute
me like the way Christians
persecuted
Jews
historically?

Speaking historically,
Christians
were ungrateful to the Jews
that gave them Christ.

Only perhaps the Jewish Holocaust
at the cost
of so many Jews
reformed the typical Christian view
of a typical Jew.

Do Christians
view
Atheists that rejected Christ
like that of the historical despicable Jew?

Maybe a Holocaust
at the cost
of many Atheists
would reform the Christian view
of an Atheist
that they may see as a Jew
and an Atheist
may also be likely a Jew.
What many people don’t appreciate is that the Hebrew spoken nowadays in modern-day Israel is different from the Hebrew used in the bible. One of the differences is that modern Hebrew has rules of grammar and some semblance of logical structure to each sentence, while the Hebrew used in the bible is a convoluted mess of random words thrown together with random declensions, occasional typos and sometimes entire words that are simply missing from the sentence.
The entire bible basically reads like a comment on YouTube, except it’s in Hebrew and it’s a million chapters long.
(As an aside, Modern Hebrew is a shitty language in its own right and much inferior to English, both because it’s less logical and because it has a much smaller selection of words, but that’s a topic for another post.)
So as a child growing up in Israel, you’re expected to be able to read the bible. The logic is “The kid speaks Hebrew… The bible is in Hebrew… NOW KISS!" While in fact those two Hebrews are quite different!
When the bible was translated to English, some blessed soul made sure that all the sentences make sense in the English version. For example, take this sentence out of the book of Judges:
"And Samson went down to Timnath, and saw a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines."
Straightforward. A bit repetitive but generally very clear. Samson went to a place called “Timnath” and met a daughter of the Philistines, whatever that is.
Now let’s take the Hebrew version:
"And he will go down Samson Timnath-ward and he will see a woman in Timnath-ward of the daughters of Philistines."
The fuck. The actual fuck. And a kid’s supposed to read thousands of sentences written like that and then answer a question about what various researchers said about those sentences, and if he doesn’t get a good grade on that test, he might be rejected from going to a good college even if he wants to just go and be a doctor and go help blind cancer patients in Africa from dying and never look at another bible again.
Fuck you religion.
The chapter names in Hebrew are actually kinda cool
Okay, let’s give credit where credit is due. As much as I hate the bible, I was struck by how much cooler the names of the Torah chapters are in Hebrew than they are in English.
In English you’ve got Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Cool sounding names, but I find them rather opaque. I mean, when you see “Leviticus”, do you think “oh boy I can’t wait to see what happens in this chapter”? I don’t. They sound like they could be either a car model or an episode in a lame science fiction show.
The names in Hebrew are so much cooler!
The first chapter, that you guys call Genesis, is called in Hebrew In The Beginning. Is that the coolest fucking name for a Torah chapter you’ve ever heard or what? It kinda reminds me of “The Saga Begins”, used for Star Wars Episode I. Puts you in the mood. Now that we’re on that subject, Genesis could have used a good Jar-Jar Binks.
The second chapter, that you guys call Exodus, is called in Hebrew Names. I admit that one’s a silly name. I think it’s called that way because at some point in that chapter there’s a list of names of people, and that’s supposed to be important in some way. Who the fuck opens with “Names” when you have the escape from Egypt, the ten plagues, the Nile crossing, and the freaking ten commandments? Shows you just how much the authors of the bible knew about marketing.
The third chapter, that you guys call Leviticus, is called in Hebrew And He Will Read. I shit you not, that’s the actual name of the chapter. I guess they didn’t have enough space for “And He Will Read, Because We’re a Bunch Of Religious Fanatics Who Shove Religious Books Down The Throats of Non-Religious 7-year-old Children”. Brevity is an important thing.
Moving on, the fourth chapter begins just as the Israelites received their laws and covenant from god and are beginning their epic journey in the desert to find the promised land. It’s called… (try to read it in the voice of that guy who narrates all the Hollywood trailers…) In The Desert. Bam! I love that name. In the motherfucking desert, biatch. Shit’s going down in the desert.
The fifth and final chapter of the Torah, which you call Deuteronomy, is called Things. That’s right, the chapter is called “Things”. Not informative, but hilarious. Who calls a chapter “Things”?! This is plain genius.
http://blog.ram.rachum.com/post/5533487 ... -in-hebrew
Rather than attempting to distinguish Jesus Christ from Harry Potter by referring to the non-proof that Jesus was real, a more profitable enterprise might be to analyze the two characters as literary influences and ask, which is better. In other words, in light of the discovery that claims of historicity cannot separate the literature of Jesus from Harry, the important thing to analyze is how the stories make people feel and act.

As a living spirit that is believed to be real and omnipresent, Jesus provides comfort and inspiration. He can also motivate his followers to great acts of charity and self-sacrifice. At the same time, as a “historical” savior, he creates dissension and conflict between various cultures and ideologies. Christ teaches suffering, meekness and humility; renounce this life and look forward to the next one; Harry says fight for this one. Jesus says anything that happens is God’s will: God is in control, not me. Harry takes full responsibility for this world. God (Dumbledore) is dead, and there is no one else to stop the evil in the world except us. Also, while Jesus knew he would come back, and then live forever, Harry had no such hope; hence his sacrifice was much grander.

Religion provides comfort to get us through suffering, endure this life in hopes of a better afterlife. Literature like Harry Potter inspires us to stand up and fight against injustice. Jesus, as son of God, divine being, represents a level we can never reach. He is perfect, but we are sinners. He is not an example that we can model; he is the sun that makes us feel ashamed of our shadows. Harry, in contrast, is fully human; he doubts, sins, expresses emotions, makes poor decisions, and he eventually makes the ultimate sacrifice – which importantly he had no desire to make. By his example we can compare ourselves, and through his mistakes we can recognize our own. His determination is an inspiration to us, through which we can learn that justice means taking action without guarantee, without a promise of salvation, without the support of a supernatural being that promises redemption. True ethics is not following law, but guessing and being willing to act regardless of the consequences.

Most importantly, Harry Potter is popular; in a way that Jesus is not. Harry Potter’s movies have made billions, while Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ (2004) was disturbing, bloody and ultimately unsatisfying, riddled with the unresolved complexities in a system where the all powerful and all knowing God has to trick or deceive his creation, Satan. Harry’s popularity is crucial; he is the myth of our time, the best selling story. Yes he is a repacking of Jesus Christ, but one that eclipses him completely.
http://www.holyblasphemy.net/the-bible- ... mechanism/
Atheism is on the rise in America and yet we are constantly discriminated against and marginalized because of our lack of belief in imaginary friends. For atheists who value reason, logic, and the scientific method, it sometimes seems like the inmates have taken over the asylum. But it shouldn’t have to be like this. Atheists make up a larger percentage of the American population than Jews, Muslims, and every other non-Christian religion in America combines. If we want to be less marginalized, there are things we can and should be doing.

1. Atheists need to be vocal about our atheism. We shouldn’t hide our lack of belief in deities. I know, I know, atheism doesn’t define us as people. Yes, yes, I get it. However, when people bring up religion (and they always do), we shouldn’t have to silently sit there feeling uncomfortable. We should be vocal and point out that not everyone believes in deities and that we do not in fact believe in deities. We can be vocal politely or we can be vocal in a more confrontational manner, but we shouldn’t just sit there silently.

When people begin to realize that they actually know atheists and that we aren’t the Satan worshipping, baby eating, immoral monsters that their church told them we are, then they will be less likely to discriminate against us. Plus, the more atheists that are vocal about their atheism, the more religious believers will have to watch what they say because the person next to them just might be a vocal atheist who just might call them out when they say something religious.

There are more atheists in America than most religious believers realize. We just don’t generally wear our atheism around our necks or knock on people’s doors on Saturday morning, but we are here and we have to make our presence known. So be vocal!

2. Atheists need to support each other’s efforts to spread reason, logic, critical thinking, etc. Just like other minority and marginalized group, we have to support each other. Atheists tend to be creative people. Many atheists have YouTube channels, blogs, podcasts, etc. We do this stuff because we want to spread our memes and make the world a better place. However, while religious believers use fear of eternal torture and bribes of eternal paradise to get followers to pony up lots of cash, atheists tend not to support our interests financially and are even critical of fellow atheists even asking for money.

Religious organizations are not only tax exempt, but they also have a huge money advantage to start out with. They have been around a long time and their followers actually fund their groups and endeavors. Ask a Christian how much money they “donated” to their church last year. Then ask an atheist how much they spent in support of an atheist organization. That is the heart of the problem.
- See more at: http://www.skepticink.com/dangeroustalk ... yXG2Z.dpuf
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Impose dangerous measures to curb the danger?

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:14 am

Was Stalin really a Catholic and did he train to be a Jesuit priest?

“Practically every right-wing dictator of the period had been born and brought up a Catholic – notably Hitler, Franco, Petain, Mussolini, Pavelic, and Tiso (who was a Catholic priest).” – John Cornwell - Hitler’s Pope (1999; p. 280)
http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/12264851095
Jozef Tiso (13 October 1887 – 18 April 1947) was a Slovak Roman Catholic priest, and a leading politician of the Slovak People's Party. Between 1939 and 1945, Tiso was the head of the 1939–45 First Slovak Republic, a satellite state of Nazi Germany. After the end of World War II, Tiso was convicted and hanged for treason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jozef_Tiso
Truly a monster, having killed some twenty-five percent of the entire population of Cambodia. Pol Pot targeted not just different religions, but education, science and medicine in his quest for total domination. Now, let's take a head count of atheists who are against education, science and medicine. Thought so… Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge were composed of Buddhists and Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist. He studied at a Buddhist monastery and then at a Catholic school for 8 years. Cambodia's communism was influenced by Theravada Buddhism.

Prince Norodom Sihanouk said, "Pol Pot does not believe in God but he thinks that heaven, destiny, wants him to guide Cambodia in the way he thinks it the best for Cambodia, that is to say, the worst. Pol Pot is mad, you know, like Hitler."

So, while Pol Pot was definitely not a Christian, he was also definitely not an Atheist.

Let's get on with some Mass Murder, shall we?

Add up the deaths that were attributed to Hitler, Stalin and Pot. Then round up for good measure. You can safely say that the number is staggering. Probably upwards of fifteen million. However, consider the following conflicts where the only differences between the opposing factions were and are religion:

Albigensian Crusade, 1208-49
Algeria, 1992-
Baha'is, 1848-54
Bosnia, 1992-95
Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1901
Christian Romans, 30-313 CE
Croatia, 1991-92
English Civil War, 1642-46
Holocaust, 1938-45
Huguenot Wars, 1562-1598
India, 1992-2002
India: Suttee & Thugs
Indo-Pakistani Partition, 1947
Iran, Islamic Republic, 1979-
Iraq, Shiites, 1991-92
Jews, 1348
Jonestown, 1978
Lebanon 1860 / 1975-92
Molucca Is., 1999-
Mongolia, 1937-39
Northern Ireland, 1974-98
Russian pogroms 1905-06 / 1917-22
St. Bartholemew Massacre, 1572
Shang China, ca. 1300-1050 BCE
Shimabara Revolt, Japan 1637-38
Sikh uprising, India, 1984-91
Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1834
Taiping Rebellion, 1850-64
Thirty Years War, 1618-48
Tudor England
Vietnam, 1800s
Witch Hunts, 1400-1800
Xhosa, 1857
Arab Outbreak, 7th Century CE
Arab-Israeli Wars, 1948-
Al Qaeda, 1993-
Crusades, 1095-1291
Dutch Revolt, 1566-1609
Nigeria, 1990s, 2000s

If you add up all of the lives that were lost in the name of one religion or another, you come up with a staggering figure that is in excess of eight-hundred-million. That's eight-hundred-million. An eight, followed by eight zeros. So, even if the believers who are uneducated enough to think that Hitler, Stalin and Pot were psychotic mass murderers because they thought these men were atheists, it is horrifically clear that religious murder wins out.
http://www.examiner.com/article/refutin ... atheists-1
Was Mao Zedong an atheist?

Note: Using the argument that Mao’s belief in God caused him to do these things is WRONG. And one should be highly skeptical regarding Mao’s definition of God and if he even believed in God in the first place. Suffice to say, there is evidence that goes both ways, in terms of justifying a claim that Mao did believe in gods and also that he embraced secular ideals. However, there is absolutely no causal relationship between any atheist position and any antisocial, oppressive activities.

"Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting the progress of the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land." — Mao Tse-tung, Quotations of Chairman Mao Speech (1966), quoted from Encarta Book of Quotations (1999)
.
The Poems of Mao Tse-tung


All of the below quotes are taken from: Mao Tse-tung (1893 - 1976) Source: The Poems of Mao Tse-tung, Harper & Row

Winds flap the sail, tortoise and snake are silent, a great plan looms. A bridge will fly over this moat dug by HEAVEN and be a road from north to south. We will make a stone wall against the upper river to the west and hold back steamy clouds and rain of Wu peaks. Over tall chasms will be a calm lake, and if the GODDESS of these mountains is not dead she will marvel at the changed world.[1]

The GODS on the death of his wife Yang Kai-hui I lost my proud poplar and you your willow As poplar and willow they soar straight up into the ninth heaven and ask the prisoner of the moon, Wu Kang’ what is there. He offers them wine from the cassia tree. The lonely lady on the moon, Chang 0, spreads her vast sleeves and dances for these good SOULS in the unending sky. Down on earth a sudden report of the tiger’s defeat. Tears fly down from a great upturned bowl of rain.[2]

Saying Good-bye to the GOD of Disease (2) Thousands of willow branches in a spring wind. Six hundred million of China, land of the GODS, and exemplary like the emperors Shun and Yao. A scarlet rain of peach blossoms turned into waves and emerald mountains into bridges. Summits touch the sky. We dig with silver shovels and iron arms shake the earth and the Three Rivers. GOD of plagues, where are you going? We burn paper boats and bright candles to light his way to HEAVEN.[3]

Saying Good-bye to the GOD of Disease (1) Mauve waters and green mountains are nothing when the great ancient doctor Hua To could not defeat a tiny worm. A thousand villages collapsed, were choked with weeds, men were lost arrows. GHOSTS sang in the doorway of a few desolate houses. Yet now in a day we leap around the earth or explore a thousand Milky Ways. And if the cowherd who lives on a star asks about the GOD of plagues, tell him, happy or sad, the GOD is gone, washed away in the waters.[4]
Little red book

The below is taken from “Self-Reliance and Arduous Struggle chapter 21”:

There is an ancient Chinese fable called “The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains”. It tells of an old man who lived in northern China long, long ago and was known as the Foolish Old Man of North Mountain. His house faced south and beyond his doorway stood the two great peaks, Taihang and Wangwu, obstructing the way. With great determination, he led his sons in digging up these mountains hoe in hand. Another graybeard, known as the Wise Old Man, saw them and said derisively, “How silly of you to do this! It is quite impossible for you few to dig up these two huge mountains.” The Foolish Old Man replied, “When I die, my sons will carry on; when they die, there will be my grandsons, and then their sons and grandsons, and so on to infinity. High as they are, the mountains cannot grow any higher and with every bit we dig, they will be that much lower. Why can’t we clear them away?” Having refuted the Wise Old Man’s wrong view, he went on digging every day, unshaken in his conviction. This moved GOD, and he sent down two angels, who carried the mountains away on their backs. Today, two big mountains lie like a dead weight on the Chinese people. One is imperialism and the other is feudalism. The Chinese Communist Party has long made up its mind to dig them up. We must persevere and work unceasingly, and we, too, will touch GOD’s heart. Our GOD is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can’t these two mountains be cleared away? [5]
the Tao of Mao

There is some suggestion that Mao was at least influenced by Taoism: [6]

Some of Mao’s quotes also represent a kind of Taoist thinking such as “We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports”
http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/37691432001

We Atheists aren't more or less dangerous
as perhaps the equally dangerous
Christians or Moslems and it's a danger
to suppose that we are the dangerous
ones then impose dangerous
measures
to curb the danger
for sure.

I do hope by being
a vocal being
I can help remove certain 'misunderstandings'
based on the understanding
of an Atheist through a 'Christian Worldview'
that's a dangerous Worldview
in itself that could promote intolerance
by chance.

I tolerate
private
expressions
of faith.
but I have to counter such expressions
of faith
on this thread
since this is my thread
at any rate.
Until recently, the number of organized atheists has been pretty small and so religious believers have more experience proselytizing to people of other religious or even those who are barely religious but still consider themselves believers. This may be why they have such a hard time understanding that atheism is not a worldview.

Atheism is the radical position that theists haven’t provided adequate evidence for their claims. There are no atheist holy books nor are there any popes of atheism. If you lack a belief in deities, then you are an atheist.

However, many vocal atheists do seem to share some similar points of view. This is not because they are atheists, but rather it is that their point of view has a tendency to lead toward atheism. For example, most vocal atheists tend to value science, skepticism, critical thinking, logic, and reason. While not everyone who values these things are atheists, those that do value those things are more likely to either be atheists or to become atheists. The arc of human understand of reality bends toward atheism.

What we also find is that many vocal atheists tend to share humanistic values. This is because religious dogma tends to be one of the few things that stands opposed to humanism. When people become atheists, their thinking is no longer tainted by that religious dogma and the logical conclusion tends to be humanism. For example, without a belief that homosexuality is a sin, there really is no reason to oppose same-gender marriage. As a result, most vocal atheists are supportive of gay rights. The same is true with women’s rights and the rights of others.

This said there are many atheists who are not active within the greater community of reason. Some of those atheists don’t value science and humanism the way the majority of modern atheists do. They simply lack a belief in deities. That’s fine because atheism isn’t a religion. It isn’t a worldview. There are no atheist holy books.
...
Humanism is certainly a large part of my worldview, so if I had to give a simple answer that might be it. Atheism, however is not a worldview in and of itself..
http://www.examiner.com/article/atheism ... ew?cid=rss
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

St. Josef Stalin

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 28, 2014 5:03 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
Raised in the Georgian Orthodox faith, Stalin became an atheist. He followed the position that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. His government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, anti-religious propaganda, the anti-religious work of public institutions (Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s, it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.[97]

Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction as a public institution: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938.[98][99] During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, and thousands of parishes were reactivated until a further round of suppression during Khrushchev's rule. The Russian Orthodox Church Synod's recognition of the Soviet government and of Stalin personally led to a schism with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.
Just paint
the picture of an Atheist Saint
and we have St. Josef Stalin.

While we all agree
of the
crimes that Stalin
did to humanity
in the name of imposing an absolute
I don't believe in absolutes
unless it's backed by empirical truths
and empirical truths
are by nature not absolute.

Atheists
aren't all good or bad
and Theists aren't all good or bad.

It's quite sad
that a Nationalist Movement to Canonize
the nice
Josef Stalin does exist
and Paintings of this Saintly Atheist
do exist.

For people of all beliefs
to co-exist
Freedom of Belief
must exist.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... saint.html
Mr Putin's presidency appeared to support a campaign to rehabilitate Stalin, with television documentaries, films and books released in recent years eulogising him.

A newly published history text book, approved by the Kremlin for use in all schools, glossed over the more unappealing parts of Stalin's rule and ultimately concluded that he was the Soviet Union's most successful leader.

"Stalin is the most popular name in Russia," said Sergei Malinkovich, the Communist party leader who is driving the Stalin canonisation campaign.

"The people have forgiven him for the repressions, the collectivization, the elimination of cadres of the Red Army and other inevitable errors and tragedies of those cruel military and revolutionary times.

"Stalin has become the true national leader of Russia. He turned a backward country into an industrial giant."

Yet the idea of tuning Uncle Joe into Saint Joe has so far won little official backing from the Orthodox Church, which was one of Stalin's chief victims.

Seeking to establish atheism as the Soviet Union's official creed, Stalin destroyed thousands of churches and sent tens of thousands of priests to the gulags and their deaths.

Despite the church's reluctance, St Petersburg's Communists are convinced their vision will come to pass. They have already commissioned religious icons depicting Stalin with a halo round his head that have reportedly sold very well around the city.

"By the end of the 21st century, icons of St Josef Stalin will be in every Orthodox Church," Mr Malinkovich said.
"Farewells with Stalin were organized in temples too. The first requiem for family was in church of Resurrection of Slovushchy on Filippovsky street. It was ordered by Vasily Stalin. The second was official in the Elohovsky Cathedral, served by patriarch Aleksy himself. Requiems for communistic leaders in Soviet Union churches were served never before."

Russia was a christian run country until their civil war. The religious persecutions were a power struggle between government and religious rule. It was a war over power. The (christian) Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), controlled EVERYTHING and they fought to maintain that power.

Just because a few dictators figured out that religion was bunk, doesn’t make their factual findings negative. Each dictator wants total control, just like church leaders do. There can only be one ultimate total ruler. Of course, these two dictatorships always clashed for power. This does not somehow make the church the hero. It is 2 evil powers clashing.
http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/12264851095
The English term "empirical" derives from the Greek word ἐμπειρία, which is cognate with and translates to the Latin experientia, from which we derive the word "experience" and the related "experiment". The term was used by the Empiric school of ancient Greek medical practitioners, who rejected the three doctrines of the Dogmatic school, preferring to rely on the observation of "phenomena".[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Reject dogma, create your own religion!

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 28, 2014 6:23 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Good_and_Evil
Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche accuses past philosophers of lacking critical sense and blindly accepting dogmatic premises in their consideration of morality. Specifically, he accuses them of founding grand metaphysical systems upon the faith that the good man is the opposite of the evil man, rather than just a different expression of the same basic impulses that find more direct expression in the evil man. The work moves into the realm "beyond good and evil" in the sense of leaving behind the traditional morality which Nietzsche subjects to a destructive critique in favour of what he regards as an affirmative approach that fearlessly confronts the perspectival nature of knowledge and the perilous condition of the modern individual.
...
In the "pre-moral period of mankind", actions were judged by their consequences. Over the past 10,000 years, however, a morality has developed where actions are judged by their origins (their motivations) not their consequences. This morality of intentions is, according to Nietzsche, a "prejudice" and "something provisional [...] that must be overcome"
I created my fair
share
of 'Fictional Religions'
like the Religions
of the Holy Worm
the Holy Chip
and that
Cosmic Cat.

This author is telling us that
invented Religions
and Traditions
maybe more suitable
to the not so terrible
Global Age
in which we engage
in not so terrible
debates
like this that at any rate
does dissipate
Religious Hate.

Maybe a Religion of none
or a Religion of one
might be a better Religion
that you simply accept without
subjecting its 'Truths'
to reason
and doubt.

Can we know based on ancient text
that's hexed
what's unquestionably true?
Countless people have been burned at the stake for simply urging others to challenge religious dogma and question beliefs. While this injunction is no longer followed literally, Jewish scriptures sanction the murder of anyone inviting us to change religious outlook. The Inquisition, which lasted over 600 years, fills the history of Christianity with plenty of mass killings of people whose only crime was holding unconventional opinions in matters of religion. Still today, in some Muslim countries, any Muslim who decides to abandon Islam faces the death penalty for apostasy.

Why such venom and brutality? Because many of those claiming to be speaking for God have little patience for people who want to figure out for themselves what life is about. What is so terrible about it? Because you should not search for what is wise and good. You should listen to what we tell you is wise and good.
...
Early Christians were as divided then as modern Christians are today. For example, Saint Paul advocated celibacy and held a very negative view of any type of physical pleasure, whereas second century CE Christian teacher Carpocrates stirred his followers toward juicy sexual orgies. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christian and so were the members of the Ku Klux Klan. Protestants and Catholics have slaughtered each other for a couple of hundred years all in the name of Jesus. Even today, you can find Christians who are gay and Christians who consider homosexuality to be the most horrid of sins; Christian feminists and Christians who abhor feminism; anticapitalist Christians who view the accumulation of wealth as a sin, and Christians who believe wealth to be a sign of divine blessing; Christians who are very liberal, and Christians who are very conservative. Naturally, they all believe God supports their point of view.

This same story could be repeated about pretty much any other religion. Each denomination is usually firmly convinced that it is the only one that is faithful to the original message of its tradition and accuse all others of having strayed away. The simple fact that every religion always gives rise to multiple variations (Christianity, for ex­ample, has over 30,000 different denominations) is enough to tell us that Truth with a capital t is not exactly self-evident.

Trying to figure out who is right is a hopeless undertaking. We are too far removed from the origins of most religions to establish with any degree of certainty what the founders really meant. Most established religions, in fact, are based on shaky sources. Divine rev­elations seem to indulge in the very annoying habit of popping up in semiliterate corners of the world at a point in human history long before accurate, modern means of recording information were invented. What results, then, is an endless chain of revelations be­ing told and retold over decades until somebody finally writes them down. Clearly, this is a process that leaves much room for error.

Did you ever play the game “Telephone” as a kid? Yeah, the game in which you whisper something in someone’s ear who then whispers it in somebody else’s ear, and so on down the line until the last person says out loud what he heard and everyone laughs because it usually has nothing to do with the original message. Imagine do­ing this for a few decades with a few thousand individuals before writing the results down. Then, let a few more decades/centuries go by before a council of “authorities” gets to vote on which versions are accurate and which ones need to be destroyed. As weird as it may sound, this is exactly how the modern versions of most sacred texts were produced. No wonder these texts are littered with contra­dictions. And it is on the authority of these very dubious, very old documents that followers then fight among themselves regarding the essence of the original message.

Far from being an obstacle, this confusion is a gift that most members of organized religions actually cherish. The fact that their prophets are long dead and little information is known about them makes it easier for followers to project their own ideas, values, and expectations onto their favorite authority figure—something that many believe gives more legitimacy to an ideology. This allows peo­ple to create their own religion within a respected, established tradi­tion while keeping the appearance of following the “official” version.

In the midst of these endless arguments, the founders’ original intention is clouded beyond recognition. Organized religions end up killing the insights of the prophets/gods they supposedly revere. Like demented kids hugging a puppy too tight and crushing him to death out of “love,” followers destroy their founders’ teachings with blind devotion. The freshness, beauty, and vital energy of the original message dies a miserable death when the message is turned into dogma. And what followers are left to worship is the dried-up, mummified corpse of what was maybe once a wonderful idea.

What this book invites you to do is to take responsibility for your ideas and, without slavish devotion to dogma, create your own religion.
...
Damn, it’s an exciting time to be alive. We are just a few steps away from self-destruction, but we are also a few steps away from creating a better world that could exceed the imagination of the most optimistic prophets from our past. We are dancing on a tight­rope stretched on the abyss, the destiny of the world in our hands. The weapons we take into battle are heart, vision, and creativity. What we need are new solutions that reflect the greater degree of knowledge and the radically different experiences that characterize the modern world.

The availability of a much wider range of choices is transform­ing the face of religion today. Many individuals belonging to sev­eral mainstream religions have responded by dramatically reshaping some of their core beliefs. Increasing numbers of people are opening new paths outside of the confines of mainstream religions altogether. Most traditional religions, in fact, change only under duress; other­wise, they resist change and any challenge to their authority with tooth and nail.

The most conservative, fundamentalist branches see the global world as a threat. To them, more choices mean more opportunity to fall in error and stray from the One True Way. In their worldview, choice is the Devil’s tool to lead us away from the truth. Confronted with a world offering greater chances for choosing one’s own way, their answer is to dig deeper trenches and become even more radi­cally rigid. The more freedoms human history offers us, the more fundamentalists will fight them. Despite their mutual hatred for one another, Jerry Falwell and the Taliban are twins separated at birth—modernity makes both of them recoil in horror.

I see the global world as the greatest opportunity humanity has ever had. In my view, it is healthy for traditions to be challenged. If traditional values lose popularity, it’s either because they are poorly communicated or because they are not relevant anymore. No healthy solution was ever born from whining about the good old days. As Nietzsche puts it, “[The sage] does not acknowledge custom or tradi­tion, but only new questions from life and new answers.”7 While it is not necessarily true that newer is always better, it is certainly true that any theory, religion, or philosophy that was born in the midst of intellectual poverty can only be improved upon today. Whatever was good in it will endure, and whatever fails will do so because it belongs to a darker, more ignorant world.

What we will do here then is take aim at all the central questions debated by different religions in order to see what gifts of wisdom the past has to offer us, and how we can use that to come up with our own answers.
http://www.alternet.org/books/why-we-mu ... 1#bookmark
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Jews to "give onto Caesar" & pay their taxes to Rome

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:04 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... crats.html
Mr Atwill argues that these ancient 'confessions' provide 'clear evidence' that the biography of Jesus is 'actually constructed, tip to stern, on prior stories, but especially on the biography of a Roman Caesar'.

Mr Atwill accepts that his theory will upset some believers but is confident that it will be accepted in good time.
...
But bible academic Professor James Crossley, from the University of Sheffield, compared Mr Atwill's theory to a Dan Brown fiction book.

He told Mail Online: 'These types of theories are very common outside the academic world and are usually reserved for sensationalist literature.

'They are virtually non-existent in the academic world.'
Scholar claims Jesus was fabricated by the Romans

He also suggested the theories are not taken seriously by experts.

Mr Crossley said: 'People do debate about how much we can know about Jesus, but the idea that Romans invented stories about Jesus is outside of the academic world.'

He added that this sort of theory can be 'irritating' to religion academics.

On his theory, Mr Atwill said: 'I present my work with some ambivalence as I do not want to directly cause Christians any harm, but this is important for our culture.

'Alert citizens need to know the truth about our past so we can understand how and why governments create false histories and false gods.

'They often do it to obtain a social order that is against the best interests of the common people.'
...
Atwill, who will be presenting his findings at a talk in London later this month, said the Romans turned to subtler ways of keeping order when heavy-handed tactics failed.

He said: 'Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of violent insurrection during the first century.

'When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare.

'They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system.

'That's when the "peaceful" Messiah story was invented.

'Instead of inspiring warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and encouraged Jews to "give onto Caesar" and pay their taxes to Rome.'
...
Law and order: Scholar Joseph Atwill asserts that Christianity did not start as a religion, but was instead created as a sophisticated propaganda tool to pacify subjects of the Roman Empire

'Once those sources are all laid bare, there's simply nothing left,' he added.

He says he stumbled upon his discovery while studying War of the Jews by Josephus - the only remain first-person account of first-century Judea - alongside the New Testament.

He said: 'I started to notice a sequence of parallels between the two texts.

'What seems to have eluded many scholars is that the sequence of events and locations of Jesus ministry are more or less the same as the sequence of events and locations of the military campaign of [Emperor] Titus Flavius as described by Josephus'
....
'Although it's been recognised by Christian scholars for centuries that the prophesies of Jesus appear to be fulfilled by what Josephus wrote about in the First Jewish-Roman war, I was seeing dozens more.

'What seems to have eluded many scholars is that the sequence of events and locations of Jesus ministry are more or less the same as the sequence of events and locations of the military campaign of [Emperor] Titus Flavius as described by Josephus.'

However, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica, Titus Flavius was born in 39 AD and died in 81 AD.

Estimates suggest Jesus died before 39 AD – 30 AD according to the encyclopaedia.

This was a number of years prior to Titus Flavius’s military campaign.

Mr Atwill continued: 'This is clear evidence of a deliberately constructed pattern.

'The biography of Jesus is actually constructed, tip to stern, on prior stories, but especially on the biography of a Roman Caesar.'

Atwill said the clues had gone unnoticed all this time because they are conceptual or poetic.

This, he says, was designed to prevent the average believer from becoming aware of what was happening.

They did, however, want the alert reader to cotton on.
...
Christ Appearing to Mary Magdalene by Titian: Mr Atwill accepts that his theory will upset some believers but is confident that it will be accepted in good time

He adds: 'An educated Roman in the ruling class would probably have recognised the literary game being played.'

Atwill maintains he can demonstrate that 'the Roman Caesars left us a kind of puzzle literature that was meant to be solved by future generations, and that the solution to that puzzle is "We invented Jesus Christ and we're proud of it".'

Atwill does not believe that this is the end of Christianity, but hopes his work will give half-believers a reason to 'make a clean break'.

'We've got the evidence now to show exactly where the story of Jesus came from,' he says.
JESUS, TITUS AND THE REVOLT

Roman general Pompey conquered Jerusalem in 63 BC.

Estimates suggest Jesus was born between 6-4 BC, and died around 30 AD.

Roman emperor Titus Flavius was born in 39 AD and died in 81 AD.

The first Jewish revolt occurred between 66-70 AD, the first in a long series of clashes up until 135 AD.

'Although Christianity can be a comfort to some, it can also be very damaging and repressive, an insidious form of mind control that has led to blind acceptance of serfdom, poverty, and war throughout history.

'To this day, especially in the United States, it is used to create support for war in the Middle East.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z35umXjR3d
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
strawman
Member
Posts: 5966
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: South Georgia

Re: Secretnude's Drabble Poetry Corner

Post by strawman » Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:05 am

When the doctors want to test for allergies, they put various materials on the skin to see what causes a reaction.

I posted a story about forgiveness and the love of a father. You posted a 10 page reaction, including tracts about Christians hunting Jews.

Looks just like a severe allergic reaction. Since I'm not a doctor, that is just a subjective observation... but wait, a doctor's diagnosis is a subjective observation! Never mind.

I recommend a set of earplugs, and the chanting of "NANANANANA" whenever you approach any place where you may be exposed.

But all sorts of people come to themselves. If you change your mind, you're welcome.
Never judge anyone until you have biopsied their brain.

"Be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle."
Known Some Call Is Air Am
Spoiler:
Non sum qualis eram = "I am not who I will be"

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

I heard all your arguments before... but I have more

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:17 am

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealotry
Zealotry was originally a political movement in 1st century Second Temple Judaism which sought to incite the people of Judaea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the Holy Land by force of arms, most notably during the Great Jewish Revolt (66-70). Zealotry was the term used by Josephus for a "fourth sect" during this period.
No hard feelings against Christians
but some do think
that Christ
was manufactured to sink
Jewish
Extremism in its day
that let us say
is where we actually got
the word Zealot.

American Zeal
in Democratizing for Real
Undemocratic foreign lands
I do understand
does fall into right wing
Christian hands
that stand by Absolute Truths
and sings
praise to the Heavenly Hosts
to get the most
out of media sound bites
like the Axis of Evil that does bite.

A Nationalistic Messianic Complex
mixed with the Military-Industrial Complex
to save other Countries
might not save lives in those Countries.
The first thing to know is where we are coming from. As atheists, we do not believe the Bible or Qu'ran has any particular merit or credibility on statements of truth, any more than a random book of fiction plucked off a bookshelf.

If we are engaging you, as a holy book-endorsing person, in discussion, there's a level of seriousness already at play. We think these topics are important, and so do you.

Suppose the atheist was countering your arguments for the existence of a god by referencing a napkin that has "God is not real" written on it. Clearly, you wouldn't see this as a valid source of information.

You give a Cosmological Argument, and the atheist responds, "But the napkin says God is not real."

You give evidence for the efficacy of prayer, and the atheist responds, "But the napkin says God is not real."

You give testimonial evidence of people who had personal experiences, and the atheist responds, "But the napkin says God is not real."

... wouldn't you get annoyed after awhile, too? It seems the other person does not even even bother to try to have a serious conversation, and so you're basically wasting your time.

After a few hundred of these types of discussions, don't you think you'd have little patience for the "napkin defense", from the onset of the discussion?

That is how we see Bible quotes. The Bible's claims are basically what you're trying to demonstrate as true, so the Bible can't be used to demonstrate that they are true. It is one thing to have a discussion about the nuances of Christian or Islamic doctrine, but we are looking for independent corroborations to the claims... not unceasing tedious monotonous references to the book you're trying to prove.
http://atheist-faq.com/why-do-you-get-i ... ses-to-you
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Don't Save me...

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:36 am

I have read the Bible
and its a terrible
work of Fiction
that I must mention
isn't only my opinion.

If you quote the Bible
to someone that rejected the Bible
you are wasting your time
and my time.

Better to engage
your 'opponent'
in a range of more decent
topics that stay away
from the Bible I say.

I was raised a Catholic and I'm sick
of the Bible
and sick
of so many Bible
Quoting Christians
that are Unchristian
in their respect
of people that aren't Christians.

I respect Christians
that keep their beliefs
private to my relief.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Bible sucks but not all of it is bad

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:36 am

http://www.alternet.org/belief/bible-ve ... eists-love
Bible believers are on shaky ground these days, which is growing ever shakier thanks to science (think Cosmos), biblical scholarship, and the internet. Church attendance and belief itself are eroding, at least among young people, at least where people are free and educated, and secularism is on the rise. So, if clear-eyed Christians can take the risk of exposing the Bible’s nasty bits, the converse should also be true—atheists should be able to acknowledge the parts that are timeless and wise.

To that end, I asked some outspoken anti-theists and other champions of secularism what they think are the best verses in the Bible, and why. Here are their responses.

My favorite verse is the same one my Catholic Dad quoted more often than any other, by far: “Do not judge lest you be judged." (See Matthew 7:1-5). When he quoted it his point was always the same, don't judge others harshly or you can and will be judged by those same standards. His stood against any double standards.

     —John W. Loftus, author of Why I Became an Atheist and The Outsider Test for Faith.

Social justice and community activism are central themes of the Bible. It is imperative that we not forget those who are in need and are voiceless. We live amongst those who are in need, it is in our best interest to ensure that their needs are met. Two of my favorite verses are Jeremiah 22:3 "This is what the Lord says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place." Proverbs 29:7 "The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern."

    —Kim Veal, Black FreeThinkers & People of Color Beyond Faith

There are a couple from Proverbs I can share: “Keep hold of instruction; do not let go; guard her, for she is your life.” 4:13 “The wise lay up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool brings ruin near.” 10:14  “An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”18:15

    —Leighann Lord, stand-up comedian

I actually have an entire favorite book: Ecclesiastes. There's lots of beautiful stuff in it about nature, human nature, and good ways to live life. It has plenty of stuff I have serious problems with, too -- the God stuff, obviously, and some other stuff as well -- but much of the philosophy and poetry is quite lovely and moving. And much of it is oddly humanist, with an awareness of how small humans really are in the scheme of things, and how fragile our lives are, and the absurdity of how important we think we are ("all is vanity"), and how much our lives are shaped by chance, and the repeated reminders of our mortality.
evil in “the Good Book,” but here are some highlights:

1. God drowns the whole earth.
In Genesis 7:21-23, God drowns the entire population of the earth: men, women, children, fetuses, and perhaps unicorns. Only a single family survives. In Matthew 24:37-42, gentle Jesus approves of this genocide and plans to repeat it when he returns.

2. God kills half a million people.
In 2 Chronicles 13:15-18, God helps the men of Judah kill 500,000 of their fellow Israelites.

3. God slaughters all Egyptian firstborn.
In Exodus 12:29, God the baby-killer slaughters all Egyptian firstborn children and cattle because their king was stubborn.

4. God kills 14,000 people for complaining that God keeps killing them.
In Numbers 16:41-49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.

5. Genocide after genocide after genocide.
In Joshua 6:20-21, God helps the Israelites destroy Jericho, killing “men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” In Deuteronomy 2:32-35, God has the Israelites kill everyone in Heshbon, including children. In Deuteronomy 3:3-7, God has the Israelites do the same to the people of Bashan. In Numbers 31:7-18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they take as spoils of war. In 1 Samuel 15:1-9, God tells the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites – men, women, children, infants, and their cattle – for something the Amalekites’ ancestors had done 400 years earlier.

6. God kills 50,000 people for curiosity.
In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant. (Newer cosmetic translations count only 70 deaths, but their text notes admit that the best and earliest manuscripts put the number at 50,070.)

7. 3,000 Israelites killed for inventing a god.
In Exodus 32, Moses has climbed Mount Sinai to get the Ten Commandments. The Israelites are bored, so they invent a golden calf god. Moses comes back and God commands him: “Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.” About 3,000 people died.

8. The Amorites destroyed by sword and by God’s rocks.
In Joshua 10:10-11, God helps the Israelites slaughter the Amorites by sword, then finishes them off with rocks from the sky.

9. God burns two cities to death.
In Genesis 19:24, God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah with fire from the sky. Then God kills Lot’s wife for looking back at her burning home.

10. God has 42 children mauled by bears.
In 2 Kings 2:23-24, some kids tease the prophet Elisha, and God sends bears to dismember them. (Newer cosmetic translations say the bears “maul” the children, but the original Hebrew, baqa, means “to tear apart.”)

11. A tribe slaughtered and their virgins raped for not showing up at roll call.
In Judges 21:1-23, a tribe of Israelites misses roll call, so the other Israelites kill them all except for the virgins, which they take for themselves. Still not happy, they hide in vineyards and pounce on dancing women from Shiloh to take them for themselves.

12. 3,000 crushed to death.
In Judges 16:27-30, God gives Samson strength to bring down a building to crush 3,000 members of a rival tribe.

13. A concubine raped and dismembered.
In Judges 19:22-29, a mob demands to rape a godly master’s guest. The master offers his daughter and a concubine to them instead. They take the concubine and gang-rape her all night. The master finds her on his doorstep in the morning, cuts her into 12 pieces, and ships the pieces around the country.

14. Child sacrifice.
In Judges 11:30-39, Jephthah burns his daughter alive as a sacrificial offering for God’s favor in killing the Ammonites.

15. God helps Samson kill 30 men because he lost a bet.
In Judges 14:11-19, Samson loses a bet for 30 sets of clothes. The spirit of God comes upon him and he kills 30 men to steal their clothes and pay off the debt.

16. God demands you kill your wife and children for worshiping other gods.
In Deuteronomy 13:6-10, God commands that you must kill your wife, children, brother, and friend if they worship other gods.

17. God incinerates 51 men to make a point.
In 2 Kings 1:9-10, Elijah gets God to burn 51 men with fire from heaven to prove he is God.

18. God kills a man for not impregnating his brother’s widow.
In Genesis 38:9-10, God kills a man for refusing to impregnate his brother’s widow.

19. God threatens forced cannibalism.
In Leviticus 26:27-29 and Jeremiah 19:9, God threatens to punish the Israelites by making them eat their own children.

20. The coming slaughter.
According to Revelation 9:7-19, God’s got more evil coming. God will make horse-like locusts with human heads and scorpion tails, who torture people for 5 months. Then some angels will kill a third of the earth’s population. If he came today, that would be 2 billion people.
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=21
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

You don't seem to respect me

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:55 am

strawman wrote:When the doctors want to test for allergies, they put various materials on the skin to see what causes a reaction.
....
But all sorts of people come to themselves. If you change your mind, you're welcome.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman
Ehrman became an Evangelical Christian as a teenager. In his books, he recounts his youthful enthusiasm as a born-again, fundamentalist Christian, certain that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error.[2] His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages and to textual criticism. During his graduate studies, however, he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled. He remained a liberal Christian for 15 years but later became an agnostic after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.
I warned you not to save me
but you still seem to hope
to save me.

You said that you aren't out
to save me
but your comments of hoping
to save me
betrays that as a lie
and it isn't Christian
to lie.

I stated my rejection
of Religion
quite clearly as my strong position.

You better wake up to the fact
that some people react
this way
to let us say
persistent
and insistent
holier than thou hounding
that's sounding
quite old
like the old
Book
that I already took
a good look
at and rejected
quite dejectedly.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/act-fo ... sts-on-tv/
On “The Good Wife,” lawyer Alicia Florrick (Julianna Margulies) has always found it hard to understand her teenage daughter Grace’s (Makenzie Vega) fervent conversion to Christianity. and in the aftermath of the shooting death of Will Gardner (Josh Charles), that particular source of friction between them acquired a new spikiness.

“What does that mean, Grace? He’s in heaven? With angels and clouds?” Alicia demanded when her daughter told her that Will was “with God.” “What does it mean if there is no God? Why is that any better?” Grace asked of her mother. “It’s not better,” Alicia responded. “It’s just truer. It’s just not wishful thinking.” But Grace, with a sharp insight into her mother’s personality, had another suggestion. “Always believing the bad, maybe that’s wishful thinking too,” Grace told Alicia.  

The exchange was as much about who the characters know each other to be–Alicia worries that Grace is naive, while Grace is concerned that her mother denies herself sources of happiness and comfort. But it also allowed the characters their perspectives without any urge to resolve their disagreement. Alicia seems an unlikely candidate for a climactic conversion.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Give Context so as not to be taken out of context

Post by secretnude » Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:42 pm

Screw Biblical Quoting
without quoting
why you are quoting
it in the first place.

In the first place
it maybe misinterpreted
as a misguided
attempt to 'convert'
me when I already
said that a conversion
attempt maybe
a version
of wasting time.

It's time
to move on to other
matters.

To you salvation matters
but it doesn't matter
to me and you do see
that it might not matter
what you do.

What you do
does speak louder
than what you say.

I'm okay with Biblical quotes
placed in 'quotes'
with proper context
of why you did quote the text.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

Post Reply