Posts Tagged ‘Poison’
The New Statesman has an item which asks, “Was Jesus Christ a lefty?”. Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, thought he was. The article even cites the right wing Daily Mail journalist, Quentin Letts, as admitting that “Jesus preached fairness—you could almost call him a lefty”.
The author cites several bits of evidence that any Christian ought to be able to recognize. Christ in his earthly incarnation makes it clear according to the synoptic gospels particularly that the poor were blessed and the rich would have a hard time to get into heaven unless they gave their wealth to the poor. In short, salvation of the Christian’s soul depended on them being poor or giving their wealth to the poor to alleviate their poverty and suffering. It is called by modern politicians redistribution of wealth, and is central to socialist policies from communists to social democrats, albeit with different levels of determination. Today, it is meant to be achieved by progressive personal taxation, but conservatives, rich and poor call it the “politics of envy”, and the control of the media by the mega rich like Rupert Murdock ensure that plenty of poor people unable to think for themselves agree.
By the same token, anyone intelligent enough to comprehend current affairs knows that the bankers have organized a coup to rob the treasuries of the leading capitalist countries to redistribute the wealth of these rich nations grossly in the opposite direction—from the poor to the rich. Consequently, people are increasingly showing their anger as they slowly catch on to the reality. They are beginning to riot in the streets, throw bricks through the windows of rich bankers and their political puppets, and will doubtless begin to clear out the bankers when they feel strong enough to do it. Isn’t this just what Jesus did when he took a whip to scourge the money changers dealing in the temple forecourts? The question is rhetorical. The answer is that it is indeed what he did!
The president of the USA, Barack Obama, tried to get a rudimentary bill accepted to allow health care for the poor. He succeeded but the child is itself sick. The UK has a successful National health Service and has enjoyed it for over fifty years, but neoconservative governments under Thatcher, Blair, Brown and now Cameron have deliberately chopped and changed its funding and organization so that it is gradually sinking into despair and helplessness. The modern right wing is utterly opposed to health care for the poor and sick unless they are willing to sell everything they have to the predatory rich to finance it.
What of Jesus? He is remembered as much as anything for his acts of healing, freely healing the blind the deaf, the lame, the mute, the mad, and the leprous. He required no payment for it and did not confine it to the rich. Christians are supposed to believe Christ was God incarnate, and so God Himself acted to cure sick people free, gratis and for nothing! No Christian can think poor people devoid of the money to pay a doctor should be left to die, and Jesus had a parable, the Good Samaritan, that showed a despised figure acting as the Christian should, when the supposedly good men had left the wounded stranger for dead. Today, the story would be the Good Communist, to convey its full significance to smug self-saved pharisees. Christ instructed Christians to do the same as he did, to go into each town and “heal the sick who are in it” (Luke 10:9), not to deny them health and healing unless they had paid fat insurances for half a lifetime.
What would Jesus do over the constant wars our leaders pick with strangers elsewhere, often thousands of miles away? Would he have supported Bush and Blair, or would he have organized a protest? In his famous sermon on the mount, effectively a demonstration because the Romans and their Herodian puppets got anxious when people assembled as the gospels indicate, Christ blessed “the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9). He adds that no one should carry arms, “for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Those great Christians Bush and Blair had obviously not registered that Christ explained:
You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.Matthew 5:38-39
The two great Christian leaders had agreed that because some Saudi Moslems had blown up the iconic twin towers in New York, God meant them to kill a million Iraqis in some sort of distorted principle of “an eye for an eye”, while remaining chums with the relatives of the man actually responsible, another Saudi prince.
The response to the posting of this perfectly valid item on a right wing blog was as expected—a large right wing and US Christian response! The politest was simply, “Christ, a leftist. I think not.”, and many mimicked Moslem jihadist talk but aimed at the Moslems and the New Statesman. Even the magazine’s editorial pages were reprinted so that the Republican Christian jihadists could wreak their revenge, if they wished. Few thought it worth trying to find some way of rebutting the supposed misrepresentation of their faith. One did claim that what Jesus taught as God incarnated into history was irrelevant because his nature changed completely—from commie to nazi, presumably—when he arose from the dead! Everything then that Christ took the trouble to teach by relinquishing his nature as a God and appearing on earth is totally refuted by his rising as a spirit! Why then did God bother incarnating and suffering?
Needless to say, although God Himself appearing on earth, teaching and making speeches was irrelevant, the mere man called Paul who set himself the task, and evidently succeeded, of refuting everything the Christians’ God had done and said, is quoted often in those who did attempt some sort of reply.
What is astonishing is that these people believe that they can be disciples of Christ with the rancid views they have. But they have, indeed, since the very beginning of their own religion, found their own God’s actual teaching far too difficult, and they quickly adopted the anti-Christ, Paul, in preference—its much easier to believe that you need not be kind, loving and compassionate to your fellow human beings because Christ has done it all for you, so all you have to do is believe in his body, and Lo! you are saved, by pure magic! So you can carry on being as obnoxious as you like in real life.
These poor people make no bones about redefining what Christ said while he lived. They are supposed to think he was God, but happily say it is impossible to be peaceful when evil abounds, and so impossible to do as God taught, thereby utterly rejecting God’s own inerrant word! God on earth is irrelevant but some unstable character is treated for all the world as if he is God instead.
They cite descriptions of the apocalypse in Revelation, and are so convinced it cannot apply to them that they pray for it to happen soon! The Jewish tradition of the apocalypse was as the day of God’s vengeance, and the vengeance is against all sinners! But because they ignore what Christ told them in favour of Paul’s blandishments, they cannot see any of it as applying to them. Christ repeatedly explained how hard it was to be sufficiently free of sin to get into heaven—it was by a narrow gate, whereas the gate to hell was broad. His explanation was graphic—your hand is sinning? then cut it off rather than go to hell on its behalf. Yet these smug idiots think their reading is necessarily the right one, even though people on the left, some of whom remain atheists, can read it all prerfectly well themselves, without a Republican Pastor telling them what he want them to think it means.
Still, there is no chance they will learn. Their Christ is Satan, and they are so drunk with their faith in him, they cannot see it.
A Christian liar called Barrett Vanlandingham complains that people in his bible classes do not always believe in God or the Creation. It is more fashionable to be an atheist and to believe in evolution. The Christian indoctrinator has the brass face to blame it on to the indoctrination of “America’s school children with the Big Bang Theory and Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution in textbooks for many years now”.
The very word indoctrination refers to the centuries old Christian practice of getting the kids before they have developed any critical abilities and feeding them what Christians have to believe whether it is right or wrong. The normal education of a child in the discoveries we have made over recent years, the years since the various Christian churches were removed from direct influence upon our kids, is now, according to Christian liars, indoctrination. Instead of proper education supervised by teachers qualified in their subjects, Vanlandingham wants Christian kids to be taught by creationists like one Brad Harrub, PhD(!) who has written a creationist text called Convicted.
On Amazon, the book has invited two reviews, a favorable one by a woman who sounds like a Sunday School teacher, as she says she has bought a lot of these books for a class, but her husband, who she says is more scientifically minded, is not impressed by it. So, she says, “This book seems to be much more suited to those of us whom are less science-minded”.
The other review is critical. The writer however is delighted to have it on his bookshelf for its utter comedic worthlessness. This critic thought it sounded like a spoof, but Dr Harrub has a PhD, and seems to mean what he says. The reviewer wonders how it is possible for anyone to simultaneously be so wrong while remaining utterly unaware of the degree of their wrongness. The answer seems to be that they are convinced it is proper to be dunces and liars for God, especially when they can earn $50,000 a year for lecturing to Christians on this nonsense! The blurb says that Harrub is “not only convinced, he is convicted…” and so he should be. For perverting young minds.
Vanlandingham, apparently using the book as his source, says: “No one has ever proven that non-living matter can evolve from nothing. And certainly no one has proven that life can evolve from non-living matter.” He concludes that “something (or someone) had to have always been there for anything to be created”. Accepting this for the sake of argument, we would then want to know, Is God considered as alive? If so, then the living God must Himself have been created, because “something (or someone) had to have always been there for anything to be created”. Christians make an exception for God. He did not have to be created because He is eternal. That, we have to accept without proof. Why is inventing a superbeing without proof permissible but assuming matter is made spontaneously at the Big Bang is not permissible. It is more parsimonious in not requiring the invention of an unnecessary entity, God.
Next, we learn the Bible has proven itself many times over as reliable in the areas of history and geography. That is false, but Vanlandingham has a source. It is William Ramsay a man who was born in 1851 before Darwin published the Origin of Species. Ramsey found the geography of the book of Acts, was right. Why should anyone imagine an educated Roman did not know the places they were writing about? All were on regular trade routes. The gospel of Mark on the other hand is not at all good geographically about the land of Palestine, where the events described supposedly happened
Vanlandingham comes up with the old canard that “the Bible has never been proven wrong on anything”. This is too ignorant for words. He is not telling the truth at all. He is telling blatant lies, and depending on the ignorance and gullibility of his readers to accept them. Everything he says pertinent to the argument is false, or not in the least supernaturally true. Christians always want proof but will never give it. The bible is wrong on a lot of things, but we depend upon evidence, proof being all together less easy to supply for ancient books of poor provenance. But the bible is plainly self contradictory in many places, and contradictory assertions cannot be both correct. Only the contortions of fundamentalist exegesis can save it, for those who will believe anything. Much in the bible is wrong, many supposed prophesies are wrong, even Jesus’s own. I have a detailed website showing it, and exposing Christian liars like this man.
Jesus was a man of profound morals but hardly a Christian today follows what he taught even though he is meant to be God incarnate. The bible cannot be wrong, but God, when he is Jesus, can be wrong, and modern US Christians prefer S Paul to Christ. They believe what Paul taught in contradiction to Christ—the ancient mysteries of the dying and rising god, whom Paul made Christ into, even to the extent of frequently calling it all a mystery!
Vanlandingham ends up with Genesis. “Evolutionists insist creation took place billions of years ago. They push this view so there will be enough time to theorize that mankind evolved three-million years ago from non-living matter, then from amoeba, worms, reptiles, lower mammals and so on.” He says “there’s no way the Earth could be much older than 6000 years old—certainly not millions or billions of years”. He even comes up with this purler: “how could plants grow if they had to stay in the dark for millions of years waiting on the sun to be created?” This Christian teacher follows the biblical scheme of creation divided into days—imagining the plants and trees to have been made on day 3 before the sun was illuminated on day 4—but with each day stretched out to millions of years.
These days are so obviously the days on which certain acts of creation were celebrated in the New Year celebrations of old, that there is no need to think they were ever meant to be days of actual creation. The ancient people celebrated creation, but had no proper idea of the order in which things were made, and Genesis 2 contradicts this order in Genesis 1. He proves to our satisfaction that he is a dunce, even in Christian terms.
He concludes by saying humans were made in God’s image, but something must have gone astray even here, for half the human race differ in appearance from the other half—they are women. He then cites Hebrews as saying man was created “a little lower than the angels”. Well, the bible also tells us that angels and human women had intercourse, so Christ must have been mistaken when he thought angels were sexless animals, even though he was God and had had the Old Testament to read since he was a boy God! But “mankind is to rule over all the creatures”, and “amoebas, worms, reptiles and apes weren’t fit to rule over anything”. Well in the end, the worm indeed conquers, and worms, amoebas and so on will still be inhabiting the earth after humans beings have gone extinct. That is a safe prophecy.
He ends in American fashion with, “God bless you and have a great day!”, but God would truly bless us, and our days would be better, if He removed this dross from the world. However, God is caught on His own petard, because he says that sin will always be with us, so the best we can do is shut these criminals in a penitentiary, where they cannot harm our kids.
The Daily Beast has this snippet from USA Today:
Don’t ask why this study was commissioned, but two researchers have found that over the past 1,000 years, the portion sizes in representations of the Last Supper have increased. Published in April’s International Journal of Obesity, the findings show that the loaves of bread, main dishes, and plates have all grown relative to the size of the heads of Jesus and the disciples—main course increased by 69 percent, plate size 66 percent, and loaves of bread swelled by 23 percent. The two researchers, one at Cornell and his brother at Virginia Wesleyan College, suggested that the notable growth—particularly after 1500—could be explained by the fact that food became more available and less expensive.
Yes we in the west all eat more—too much, in fact—than people used to be content with. But besides the size of portions, we also eat crap. Our food is adulterated with cheap ingredients like sugars and fats that add the calories that we no longer need in our mainly sedentary lives. These corporations are effectively poisoning us. Food adulteration like this ought to be a criminal offense, but the food manufacturers have too much of a lobby, just as the health and health insurance lobby does. We should be rioting on the streets to stop conglomerates from making multibucks out of our bad physical conditions. And where are the Christians protesting against our health being the price we pay billionaires? As always, most Christians are part of the problem! Adelphiasophists recommend frugality.
Gluten is increasingly added to food for no obvious reason, yet it is a dangerous poison to many people, and in added quantities probably to many who otherwise would be tolerant. You will find it added to many foods to improve its texture with no regard to its harmful effects.