I Speak Directly to God

This is a humour piece, and I wrote it because it seems more and more Christian religions are saying that magic and witchcraft exist. Even the Catholic Church seems to be getting in to the act, by recruiting priests to do exorcisms. So, because I wanted to know the truth, and because "if you can't beat them, join them", here is my own conversation with God on the subject.

My sister, who is a Born Again believer suggested in an email a while back that I talk to God.

"I recommend this, that you simply communicate with God directly. Tell Him you are interested in knowing the truth. Is Jesus the only hope for humanity? Is the Bible His Word? Am I lost forever without Jesus? Something like that. And since God doesn't care for mere curiosity, tell Him you are willing to accept truth as He reveals it to you. If your can agree with that prayer, try it."

I never thought of speaking to God directly, but she was right. If God could take the time to talk to charlatans like Peter Popoff, Benny Hinn and Pat Robertson, I figured He might welcome a break to talk to me. I thought why not try, and it would make my sister happy. I didn't get an answer right away, so I asked her how long I should wait, and she said "Give Him time and expect Him to answer you."

"So while I'm giving Him time, is it OK if I continue to bash Pat Robertson in my blog, or does that interfere with the process?"

When I got my chance to talk to God, I could not see God, and I didn't even hear Him, instead, the thoughts just popped into my head. So I have no  proof it was God, but then I never saw Pat Robertson produce any Polaroids of God, or recordings of his conversations with God either.

This is how the conversation went.

I: God, will you speak to me?

God: Go ahead. This is God.

I: (Utterly shocked) I forgot what I was going to say.

God: You were going to ask me if witchcraft and black magic exist.

I: How did you know?

God. I read your blog regularly. Oh yeah, also I am omniscient. Anyhow, continue.

I: Do witchcraft and black magic exist?

God: No. They are made up by people. Along with all spells and demonic possessions.

I: So for sure I don't need an exorcism or anything?

God: Well if demon possessions don't exist, why would you think you need an exorcism to cure it?

I: OK Next question. Did you write the bible?

God: No, but there are a few things in it that I believe, if you know what you're looking for.

I: Is Pat Robertson going to hell?

God: There is no hell, and for that reason, and only that reason, no.

I: How can I be sure I am talking to God right now, and that I'm not talking to myself?

God: Maybe if you ask me some better questions?

I: It seems kind of suspicious to me that you seem to agree with all my previous beliefs.

God: I admit, it's a bit of a coincidence. Would it help if I disagreed with you on some points?

I: Yes, that would probably help me understand I am not talking to myself.

God: So ask another question.

I: Was Darwin right about evolution?

God: He made a lot of mistakes. But the biggest was where he got the whole thing backwards.

I: Wow, Darwin got it backwards. What do you mean?

God: Monkeys evolved from humans. Otherwise he was pretty close.

I: Well, that was not what I thought, so maybe I am not talking to myself after all.

God: There you go.

I: Could you give me a prediction of the future to prove I am really talking to you?

God: I could, just don't ask for lottery numbers or stock market insider information.

I: How about predicting who will win the Stanley Cup?

God: Well, not the Leafs, that's for sure.

I: Could you be more specific?

God: You mean name the actual team that will win?

I: Yes, the team that will win the Stanley Cup this season.

God: Vancouver continues to build to their very strong lineup. Keith Ballard was picked up in a trade with Florida during the NHL draft last weekend.Then much sought after Dan Hamhuis was signed as a free agent on July 1. Then the team added some role players - Manny Malhotra and Joel Perreault, and Jeff Tambellini. Cody Hodgson has done everything there is to do in junior hockey and is likely to make the Canucks out of training camp. But likely the best move was to let Kyle Wellwood and Pavel Demitra leave through free agency. So I would say Vancouver.

I: So Vancouver Canucks then?

God: Yes, they will win.

I: So if they actually win, I'll know I was talking to God. If not, I am just listening to voices in my head.

God: That's right. Well, I have to go now. That pest Pat Robertson is on the other line. May Me be with you.

I: Thanks. See you again in June when the playoffs are over. Or maybe not, if the Canucks don't win.

Footnote: The discussion of the Canucks came from the blog "The Curse of Frank Mahovlich"


Picture: Direct line to God at Burning Man festival, link below. That is not me in the picture, I would be just waiting my turn.
http://eleventhcommandmentblog.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html

The War on Terror is Really About Cults

The "War on Terror" is not going as well as it could, and we really need to rethink our basic assumptions about it. By basic assumptions, I mean we need to question what is the essence of terrorism, and if we know what it is, then can we come up with an effective method to fight it?

We could think of terrorism as a criminal activity, or a cult activity, or we could think of it as a clash of civilizations. Each one would require a slightly different approach, and maybe terrorism is a broad enough concept to have elements of all three. But the approach we seem to have committed to most strongly is treating it as a clash of civilizations. Therefore we are fighting two wars using modern military technology against guerrillas (terrorists, freedom fighters, militant Islamists). This technique seems to be a self reinforcing diagnosis, and the more we treat it as a war, the more it becomes a war. And as I said, this is not working too well.

We could treat terrorism as a crime, but we do not seem to have the international system of justice and enforcement to bring it totally under control. So that seems unsatisfactory also.

We rarely try to treat it as a cult activity. A cult is a group that makes members psychologically dependent on it, and controls their behaviour this way. I suspect that a large part of terrorism has cultish aspects. Although we often blame the Islamic religion, the truth is that these are cults within Islam. A cult does not have any true religion. A cult adopts whatever religion is handy. We have many thousands of cults or near-cults in North America, and many of them use the name of Jesus. Back in the sixties, it seemed cults had a lot of success with eastern religions, and so many of them went with Hare Krishna or some other faddish religion. In the middle East, these cults go with Allah, because the usual way for cults to work is to start off with a popular local religion and simply use the local God as one tool in their bag of mind control tricks.

The reason we don't want to face the reality of cults is that so many North Americans are in cults, and they do not want the light of reason to be shone too brightly on their activities. Many of these cults are benign, and don't disobey the law in any way, although some are violent and perform terrorist acts. But even law abiding cults still cause grief to families who lose members to them. Deprogramming is an effective technique to use against cults, and many cults have been weakened, as their followers have been rescued through these techniques.

Take for example Omar Khadr, a story that has elements of all three. He was rounded up using a war, with bombers, and soldiers killing most of his cult-like party. He was tortured during interrogation, and I don't even know whether that activity falls under war, justice, or some sort of medieval throw back to the dark ages or the inquisition. Then he was put on a show trial, with some elements of a legal system, however flawed that might be. As a result, he will spend the next year in solitary confinement, after which he may be eligible for release in Canada. All of these things are unsatisfactory to some degree.

If we had recognized the cultish aspect of terrorism, we could have used deprogramming from the start. Instead we seem to be increasingly blaming the Islamic religion.

Many cult like churches in the USA, have an agenda that includes a broad based struggle against deprogramming, so this was never tried in our "War on Terror". The cultish Christians also have a belief in the end of the world, and the superiority of Jesus over Allah, and as a result find a holy war not only acceptable, but pre-ordained by God. Of course they are going to suppress any talk of terrorism being nothing more than another form of cult activity, which happens to borrow its rhetoric from the Koran instead of the Christian Bible. (And in case you are wondering, the Bible has plenty of quotes to support any kind of evil activity if you twist the words enough) For example, Elizabeth Smart's kidnappers were Jesus based cultists who used the bible to justify kidnapping and rape.

Americans do not really need the cults to fight a war on terror, as they have the military. But some people in the middle East have discovered the use of cults as a serious weapon in their fight against the USA or even the USSR.


Deprogramming works: http://www.cultnews.com/?p=1814

Top Ten Cults: http://listverse.com/2007/09/15/top-10-cults/

Picture: Cultish practices, http://www.squidoo.com/wordoffaith

The Omar Khadr Case: Is the War on Terror a Real War?

Although the Omar Khadr case is full of contradictions, it also holds the key to understanding the "War on Terrorism". You can read about it in this Australian news story, much easier to understand than any Canadian papers, as we Canadians are too involved with it.

This case sums up the contradictions in the war on terror. The essential ambiguity is that it is not a real war. In a real war, you have countries fighting each other with uniformed soldiers. Terrorism is stateless, there is no enemy country. The military is fighting underground organizations. There are some people who think that the fight against terror should be an international police effort, that terrorism should simply be considered a crime, and the perpetrators captured and put on trial in a normal court of law. But other people argue that it is more than criminal activity, and police action is not enough to stop it.

The Omar Khadr case exemplifies the confusion between war and police action. In a real war, it is not considered illegal to throw a grenade, or shoot a gun. In fact Americans do it all the time. But yes, in peacetime, it is actually illegal to throw a grenade at someone, even a soldier.

Yesterday, Omar Khadr was found guilty of throwing a grenade, and sentenced to 40 years behind bars. Does that make sense in the light of what actually happened? This is the situation. A fight took place between a handful of AL Quaida members and about 100 soldier, US and allies. The American assault included air strikes that basically killed every one of the Al Quaida people, except Omar Khadr. The assault was not illegal. But at some point, a grenade was thrown at an American, and this act was considered the criminal act.

Omar may in fact be the one who threw the grenade. There is no question that he was in the house during the slaughter. Omar was the sole survivor on the Al Quaida side, and badly injured during the fight. He was also 15 years old, and a Canadian citizen. But he was not a legitimate combatant, so it was illegal for him to throw grenades at American soldiers, or shoot them, or do anything against them.

The Americans wish that it was a real war, and they could drop all the pretense of "due process of law". It would be ideal for them if the enemy would form up in battalions with uniforms, tanks, generals, barracks and headquarters. They wish the enemy would name a country that they belong to. Then we could have a nice clean war like WW2, where it is obvious who would win. (assuming the enemy had no comparable air force of course, or atomic bombs). But the real weakness of the military is that they are always fighting the last "good" war, and have no understanding of the next one.

So what we have is a new kind of war. A war where the usual conventions of war don't apply, but the usual conventions of the peace time criminal justice system do not apply either.

We actually need some new rules that make sense. Right now, Americans are making up the rules as they go along, nobody else is being consulted. And maybe they are right. But what they decide is what military combat will probably look like for many years to come.

There will be no rules to protect the enemy. Once a certain group is declared to be terrorists, then it will be legal to bomb villages where they are thought to be hiding. It will be legal to kill civilians who may or may not be the enemy. It will be illegal for anyone to shoot back, to possess arms which may injure the legitimate army (whatever country that may be, USA, or China or Russia for example). It will be legal for a country with a strong military to invade another country to root out the terrorists, and the invaded country will not need to be a real threat, or even be belligerent. It will be legal for the military to detain anyone for any reason, and it will be legal to torture detainees into naming collaborators or confessing to crimes. It will be legal to assassinate (for example by missile strike) foreign leaders who are thought to be cooperating with terrorists. It will be legal to hold trials for terror suspects, without giving them any of the traditional benefits of the legal system. It will not be necessary to honour the Geneva conventions of war unless the terrorists are uniformed soldiers, under orders, defending themselves against an attack. People of a certain religion will become legitimate targets, wherever they live, similar to the old concept of "holy war".

Although none of these characteristics are being written down in a new code of conduct yet, the rest of the world is watching, and getting the message.

Maybe we should learn the lesson of history. The world was horrified that the Nazis starved and killed millions of innocent people in concentration camps. But who invented the concept of concentration camps? I believe it was the British, during the Boer war in about 1900. They rounded up all the Boer women and children, forced them into camps, where tens of thousands of them died of starvation and disease. The lesson is, if you do something bad, sometimes other people will adopt your ways. On the other hand, Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And I believe it's still a good rule today. It's just sad that a country calling itself "Christian" seems to not get it.

Picture: I am not sure what this picture means, but I got it from the website calling itself "Satan's Rapture.com: Point of no return", and their message seems to be that the Muslims are taking over the world and all the women will have to wear a burkah. (Just my own comment here: I lived in a Muslim country for three years and never saw one burkah. So maybe the Muslims should be talking to their own women first before they try to spread that style of clothing around to blue eyed blond women, who are probably Christian or maybe atheists at worst.)

http://www.satansrapture.com/islam.htm

Why Smart Gods make Stupid Choices

In an earlier blog titled "How Intelligent is God Anyway?", I discussed how God must be infinitely more intelligent than Humans. And I gave several examples of how He could display this intelligence, and why He might not want to.

Now I want to discuss why God appears to be quite stupid to many Atheists. Here is one non-believer's argument.

So God created the entire universe, including the Garden of Eden, and put man and woman in the garden. Then he put the tree of knowledge in the garden, and a talking snake. God told Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, but then the snake said "Eat the fruit!" to Eve, and she ate it, and then convinced Adam to eat it too. Then God punished not only Adam and Eve, but every single one of their descendants, except the select few who get saved (in a later chapter.)

Although the story is a little confusing, Atheists insist that it demonstrates God's woeful lack of planning. It seems as though God did not really understand what decisions the woman's brain might make when presented with a given stimulus. And this, even though God claims to have designed every cell, every synapse, every neuron, of her brain Himself. To computer programmers, this is like writing a program where you have no clue what it does, or is even supposed to do, then with no testing, you run the program and it fails with a core dump.

If any programmer reading this has ever done what I described, my apologies for implying that you are not too smart. You may have good reason for wanting to write your program like that, or maybe you didn't have time to get it done and tested. Who knows? But I would certainly expect more from God if He was the programmer on this project. I expect Him either to know what the program will do, or to run a little test just to see what would happen first without plunging humanity into endless hellfire.

If you don't understand computer programming, maybe a more human analogy would make more sense. A parent makes a nice treehouse for his two little kids. He puts them in the treehouse with a loaded revolver and says "Do not use that revolver", then leaves them alone. Most normal parents would call that parent stupid, evil or deranged. Not hyper-intelligent.

The story of the Garden of Eden is not the only one where God comes off looking like He is not thinking a lot. What about Noah's Ark, where God drowns over 99.9% of all living creatures, including Humans, because they didn't meet his expectations, and then within a few minutes (not even hours or days) of the end of the world-wide flood, things are right back to being just as bad as they ever were. Eventually He has to send His only Son down to straighten out the mess, and He gets crucified. For the next 2000 years at least, humanity is still just as bad (or possibly even worse) than it ever was.

OK, so it seems that God, to our limited human intelligence, appears like a deranged mental case with the emotional maturity of a three year old. To explain why smart Gods make stupid choices, we are frequently told that humans are just too stupid to be able to appreciate His mysterious plan. That's true, I suppose, but if so, I am not the only one who thinks God's plans don't work very well. Apparently God thinks so too. And He should know better than me.

I have an idea of a way to settle matter once and for all if God is a Genius or a compete idiot. I will challenge God to a simple game of chess. Here is how it works. I set up the chess board and give God white, let Him make the first move. In order to get the moves from God, I would have to go through one of the people who God speaks to directly (God does not speak directly to me, that's for sure). Maybe someone like Pastor Terry Jones of Dove World Outreach, or just about anyone with a direct line to God. All that person needs to do is get the next move directly from God, and send it to me.

A few ground rules:
-Any side that gives an invalid move, will be disqualified, infinite intelligence or not.
-I am allowed to consult with any human for my counter moves, that would not be considered cheating, as Humans are all less intelligent than God.
-We are using the honour system to prevent cheating. i.e. if I use witchcraft or voodoo, or God uses a computer to make His moves. Either one is cheating.
-No specified time limit, but God gets disqualified if He makes me wait until I die of old age to give me His move.
-Any lightning, plagues, floods, earthquakes, or tornadoes  that interrupt the game will result in disqualification of the side causing the disruption.

So, if you, or anyone you know has a direct line to God, and wishes to demonstrate God's infinite intelligence, please send me the first move for God's side, leave it in a comment below.

Picture: found it in several locations on the Internet with no source given. I guess it's public domain.

Explaining America to the Rest of the World: "Koran Burning"

Sometimes, a story in the media is lost in translation as it goes from one country to another, where language, history and culture are different. This headline is an example:

"Pastor Terry Jones, of the Dove World Outreach Center will Burn Korans on 9/11"

Let me explain each point of this story for non-Americans. (Actually I'm not an American myself, but it is becoming clear that one of the main uses of Canadians is to translate from "Americanisms" to "Rest of the world language" and vise versa.

Let's start with "Dove World Outreach". In America, the second word, "world", does not mean the same as what foreigners think it means. "World" simply means whatever Americans want it to mean. For example, the "World Series" of baseball does not mean the rest of the world participates. In football (soccer), "World Cup" means the rest of the world does participate. So "World" to Americans sometimes means only the USA, or occasionally, the USA plus some foreigners.

The first word "Dove" may also be a little confusing. A Dove is a universal peace symbol. But Americans do not see "peace" the way other people do. To Americans, peace is more or less synonymous with "Superior firepower". This of course explains why all the members of the "Dove World Outreach" carry loaded pistols.

The last word is also a bit different. To most people, "outreach" implies to reach out and help other people. To Americans, it also can mean if help is not accepted to at least "send a message" that if they do not accept help, their behaviour will not be tolerated.

So now we have taken care of the first three words. Hopefully, things are beginning to make sense.

Now the most important word, "Pastor". In America, a Pastor can be anyone with ten dollars and an internet connection. You do not need to be "hired" by a Bishop or Pope or Imam. You also do not need followers, although it's a nice to have, and adds a little credibility. But the followers can be your wife and kids for example. You can also have followers by getting a TV or radio station or a website. Anyone who can hold a sign or sing or make comments on a blog or shoot a gun, can be a useful follower.

Second thing about American Pastors. Everywhere else in the world, a religious figure has a boss to answer to. Not in America, where people and religions are free. In most countries there are at most a handful of religions. In the USA, there are over 40,000 more-or-less independent religions often referred to as "churches".

The last aspect of being an American Pastor, that needs further explanation. Pastors do not need an education either. I really don't know what the minimum requirement for a pastor is, and not to insult my friends and relatives who are pastors, but I don't think there is a minimum requirement (except maybe for having a pulse). That is not to say there are no really good, educated, brilliant pastors. It's just that in America, unlike the rest of the world, there is no minimum requirement.

Finally, the phrase "book burning". Everyone must understand that to Americans, burning stuff is not as horrifying as it is in other parts of the world. Americans do not feel strongly about waste, like many other countries do. Americans regularly burn garbage in their back yards without a permit. Garden waste, brush, and household garbage including small T.V.s, disposable diapers, and Dixie Chick CD's have been burned . It is my belief (I have no proof) that even bibles may have been burned along with other books in the trash. The only thing no American is allowed to burn is the US flag. But since US flags are burned frequently in the rest of the world, then some Americans don't see why there is a problem burning the Koran in the USA. (except that for some reason the rest of the world thinks it is a problem). At any rate, Korans have already been burned and flushed down toilets, so why would anyone would care about a few more.

On the other hand, some Americans associate book burning with the Nazis. So they are conflicted about the symbolism. But then it's also important to remember that not all Americans are alike. You have the entire range from insane redneck racists, to liberal pinko fag pacifists, and everything in between, even including many well educated world travellers who can even speak French or other foreign languages.

So now everyone can understand the context of the headline "Pastor Terry Jones, of the Dove World Outreach Center will Burn Korans on 9/11". Apparently he decided not to in the end, but there are plenty of other crazy pastors out there, so don't be surprised.

Picture: One of my photoshop efforts. It is Terry Jones' head on the body of a girl with a handgun and a crazy T-shirt. I crossed out MOON and substituted KORAN, and I put the words at the top of the picture.

Koran Burning at the Dove World Outreach

Or: Reach out and Burn Some Books

Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville Florida is planning to burn copies of the Koran on 9/11. On their website, they have a blog on "Ten Reasons to Burn the Koran". I tried to read it, but the blog was temporarily out of service.

But, not to worry, there was another blog on the Dove World Outreach website: "Five more reasons to burn the Koran".

http://www.doveworld.org/blog/5-more-reasons-to-burn-the-koran


On the page I linked above, I saw two replies, both from Joel Cushing.

After reading his reply, I realized I would never be able to write anything as good, so I'll just leave the link to it in my blog. But if the Dove World webmaster "burns" Joel's reply, like they are planning to burn the Koran in the real world, I do have a copy and will be prepared quote it on my blog.

Photo: This is a Reuters photo of a mural in Bethlehem by Banksy, to which I added fire and the words, using Photoshop.

Jesus is In It to Win It

Before I begin, I am not a believer in the pro-war Jesus.  So read this in light of the fact that I do not think it is right for pro-war Christians to boast of their peacefulness, while ignoring Jesus's messages to love those that hate them.

Pro-war Christians argue that Jesus came as a strong warlike God, not as a wimpy pacifist. You can take a look at the web page I linked to here, to see many arguments for a warlike Jesus, and to re-interpret everything Jesus said in light of right wing pro-war conservatism.

Now, the rest of this blog is what I might think if I was hypocritical enough to believed in a pro-war Jesus.

>I kind of like the idea of Jesus as a winner, leading his troops to victory over the heathens, and not a pathetic loser pacifist. Once all the liberal crapola is removed from the Gospel of Jesus, I finally do get His message,

The Short Version of the Gospel According to Pro-War Jesus

Once upon a time, God looked down from the heavens, and decided that His people of Earth were not powerful enough or rich enough, so he sent his only begotten son to restore their God given lifestyle. Jesus came to Earth, with the good news "Get yourself a sword" (or a gun, in case they have been invented by the time you read this).

Jesus taught us these important words in his Gospel:

Matt. 10:34 reads:

34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword (New International Version, NIV)

And Luke 22:36 reads:

36 [Jesus] said to [the disciples], "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag; and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one." (New Revised Standard Version, NRSV)

Then Jesus went into the temple and overturned the tables of the money changers. By this one example, we know that God wants us to act aggressively to get what we want.

Then Jesus performed miracles etc. to prove once and for all he was God.

In the end, sadly Jesus was crucified. At first it looked like He was just another loser in a long list of losers posing as God, but no, that turned out to be the final victory for Jesus, because he only died for a three days then came back to life with even more superpowers. And better yet, by being crucified, He pre-paid for all of Man's future sins. So Christians became powerful and rich, as God intended. And if any sins were committed along the way by true Christians, Jesus had already paid for them. Praise the Lord.

Now about that "turn the other cheek" slogan that pacifists are endlessly spouting off about. That is another teaching from Jesus, frequently misquoted by liberals to promote appeasement, light sentences for rapists, and pacifism. If you liberals knew anything about Biblical times, what Jesus actually meant was: if somebody strikes you on the cheek, they obviously used the back of their hand as an insult, therefore by turning the other cheek, you force them to strike you with the FRONT of their hand, meaning that you are now an equal. In Biblical times, that meant you were free to pound the crap out of them.

But Jesus was a very clever God, so he gave this quote a double meaning and two purposes. The other reason Jesus gave this quote is so that, in the future, if Christians want to lure their enemies into a trap, they can use this quote out of context. That way, Christians can speak of their Lord's desire for peace, and then when the enemy comes to the peace talks, the Christians can ambush and slaughter them.

Is this a great religion or what?

Who Promotes the Gun Culture: Liberals or Conservatives?

I came across what seems to be a reasonable creationist, making a statement about James Lee, the hostage taker at Discovery Channel. In his blog, he had these words:

"before anyone gets too smug about how Darwinism leads to violence, let's remember two words: James Kopp. You know, the guy who bought a sniper rifle and assassinated abortionist Barnett Slepian? The fact is that deranged people do violent things because they're deranged. Darwin no more caused Lee's violent acts than the Bible caused Kopp's."

Well at least no one can accuse blogger Todd Wood of being one sided. On the other hand this was the first time I heard that Darwin causing James Lee to buy a gun and take hostages.

But now I have a name, let me try to compare the two acts in several different ways.

1. James Kopp killed someone, James Lee did not. You may think this is splitting hairs, or that this is unimportant. But there is a fundamental difference in what these people did. Both were arguably deranged, but one was also a murderer. Pointing a gun at someone is not the same as shooting someone in cold blood.

2. Nobody directly or indirectly incited James Lee to do anything.

3. There has been no support shown for James Lee's methods or even the terms of his manifesto after the fact. There was support for James Kopp even after he killed the doctor.
http://my.execpc.com/~awallace/herokopp.htm

4. Kopp is not the only killer. There were other incidents, such as the bombing of abortion clinics on the other side. Also, at least one other abortionist was murdered, Dr. George Tiller (I think it was May 2009) Also Dr. Tiller had been shot and wounded before. Let's not forget John Lennon being murdered by a Born-Again Christian, incited by other people in his church.

5. James Lee threatened The Discovery Channel, which was supposedly on his side, whereas James Kopp murdered Barnett Slepian who was an opponent of his.

So in the final analysis, Todd's assertion is true. Darwin did not cause Lee's violent acts any more than the Bible caused James Kopp to commit murder. But on the other hand, nobody supported Lee's idea of pointing a gun at someone. Many creationists supported James Kopp's actual act of violence. And other creationists have carried out other murders.

So if somebody says James Lee is equivalent to James Kopp, what they are saying in an underhanded way, is that Darwinism and Environmentalism did something to incite James Lee.

These two events are not equivalent. There is still the clear rhetoric of incitement, and the evidence of other acts of violence incited by the right wing (and religious) extremists.

I think the evidence is solid that the right wing extremists are doing the overwhelming amount of violent incitement, especially with the use of guns. Another clue is that the left has been trying to pass "Hate Laws" making it illegal to incite violence, while conservatives oppose such laws. Nobody bats an eye when right wing Christian TV Evangelist Pat Robertson calls for assassination of opponents publicly on television. Have you ever heard Michael Moore or Al Gore calling for the assassination of anyone?

In my opinion, with the gun-happy culture in the USA, promoted by conservatives (including Christians) , it's surprising that more people have not turned to guns as the answer. You can hardly turn on a TV without seeing people waving guns at each other.

Here is a blog on the consequences of violent conservative rhetoric.

http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2010/03/consequences-of-conservative-speech.html

How Intelligent is God, Anyway?

How intelligent is God? Well, that question may depend on the answer of a more basic question: Can intelligence exist without a physical presence. A physical presence could be an organic brain, or something like computer chips.

When humans first began to speculate on the intelligence of God, they did not know that human intelligence is the result of a process that takes place in our brains, and that the brain has the equivalent of electrical circuits that transmit energy signals. Today we have a much better understanding of the physical process we call "intelligence", as we now can build semi-intelligent computers out of electrical circuits.

The early humans thought that intelligence was something like a miracle, or magic, without any physical process taking place. Therefore, it was easy for them to believe that God, who came before the universe existed, could be intelligent, and think, and make plans. And since they did not know intelligence as a physical process,they assumed that God's intelligence could exist before the creation of the universe. Based on that assumption, Man's own intelligence was simply a gift from God. But just a very small amount of what God Himself had.

As our understanding of intelligence, and the brain has increased, it might be time to reassess our assumptions about God's intelligence. Either God's intelligence has a physical presence or not. Its not possible for me to tell whether or not God has a huge brain tucked away in some other dimension of time and space, so I will go on assuming God's brain exists in some way, and begin estimating God's intelligence.

In theory God is so intelligent that he never has faulty logic, he has unlimited memory, and so can remember perfectly everything that happened since the beginning of time. He can also figure things out in virtually no time, no matter how complicated they are, so he also has infinite speed both in processing logic, and in recall.

But God could not have infinite intelligence if his brain was made up of chemical synapses and neurons and brain cells, like ours. Because it simply could never work fast enough. So that should really put an end to any speculation that man is made in God's image.

By comparison to God's brain power, Man has very slow processing speed, flawed logic, limited memory both in size and in duration. Man suffers from mental dysfunction such as megalomania, delusions, superiority complexes, xenophobia, and dubious motivation. God does not.

Can the difference in intelligence between man and God can be thought of as similar to the difference between an Amoeba and a human? If not an Amoeba, (because it has no detectable intelligence), maybe a better comparison is an ant colony. Ants build cities, ants have slaves, cattle (other insects), grow fungus for food, and make war. So pretty much like humans, then. Maybe too much.

If you gave God a normal human I.Q. test, and if he actually took the trouble to complete it, and hand it in, you would find that He had completed the test in less than a nanosecond, and the only answers he had wrong were ones where the test question was ambiguous, or the official answer scheme was in error. In either event, His score would place Him in the top percentile of the test, way more than He needs to become a member of Mensa (top 2% of scores).

God does not need to get His information from Fox News, or any other TV channel or any newspaper, because He knows everything already. He also knows everything that has ever appeared in print or on TV and can recall it exactly. Along with every radio broadcast and phone call ever made. God has also memorized every page ever written, and every web page on the Internet, and every rough draft prior to publishing that page. He has even memorized all the art work that Kindergarten kids have made, and all the essays written by school kids. God even knows the every movement of every ant that has ever existed.

God does not get faked out by optical illusions, God is not distracted by bright flashes and loud noises. That means his eyes are not made like human eyes. Very likely does not have eyes as we know them.

Human thoughts and opinions can be messed up by peer pressure. God would never have problems with peer pressure (He has no peers.) God would not have double standards. It would be impossible for God to be prejudiced, or biased in any decisions. God does not have a problem with intelligent people asking questions or looking for answers. Also, God would never believe that He was created by God. And God can fact-check Fox News easily in real time, so he would never believe any misstatements He heard on that channel (or any other, for that matter).

So that leaves us with this eternal question:
If Man is so stupid as to not be able to figure stuff out, or even remember what he has managed to figure out, why does God actually care what man thinks about him? Do you care what an ant thinks about you?

In all of Human history, there is only one message that could conceivably have been given to us by God. It is the message of love one another. And what do we respond to that? We ignore it and instead we worry about whether Muslims are building a mosque too close to ground zero.

Further Reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Intelligence

http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Second-Premise-God-is-Intelligent (Says failure of socialism proves God is real, while also acknowledging the early Christian church was socialist)

http://godisimaginary.com/video10.htm (How about a third answer: God is real but does not get involved)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence (connection between education, intelligence and belief in God)

Also, my blog on what kind of motorcycle God would ride.
http://lostmotorcycles.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-kind-of-motorcycle-does-god-ride.html

Picture: From http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/i/intelligence.asp

Why A Mosque Must Be Built at Ground Zero Now

Just a reminder, I am not a Muslim, I do not use mosques at all, and I don't live near enough to NY city to use a mosque at ground zero anyway. But now after a public outcry against it, a mosque has to be built there.

Almost every time I hear someone explaining the case against building the mosque, the basic reason is because the Muslims are responsible for 9/11. This point of view seems to be gaining momentum, because shortly after 9/11, even George W. Bush did not try to blame Muslims in general, just a few extremists, and possibly some governments in that part of the world. (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan etc.)

Now the noose of blame is tightening around the neck of the Muslim religion.

What should the Muslims do? Quietly move their mosque somewhere else, in respect for the victims and survivors of 9/11? Or should they demand that they be allowed freedom of religion, and go ahead and build the mosque?

I would recommend that they go ahead and build the mosque, and if they are prevented by law, to fight as hard as they can (peacefully of course) against that ruling. If they are prevented from building it, or forced to move, they must challenge it loudly every step of the way. And never give up the fight.

Anything else will be seen by the American people as an admission of guilt by Muslims for causing 9/11.

Pat Robertson blamed homosexuals for 9/11. What if homosexuals decided to build a gay bar 2 blocks from ground zero, and there was a public outcry against it because it was a "slap in the face to victims"? Would it be a good idea for them to withdraw quietly and build far away? No, because that would in effect be saying, "Yes, we admit it we caused 9/11 with our homosexual ways". And you can be pretty sure that is how a percentage of the American population would eventually come to see it.

Some people blamed Israel for 9/11. Would Jews be willing to shift their Synagogues a few blocks away to avoid further controversy?

Another example of backing down from a threat, this one real, not hypothetical. Toyota recalled millions of vehicles because of a fatal accident where an accelerator pedal was stuck under a floor mat. The proper response from Toyota would have been to say "It was driver error, because, in the event a throttle gets stuck, all drivers should know how to turn off the engine or shift into neutral, or use the brakes to effectively stop the car." The very most they should have done was to refund the price of the floor mat.

But instead of taking an aggressive position, Toyota submissively recalled millions of cars for "repairs", which sealed their fate in the minds of Americans. The public thinking was "If there was nothing wrong with the cars, why did they recall millions of them?" Words to that effect were said over and over again. Toyota should have fought that recall every step of the way. The recall was the same as a confession of guilt. "Yes, we deliberately produced a rolling death trap, we are so very sorry, please punish us in any way you can".

In Nazi Germany the Jews thought that by going along with the laws to prevent them from going to school or from doing business, that they would avoid conflict and more suffering. Instead they went quietly, which convinced the German people that Hitler was right: The Jews did indeed betray Germany in WW1. And in the end, you know what happened there. The Germans decided that the Jews were guilty of treason, and if they got rid of the Jews, obviously they could win WW2.

The lesson is this: if others accuse you of a horrendous crime, it is better to go down fighting than to quietly abandon your rights.

More Propaganda: Mosque at Ground Zero

This report or editorial came from Philip Elliot (AP), 3 hours ago, about how the Republicans are attacking Obama on being insensitive.

The issue, of course is about propaganda. Obama has the best message, and that message, on a level playing field could damage the image of the Republicans, and hurt their chances in the next election. The problem is, that the media playing field is not level. In spite of the incessant propaganda telling us the media has a left wing bias, most of the media actually lean toward the Republicans. Fox News, the most watched 24 hour news channel is saturated with anti Obama propaganda.

In spite of Obama having clearly the better message, the Republicans are probably going to batter him in this round of the propaganda war.

Here is the Issue: A Muslim cultural centre has rented or bought a place two blocks from "Ground Zero" in New York.

Here is Obama's message: People of any religion are free to have meetings anywhere in the USA.

Here is the Republican Message: Obama is insulting the families of those killed in 9/11 by having a mosque built at ground zero.

If the media was unbiased, Obama should win this one. The Republican story has two glaring errors. It's not a mosque, and it's not at ground zero. Obama has a very strong point about freedom of religion, and another strong point that America has no grudge against Muslims, just against terrorists (of any religion actually).

But with a biased media, this story has the power to hurt Obama. After Fox News repeats their story for a while, echoed by the rest of the mainstream media, Obama is going to look like an out-of touch elitist who does not understand the emotional needs of real Americans.

If The Democrats try to fight back accusing the Republicans of racism, discrimination, lying and distorting facts, they are going to come off looking even more like losers.

I don't know how the left wing can win this propaganda battle, with Fox News standing guard against any reasonable Democratic arguments, but the Democrats need to send out this a strong reminder to America.

How about this message for example? "The real traitors to America are those who undermine its freedom. Liberty for all or liberty for none. You would think the Republicans, who claim to believe in "Land of the free, home of the brave", would be the most happy to have an Islamic cultural centre in New York."

The idea is to make the Republicans sound small minded and petty. Here are some specific messages to fight back on:

------------------------------
"It's not a question of whether or not they have a right to build it," Portman said. "It's a question of whether or not they should."

Answer: So it OK to have the right to do something in the USA, just as long as you don't actually try doing it. That is hypocritical.
-----------------------------

"Mr. President, ground zero is the wrong place for a mosque." Rick Scott

Answer: You win, we will not allow anyone to build a mosque at ground zero. Would you like to decide on the place? How about a block from ground zero? two blocks? a hundred miles? A thousand? Are you looking to have an Islamic centre in your home state?
---------------------------------------------------------

"Well I think it's another example of him playing the role of law professor. ... We can have a great debate about the legal arguments. But it's not about that," Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said in an interview Monday on Fox News.

Answer: So what is it about, Governor, if it not about law? Instead of the law, how about a group of angered citizens who band together to drive the Islamists out of town? Maybe this veiled reference to lynch mobs is too blatant. So word it a better, more subtle way, but this issue has to be fought, and fought hard if America is to survive as a free country.

-----------------------------------------------------------

In spite of the far better message of the Democrats, they simply cannot get their message relayed by the mainstream media. If there ever was a proof that there is no liberal bias in the mainstream media any more, this is it. If freedom of religion and rule of law get beaten by a couple of outright lies and religious bigotry, I say the mainstream media has now officially become a right wing propaganda machine.

Picture: Harper's Weekly Sept 5, 1868. Editorial Cartoon from back in a time when the American press was more balanced.

Reframing the Debate About God

There are many videos on Youtube attempting to prove that God does or does not exist. I find many of them interesting, just because of their pure logic and debating skills. But I think that in most cases the debate about God existing gets confused, and is not really about God at all.

One of the proofs of God, invented by Blaise Pascal, was called "Pascal's Wager".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

"even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose."

But Pascal's Wager was not really a proof that God exists. It was simply Pascal's logical observation that, given the choice between believing in God (with no cost or pain) and suffering in everlasting hell after you die, it would be smarter to believe in God. That is actually a "Risk Analysis", not a proof of God's existence. It is more about believing in Hell than about believing in God.

In my mind, the greatest weakness of Pascal's Wager is that you base your beliefs on the religion that threatens you with the most horrible afterlife. And only a very stupid person would ever do that.

In contrast to "Pascal's Wager", I would like to present something I dreamed up called "The Snow White Defence".

Many people who attempt to prove God exists, are not really interested in an abstract God, they really are talking about a God who also has seven other qualities or achievements.

1. Created hell and heaven
2. Looks like a Man (Including hands, feet, eyes, hair, beard, clothing etc.)
3. Performs supernatural miracles
4. Endorses only one organized religion, and denies the rest
5. Wrote the Bible
6. Wants humans to adore Him.
7. Is the one and only source of moral law.

If God is like Snow White, the seven attributes are like the seven dwarfs. The "Snow White Defence" argues that proving the existence of Snow White does not prove the existence of Sneezy, Grumpy or Dopey. (I don't remember the other names, but the same logic is true for all.)

That we dispute one of the preceding dwarfly assertions, does not actually mean we don't believe in God, if you define God as something that started the universe or something outside the known universe, or outside known laws of the physical universe. We might or might not believe in something totally outside the known universe, and call it "god" or any other name. But if God existed outside the known universe, it does not necessarily mean that God looks like a man, or wrote us a book, or sent His son to save us, or smites Haiti with earthquakes for worshipping devils, or answers prayers with miracles. Every single one of those other seven assertions are going to need to be proven separately on its own merits.

It seems to me that Evangelicals and Fundamentalists have been taking the short route to proving all their assertions, by making a big deal about proving that God exists, and then saying: We proved God exists, therefore all these other things are true, end of debate. As if their view of God is the only one possible.

Proving God exists is actually only a baby step in selling the rest of that contrived religious package, it is nowhere near the be-all and end-all. It is easier to prove a basic God might exist, and harder to disprove God's existence, than it is to prove all those other weak assertions that sneak in while debating the existence of God.

First Picture: In case you were wondering. It is not God, it is Blaise Pascal. The second picture I will assume is public domain, along with the name "Snow White". I don't want to get in any trouble with Disney, because I am pretty sure they exist.

What is "Language of Appearance"

"Language of appearance" is a concept developed by fundamentalist Christians to explain some of the language in the bible.

For example, if the Bible says "The sun rose in the east" that should not be taken as literally that the sun was rising while the earth stood still. It simply "appears" to the average onlooker that the sun is rising, while we should know (assuming we went to school) that the earth is rotating and that the sun has simply come into view over the horizon from our moving spherical platform.

Obviously, nobody wants to get rid of "Language of appearance", as it would be clumsy to refer to every sunrise as a "sunstandingstillwhilewearespinninginacircleanditcomesintoview".

But how many other examples of "Language of appearance" do we have in our common speech? In checking Google, I cannot find any. Also, there is no entry in Wikipedia to explain "Language of appearance", which is why I decided to write this blog to fill in the knowledge gap.

For example, why would the comment "Up in heaven" not be "language of appearance"? After all, we know the Earth is spinning and that Heaven cannot be up any more than down. The reason it is not "language of appearance" is that there is no appearance of heaven being up. We only think heaven is up because the Bible tells us so.

Let's try another example. Why is the phrase "Snowflakes falling" not an example of "language of appearance", because we can really see that happening. The answer is simple, if something works pretty much as we describe it, then we are describing what we see is happening. To be proper "language of appearance", the appearance would have to be radically different in some way from what really is happening.

Here are a some real of examples of "language of perception" that I didn't see on any Christian website. "Centrifugal force", is the force that appears to be pulling at us off a merry-go-round, while the reality is that there is no force pulling us off, it is only by hanging on that we are forcing ourselves to go around in a circle. Another example of language of perception is saying an apple falls from a tree. The reality is that the apple and the planet Earth are attracted to each other, and each one is moving towards the other, in proportion to their mass. But it's easier to say "the apple is falling". We say the astronauts are weightless in low orbit. In fact, if they stopped circling the Earth, they would drop like a stone. Because there is almost as much gravity in low orbit as there is on the surface of the Earth, but they appear to be weightless, or in zero gravity.

"Columbus discovered America" is another case of language of perception, if you are a European. Actually, humans had discovered America long before Columbus. Columbus was not even the first European to find America. But it's easier to say than "Columbus ran into an America that other people discovered by mistake as he was trying to find a route to India".

Now what about Revelation 7:1, which refers to angels standing at the “four corners” of the earth, as if we were to believe the Earth is flat (and square).

This could be "language of appearance", as argued on the website Christiananswers.net, only if people have actually seen these angels standing on the corners of the Earth. I would call it "verbal imagery" rather than "language of appearance". On a spherical Earth, there is no place four angels could stand to represent the four corners. You could maybe put one at the north pole, and one at the south, but there is no East or West angel standing place.

Language of appearance would apply also to the time that God "made the sun stand still". But in fact, God would have had to make the Earth stand still, not the sun. It is not the motion of the sun that makes it rise and set and helps tell time, it is the rotational movement of the Earth.

http://www.baptistlink.com/creationists/languageofappearance.htm

This Baptist website has a lot of other examples, some of which are flat wrong.

"Relative humidity is 95 percent" is claimed by this website to be another case of "language of appearance". Actually, no, it is not. We cannot see humidity, and we are not breathing water. It simply means that the air is carrying 95% of the water vapour it is able to, and if it takes 5% more, you will start to see drops of water forming into dew, or fog.

"Airspeed" is not a really good example of language of appearance either, because everybody knows the air is not moving at that speed, it is the plane that is moving. The word was originally coined to mean "the relative speed of wing through the air". But if you close your eyes and stick your head out the window of the plane, it will feel like fast moving air. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed

When we refer to an airplane's Head or nose, it is not an example of "language of appearance". It is "verbal imagery", because nobody thinks there is a real head or nose on a plane. An example of my own might be "The foot of the mountain" where we know mountains do not have feet. This is a simple form of anthropomorphism, which means human qualities, thoughts and emotions to inanimate objects or animals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

Furthermore, "wind shear" is simply a description of something that has nothing to do with shears, and "pushing the envelope" is verbal imagery.

"Moon rise", and "Star rise" again are valid "language of appearance". But it is the same example as sunrise, all about looking at the sky from the rotating platform of the Earth, so I would hardly call this "pure emotional bias against the Creator."

It seems to me that the main reason that Fundamentalists promote the concept of "Language of appearance" is to selectively choose which bits of the Bible are literal truth and which they can ignore. The most famous examples are the denial of evolution, and the acceptance of the round Earth. I would call both of those "Language of appearance" but Evangelists call one the literal truth, and the other "Language of appearance". Creation is just as much "Language of appearance" as "sunrise", because it appears to us that animals do not evolve, as it happens too slowly for us to observe.

Most modern religions use the concept of "verbal imagery" rather than "language of appearance" to understand the Bible, and I think it makes a lot more sense. Especially when you consider how their concept of "language of appearance" seems to be misunderstood by the fundamentalists who invented the term and put together these websites.

Scientific Limits to Errors

This quote about science setting a limit to infinite error caught my interest.

“The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error.” Bertolt Brecht

Bertolt Brecht was a leftist, Marxist, probably socialist, German poet who fled Nazi Germany, got to the USA and was hounded by the anti-communists in the McCarthy era, and left the USA, ending up in communist East Germany.

Every time you get a debate between scientists and anti-scientists, a pattern emerges. The evidence and proofs from anti scientists are endless, you might say infinite. For example, I once was given a set of nine videotapes, two hours long each, packed with "proofs" that evolution was a hoax. Although it was possible to refute the proofs one by one, it was apparent that someone could create these proofs in less time than it took to refute them. And because religious fundamentalists are working constantly on proving evolution is false, the mountain of "evidence" against Darwinian evolution is actually growing day by day.

Scientific people dislike false arguments. They are generally capable of recognising many of the tricks that can be used to cheat, dupe, brainwash, and hoodwink people into believing something. And scientists do not like to be duped. (of course nobody does, do they?)

On the other hand, many non-scientific people, who are not able to judge truth scientifically, see only the sheer number of arguments presented by each side. If the Religious fundamentalists have 10,000 arguments against 20 arguments as to why evolution is not a hoax, the fundamentalists appear to win. Apparently only a scientist cares that none of the fundamentalists arguments make sense, while each of the pro-evolution arguments are solid.

http://www.kent-hovind.com/evolution/evolution3.htm

A non scientific person will never admit that their only concern is the sheer number of arguments. Of course not, as that would be stupid. They will say that each one of the 10,000 arguments against evolution can and must be debated on its own, with both sides presenting their arguments.

Unfortunately, what happens when you debate Evolution, happens again on the next level when you debate, say the jawbone of Neanderthal man. Once again, fundamentalists can create more than 10,000 arguments that prove their side of the jawbone argument, while scientists can only come up with a handful of reasons why this argument is wrong.

By the principle of recursion, you can now take just one of the 10,000 jawbone arguments, and come up with 10,000 more phony arguments, at the next lower level and this can go on to infinity.

The concept of infinity is very powerful. If you wish to take just one of the 10,000 arguments against evolution, and prove it is wrong, you will get into an infinite spiral of nonsense.

To combat this infinity of errors, scientists have developed written and unwritten rules. The main one being if even one of your arguments is shaky and unsound, you are out, removed, in the penalty box, red-carded, until you remove it, apologise for it, and come back with a sound argument.

So we come back to the insight by Bertolt Brecht. Science does not try for infinite wisdom. Science does not try to answer speculative questions "what does God look like" unless there is a way to verify the answer with evidence. By not engaging in baseless and boundless speculative reasoning, science limits error. On the other hand, religious fundamentalists may argue that by simply following the bible as the word of God, they are the ones who have limited errors.

Once you eliminate the spiral of nonsense, you are left with some basic differences in philosophy. For example, the typical endgame argument between religion and science is this:

Religious: "Science has no answer for who created the universe."

Scientific: "We don't have a problem with not knowing, we do have a problem with people making s**t up"

The Message is More Important Than the Miracle

I had this thought twenty years ago. The miracles performed by Jesus were not actually a suspension of the laws of science, they were a transformation of the human spirit. Let's go over a few of them

Jesus transformed water to wine. Why? So that a wedding ceremony could be performed. In my opinion it is more believable, and actually more miraculous, and more convincing, that Jesus worked the magic in the minds of the wedding party, so that they would not spoil the wedding by complaining that there was no wine. I know it sounds a bit like a Jedi mind trick, but let's not underestimate the power of a mind trick. Is Jesus more interested performing parlour tricks to impress the locals, or is he more concerned about altering people's spirits, and making them more open minded towards using water instead of wine?

Jesus fed the multitude with loaves and fishes. Why? So that they would not be hungry during his sermon. They passed around a small basket of bread and fish, not enough for everyone. But everyone ate, and some was left over. Was it because bread and fish materialized inside the basket? Or was it because some people who brought a lunch for themselves, put some of it into the basket to share with others. I think Jesus would be more pleased with people sharing than he would be with the trick of materializing more food. Sharing is part of his message. Creating more food is not the point he was trying to make.

Now we come to the greatest miracle of all, and one that we are called to share in. Jesus said "Love your enemy". What he means, I think, is that by loving your enemy, you will find peace and security. It may not be obvious to some who trust only in weapons and brutal repression for their safety. But according to Jesus, love wins out in the end. It is a miracle, but only if we believe it and do it.

Jesus came to Earth with only one message, it was love. All the rest is froth and fluff. Today, we have some Christians who believe that praying to Jesus can heal their body's ailments, defeat their enemies, and even make them rich, with fine jewelry, and new cars.

Fundamentalist Christians say they believe every word of the bible is true, except for the part about "love your enemy". They are fine with believing that snakes can talk, that Noah's ark held all the animals in the world, that the world is going to end soon, that Jesus is coming to take them and only them to heaven, that devils and evil spirits are everywhere, that God created every man to be evil, and that God created the entire universe only to provide a little illumination in the sky of planet Earth.

But if Jesus says "love your enemy", "Judge not lest ye be judged", "If they slap you turn the other cheek", well that's where they think Jesus is just a bit naive. And so it's not possible that Jesus really mean it, he really meant get every weapon you can and fight for land that is not legally yours, and utterly destroy those that oppose you and hate you.

Some self proclaimed Christians believe every childish fairy tale in the Bible, but cannot imagine for one second that if they stopped bombing innocent people, stopped torturing prisoners, stopped stealing land by military force, that Jesus could be right, and peace might occur. Call it a miracle if you wish, but I certainly think it's a bit more likely than the silly and still unscientifically proven "miracles" being presented to us ever day by some TV evangelists.

Picture: If you really must have this action figure, or others like it, go here
http://www.mcphee.com/shop/products/Deluxe-Miracle-Jesus-Action-Figure.html

Jesus Quotes for Dummies: "Turn the Other Cheek"

There is a famous quote from Jesus "If someone slaps you on the cheek, turn the other cheek". This is considered a "provocative" teaching, in that it tells us to deny our instinct of retaliation and revenge, and adopt a non-violent response. In this short teaching, Jesus not only tells us to not respond to violence with our own violence, but to even assist the aggressor by giving him (or her I suppose) the other cheek to slap.

The original Christians took Jesus' message to mean they should be non violent in their own lives. In the early years of Christianity, it was assumed that a true Christian could not even join the military. But as Christianity spread and became the official religion of the Roman Empire, obviously the interpretation had to adapt to the new situation.

Today, many who call themselves Christians no longer have problems with this teaching, because there are now many people to help them reinterpret it, and explain what Jesus really meant, and to tell them when this teaching does not apply. With these new explanations of Jesus' teaching, Christian TV evangelists support such things as pre-emptive war, torture of prisoners, political assassination, and the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

[the following may contain sarcasm, because in my opinion this "violent Christianity" is nothing more than pure hypocrisy]

I have decided to throw this question back to Jesus Himself, and get Him to clarify this potentially frustrating situation he left us with, in trying to honestly follow His teachings. Meanwhile, there are a bunch of legitimate ways that you can get around this requirement of turning the other cheek without feeling bad that you are not following Jesus's advice.

Here are a few situations that come to mind, that I want explained by Jesus Himself.

1. Say a bad man slaps your 2 year old daughter on the face. Should you tell her to turn the other cheek, or should you offer to let the bad man slap your cheek, or are you allowed to punch the bad man's lights out?

2. Say an orangutang (which is a monkey, not a human) slaps you on the cheek. Do you have to turn the other cheek if it's not even human or can you hit back. And if you can hit back against a monkey, than what about other men of different skin colour that I, as a racist Christian, consider non-human?

3. If a bad man tries to slap my cheek, but is so uncoordinated or feeble that he cannot do it with any force, should I assist him by slamming my cheek into his hand?

4. If my country is attacked, must the entire army stand around waiting to get slapped on the cheek and then after they are slapped, turn the other cheek and surrender?

5. Say a mass murderer is caught, tried and convicted. Must we let him go, and furthermore set him up with some new potential victims? Or can we go ahead and execute him. (humanely of course)

6. Say we have a suicide bomber in custody, and he knows there is a hidden atomic bomb set to go off in New York. Can we torture him to find out where it is? And if he doesn't talk with mere waterboarding, or if we're not sure he's telling the truth, can we go ahead with mutilation. And if we're not sure mutilating him worked, can we also mutilate his wife and children? Because after all, we're talking about millions of good Christian people dying in an atomic blast vs. one little case of torture.

So I guess that should give Jesus something to think about. Next time, maybe He won't be spouting off with his left wing pacifist BS before thinking it through. Or maybe God should just check with me first before delivering any more sermons from the mount.

Until Jesus gets back to me with some answers, I think it is pretty safe for the Judeo-Christian countries to continue the policy of pre-emptive war, where, just in case another country looks like it might one day want to attack us, we can bomb the crap out of them right now and put an end to it before it starts. And we can also carry on a policy of assassination of foreign leaders who look like they are not friendly, and may one day want to slap a tariff on the oil we are drilling on their land. (Are you listening, Hugo Chavez?)

More importantly, we can continue the policy of stealing land from Palestinians, and if any of them fight back, we can bomb and kill a hundred times as many in retaliation. And if any of the suicide bombing terrorists happen to hide near women and children instead of standing out in the open, we can just go ahead and kill all of them with a clear conscience. And if we catch any terrorists we can torture them till the cows come home.

But the best part of all this is that we are still Christians, and we can still boast that we are the peace loving ones, because after all it says right in the bible that Christians "Turn the other cheek". Isn't it great to be a Christian? We are saved from hell by our personal love of Jesus.


Some other thoughts

PRO
http://satyagrahaandahimsa.blogspot.com/2006/08/turn-other-cheek.html
CON
http://www.gac.20m.com/self-def.htm

INDEX
http://turntheothercheek.direction8.intelreviewnow.com/

Pictures: So many to choose from, this is a very controversial topic I guess
1. Game http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Halo
2. Wanna buy the T-Shirt? http://www.zazzle.com/dont_make_me_turn_the_other_cheek_tshirt-235522205793096742

How to Interpret the Bible with Pat Robertson

Matthew 7:21-23 is a passage in the bible that I think condemns many fundamentalist Christians, such as Pat Robertson, who practice faith healing, and miracles in the name of Jesus.

'Not everyone who says to Me, lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name and done many wonders in Your name? and then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.' Matt. 7:21-23

However, Pat and other Christian Fundamentalists do not read the passage as a condemnation of their practices. The interpretation they take is that no matter what good works you do on Earth, it means nothing unless you are "saved" or "Born again" in their church.

http://www.christianchallenge.org/ask/Matt_7.21-23.html

http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/23338/eVerseID/23340

In order to understand the Fundamentalist interpretation, you start with the assumption that performing miracles, casting out demons, and making prophesies, all in Jesus name, are all good things.

According to Fundamentalist Christian interpretation, Jesus saying: "Even if you do wonderful things in your life, you still may be turned back from heaven if you are not a Fundamentalist Christian."

However, I would have a different interpretation. "You who practice miracles in my name, cast out demons in my name, do many wonders in my name, practice lawlessness."

I do not believe Jesus picked those three examples to be the best things people could do. All three have in common magic, or miracles, or displays of supernatural power, and all three are done in the name of Jesus. The emphasis is in doing magic, not in doing good things. And not only doing magic, but doing it in the name of Jesus (repeated all three times).

And at the very end, Jesus says specifically about these people that they "practice lawlessness".

Would Jesus have ever said it this way?

"Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not loved our neighbours and our enemies, have we not helped the poor and needy and spread the words of love and peace? and then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."

No, I don't think so. In my opinion, Jesus is condemning specifically the practices where people, using His name, perform magic tricks to impress people and make themselves famous or wealthy.

However, in the same passage Jesus mentions that people who do the will of God are OK. So, if the will of God is not to perform magic tricks in Jesus name, what is it? I'm guessing "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", or "love those that hate you", or "judge not lest ye be judged".

Picture: Pat Robertson, wealthy TV Evangelist and Fundamentalist Christian, making prophecies in Jesus' name. You can also purchase miracle water on his TV program that will help you grow rich. All while listening to him call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. Way to go, Pat.