If there is no God

If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.

–Douglas Wilson

atheistcreed

HERES a simple question then: why are we here? And where do we go from here?

Advertisements

134 thoughts on “If there is no God

  1. Why are we here? We aren’t certain.

    Where should we go from here? We should continue exploring and finding understanding as we put the pieces together as to why we are here.

    Why must the issue be God or no God? What if Theists and Atheists are both wrong and it is something else altogether that we currently can’t comprehend?

    Like

  2. I really don’t get this. To me it reads as though some folk just aren’t satisfied with life as it is and need some grand cosmic good and evil opera going on.

    So God doesn’t exist and it’s all just chemistry in my brain. So what ? What difference would that make ?

    ” Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
    Douglas Adams

    Why not just enjoy the garden why do you need the fairies ?

    Like

    • So say the well fed guys who never had to suffer the consequences of injustice, and immorality. The well fed guys who had the support networks to bear them through adversity so that they would never experience the depth and depravity that mankind descends to when left to its own devices.

      Like

      • Wouldn’t the well fed non-suffering guys be an indication that mankind does pretty darned well when left to it’s own devices.

        Have a look around the world, it’s not the countries with the highest standards of living that are the most religious.

        Like

      • “Wouldn’t the well fed non-suffering guys be an indication that mankind does pretty darned well when left to it’s own devices.

        Have a look around the world, it’s not the countries with the highest standards of living that are the most religious.”

        Have a look around Bubba Ray. Not all religions are equal. Most of them have a theology that does not take in account “thou shalt love your neighbour as yourself”, including some major branches of Christianity. Hence they are not going to promote an environment whereby a higher standard of living is promoted.

        Have another look around Bubba Ray. Communist/atheist regimes around the world have not promoted the idea of “thou shalt love your neighbour as yourself”, otherwise North Korea would have the highest standard of living in the world, not the countries which were the old seats of Protestant religions.

        Instead, we have a situation where the highest standards of living is confined to countries where the Protestant Reformation had its greatest influence. Atheists in these countries have merely piggy backed on the benefits and environment that Protestantism had promoted due to one of its ethics “thou shalt love your neighbour as yourself”. Atheists in these countries have forgotten to give credit where credit is due.

        Atheists in countries where Protestantism was not in ascendancy, also benefited but in this case by “doing unto others before they do it unto you”. So no, mankind does not do pretty damned well when left to its own devices.

        Like

      • Meh

        “Not all religions are equal”
        Yeah some folk think they have the better class of imaginary friend. It’s not a view I subscribe too.

        Currently we have higher standards of living where religion has the lesser influence.

        Like

      • Is it more important for people to be happy rather than to have a high standard of living ?

        http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/global-survey-links-religion-and-ha-11-09-01/

        The problem with some religious countries is they sit on oil that other non religious countries want to fuel their desire for higher standard of living because if the standard of living starts to dip.,,,, well bad things happen.

        http://www.cnbc.com/id/102413116#.

        Like

      • Hey Dom,

        Interesting article from the scientific american. It would appear that religion may be a useful crutch where other services are missing.

        Like

      • Yeah. Right. –> ” So no, mankind does not do pretty damned well when left to its own devices.”
        History and paleontology make it clear that ‘mankind’ managed to survive effectively for a few million years on its “own devices” before the gods arrived.
        Are you laying bets that, SINCE then, mankind will survive for another few seconds on the large-scale clock. (Dom and his lunar-looping camels can work it out exactly!)
        We might get lucky and fluke another thousand years ~ but forget a piddlin’ 10 thousand years.

        Like

  3. There are signs God has given us for those that take heed.

    Or [the unbelievers’ state] are like the darkness of a fathomless sea which is covered by waves above which are waves above which are clouds, layers of darkness, one upon the other. If he puts out his hand, he can scarcely see it. Those Allah gives no light to, they have no light. (Qur’an, 24:40)

    In deep seas and oceans, the darkness is found at a depth of 200 meters and deeper. At this depth, there is almost no light, and below a depth of 1,000 meters there is no light at all.
    Danny Elder, and John Pernetta, Oceans (London: Mitchell Beazley Publishers: 1991)

    In addition, the statement in

    Surat an-Nur 40 “…like the darkness of a fathomless sea which is covered by waves above which are waves above which are clouds…”

    draws our attention to another miracle of the Qur’an.

    Scientists have only recently discovered that there are sub-surface waves, which “occur on density interfaces between layers of different densities.” These internal waves cover the deep waters of seas and oceans because deep water has a higher density than the water above it. Internal waves act like surface waves. They can break, just like surface waves. Internal waves cannot be discerned by the human eye, but they can be detected by studying temperature or salinity changes at a given location.
    M. Grant Gross, Oceanography, A View of Earth, 6th ed. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.: 1993)

    Like

    • DOH!…an example of you having recovered your sense of humour, Dom? –>
      “Those Allah gives no light to, they have no light. (Qur’an, 24:40) ”
      The same thing applies to air to breath and testicles to scratch.
      It’s usually called ‘Stating the bleeding obvious’.

      And is there any reason to think that some uneducated primitive ball-scratcher who sees waves on the surface WOULDN’T assume there were also waves below the surface. If Allah had mentioned the ” sub-surface waves, which “occur on density interfaces between layers of different densities.”, THAT would’ve given rise to legitimate wonder.
      But he didn’t, did he?

      Any five-year-old, on reason alone, would suggest the surface movement would be a consequence of sub-surface activity. Question: How deep IS an observed surface wave. Question: How ‘high’ is a tsunami?…or even a ‘tidal wave’.

      To label such natural phenomena a “miracle’ is just another example of religious ratbaggery trying to impress the Great Unwashed. It’s nonsense!

      As also is the claim of a “fathomless sea”. Hairy homosapiens has been there, done that. ….decades ago.
      AND, what’s more, has discovered a variety of (what we call ~ but don’t ever define!) ‘Life’ at the bottom of the deepest, most lightless depths, at a pressure of over 70 tons per square inch. (theoretically, mineral seeping from vents in the earth’s crust and adapting to it’s environment ~ as described in ‘2010 ~ Odyssey II…..take note, MONICA: yet another ‘book’ you probably haven’t read!)

      Never mind the gods, who’re WRONG in virtually every word they utter ~including the weather-forecasts! .
      Almost every day, ever discovery, every FACT supports and confirms the general Darwinian view of the advent and propagation of Life of Earth.
      We emerged from a life-giving pondage.
      By chance.

      Like

    • I have news for you Dom. What you are describing, was written in the Bible more than 1600 before Mohammed was born.

      Matthew Fountaine Maury who is recognised as the Father of Modern Oceanography started the whole science of oceanography by believing that a Biblical text written some 1600 years before Mohammed, was true.

      Psalm 8 talks about the “paths IN the seas”. Believing that the Bible was describing a true phenomena, he started investigating the underwater currents and charting them.

      His documentations revolutionised sea travel and made the world better for it.

      How did Mohammed’s descriptions better humanity? They didn’t. Instead of investigating whether Mohammed’s sayings are true, the Muslim world piggy backed on the Christian world’s findings, and merely took the glory for themselves.

      “Look at the scientific proof that Mohammed was right” they say. But the question must be asked; how did this knowledge that Mohammed had benefited the world? Did it benefit the world or did the Muslims kept it to themselves?

      To answer this point, one has to look at the deity worshipped by Christians and Mahomedans.

      The Christian Deity tells us to love the neighbour as ourselves. This includes using scientific discoveries to better the lot of our neighbour. And the Christian Deity also holds accountable people for the gifts and talents He gave them and particularly for how people used these talents and gifts.

      The Islamic Deity does not hold Islam to accountability over the gifts and talents that it gave them, and how these gifts and talents might be used in service of humanity. Instead Islam holds a sword over the head of anyone that questions and investigates the claims of Islam, ready to behead the unbeliever and he that is doubtful of the claims of Islam.

      Like

    • f Allah had mentioned the ” sub-surface waves, which “occur on density interfaces between layers of different densities.”, THAT would’ve given rise to legitimate wonder.
      But he didn’t, did he?

      Miracles were performed in the past yet people still did not believe. I think you still would not believe whatever was written.

      Speed Of Light

      [Quran 32.5] (Allah) Rules the cosmic affair from the heavens to the Earth. Then this affair travels to Him a distance in one day, at a measure of one thousand years of what you count.

      It is the angels who carry out these orders. Those people back then measured the distances neither in kilometers nor in miles but rather by how much time they needed to walk. For example, a village two days away meant a distance equivalent to walking for two days; ten days away meant a distance equivalent to walking for ten days… However in this verse the Quran specifies 1000 years of what they counted (not what they walked). Those people back then followed the lunar calendar and counted 12 lunar months each year. These months are related to the moon and not related to the sun. Hence in 1 day the angels will travel a distance of 1000 years of what they counted (the moon). Since this verse is referring to distance, then God is saying that angels travel in one day the same distance that the moon travels in 12000 lunar orbits. We discovered that in an inertial geocentric frame 12000 Lunar Orbits/Earth Day is equivalent to the speed of light.

      http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_12000.htm

      Like

      • Suppose I were to write to the Arabs listening to Mohammed when he lived:

        “I have a wagon without horses (meaning a car) that travels in one day, the measure of which is 10 days of what you count.”

        What do they count? According to Dom, the phases of the moon.

        How do they count distance? (Since Dom thinks that Surah 32:5 is speaking about distances). In terms of how many days it will take them to travel a distance by horse/camel.

        Definitely not how much distance the moon travels in 10 days.

        Like

      • Actually Dom your source’s knowledge of Arabic calendars is appalling.

        In the Muslim world there are a number of calendars, each differing in “what they counted”.

        For example, the Kuwaity Algorithm that is used by Microsoft to convert Islamic Calendars to Gregorian Calendar, relies on statistical analysis rather than astronomical data.

        That is because Islamic calendars are often defined by the visibility of the new moon by religious authorities and can therefore vary by a day or two, depending on the particular Islamic authority, weather conditions, and other variables.

        This is significant in calculating the speed of light, because the lunar month might end up being a few days out of joint.

        And given that the speed of light can travel significant distances in a day or two, it would mean that Allah’s angels are left stranded a few hundred thousands of kilometres short of their destination.

        Like

      • The Islamic calendar is based on lunar months, which begin when a new crescent is sighted in the western sky after sunset within a day or so after the New Moon. Hence, the month is either 29 days or 30 days. There are 12 months in an Islamic year, which is either 354 days or 355 days long, compared to the Gregorian calendar year of 365 or 366 days. Since the Islamic lunar year has 12 lunar months, it is on an average 11 days shorter than the Gregorian year; the Islamic year shifts by about 11 days to an early date according to the Gregorian calendar.

        http://www.fountainmagazine.com/Issue/detail/The-Moon-Sighting-and-the-Lunar-Calendar

        Like

      • Oh come on Dom! There are more holes in that argument than there are ‘holes in the sky through which the light of heaven shines’! (called ‘stars’ theses days!)
        Using the same line of reasoning I can prove that Einstein was Mickey Mouse’s ‘Invisible Friend’s’ grandma!

        Like

      • er…..where, exactly, does allah reckon the starting gate (“heaven”) is?

        “(allah) Rules the cosmic affair from the heavens to the Earth. Then this affair travels to Him a distance in one day, at a measure of one thousand years of what you count.”
        Keeping in mind that our own, tiny pin-prick of of a galaxy is about 100,000 light-YEARS in diameter,then, if the ‘angels’ cover the distance at the speed of light in one day (starting, say, in Mecca) heaven appears to be somewhere in my backyard.

        Can’t be very interesting, though, since the dogs haven’t unearthed it yet. 😉

        Like

      • I thought you might have attempted the obvious and shown that 12000 cycles of the moon is not the distant covered by light in a day.

        Like

      • No Dom, there is too much contradiction between what Islam teaches.

        Muslims teach that Mohammed went to heaven and returned in 1 day. So was he there for 1000 years? Did it take him 1000 years to get there and back?

        Muslims also teach that God’s judgement day is 50 000 years. So is it 1000 or 50 000 years?

        Which is it Dom?

        Also, do you not realise that if it takes God 1000 of our years to respond to our prayers via the ministration of angels, then we are doomed? We would be long dead if God took 1000 years to respond to us.

        I agree that in studying these claims one needs an open mind. But to agree with Islam on this issue one needs not an open mind but an empty mind!

        Like

  4. Depends what you call God.

    Here are three perspectives.
    1.The cosmos is created and ruled by a Distant Patriarch. This is the cosmology most commonly associated with the institutions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It views creation as the work of an all-knowing, all-powerful God. From his home in a separate, sacred dimension called Heaven, He observes and judges our obedience to His commandments handed down to us through sacred texts and interpreted by His anointed religious authorities.

    This cosmology focuses attention on our individual relationship with a personal but distant God, as expressed in Michelangelo’s famous rendering of a God portrayed in the image of man. By implication, our human relationships with one another and with nature are secondary to this primary relationship. Although some adherents believe that we have an obligation to care for God’s creation in this life and to show compassion to our fellow human beings, in many interpretations of the Distant Patriarch story, life on Earth is but a way station on the path to paradise. Nature exists for our temporary human use and comfort. Those who demonstrate their closeness to God by their pious religious observance and special knowledge of His intention properly exercise authority over the rest of us.

    2. The cosmos is a Grand Machine.
    This is the cosmology commonly associated with science. It is the standard story of Newtonian physics, evolutionary biology, and the institutions of secular academia. In this cosmology only the material is real. The formation and function of the cosmos and the evolution of life are consequences of a combination of physical mechanism and random chance. Life is an accidental outcome of material complexity and has no larger meaning or purpose. Consciousness and free will are illusions.

    By this reckoning, the cosmos is much like a mechanical clock-works gradually running down as its spring unwinds. Building on the mechanistic determinism of classical physics, classical biology holds that life evolves through a combination of chance genetic mutation and a competitive struggle by which the fitter survive and flourish as the weaker perish.

    According to the Grand Machine cosmology, a brutal competition for survival, territory, and reproductive advantage is the basic law of nature, and these same instincts define our human nature. Indeed, as economists of a social Darwinist perspective assure us, our competitive instinct is the primary and essential driver of human prosperity and progress. The defining debate turns on the question of whether this instinct best serves society when free from government interference or when guided by public regulation and incentives.

    3. The cosmos is a manifestation of Integral Spirit.
    This cosmology has ancient roots and a significant modern following, but lacks institutional support and public visibility. By its reckoning, all of creation is the expression of an integral spiritual intelligence engaged in a sacred journey to discover and actualize its possibilities through an ongoing process of becoming. Our world and the material universe of our experience are more than God’s creation—they are God made flesh. God is in the world and the world is in God, yet they are not identical. Although the spirit is imminent, it is also transcendent, a concept religious scholars refer to as panentheism.
    Brain scientists tell us the human brain evolved to reward cooperation, service, and compassion.

    We come to know the nature, purpose, and intention of this divine force through both our inner experience and our observation of its physical manifestation. All beings, stars, planets, humans, animals, plants, rocks, and rivers are expressions of this divine force—each with its place and function in the journey of the whole.

    Contrary to prevailing theories of social Darwinism, the Integral Spirit cosmology recognizes that life is a fundamentally cooperative enterprise.

    Indigenous wisdom keepers speak of the creator’s original instructions to humans to get along with one another and nature. Brain scientists tell us the human brain evolved to reward cooperation, service, and compassion—suggesting that the creative processes of evolution have programmed these original instructions into our brains and DNA.

    Extreme individualism, greed, and violence are pathological and signs of physical, developmental, cultural, and/or institutional system failure. Caring relationships are the foundation of healthy families and communities. The Golden Rule common to all major faiths is a better guide to appropriate moral behavior than mechanistic rules are.

    The Integral Spirit cosmology postulates that we humans participate in and contribute to the divine journey. We can apply our distinctive capacities for reflective consciousness and choice either to advance creation’s evolutionary thrust toward ever more creative possibility, or to disrupt it. Together, our individual choices determine our collective fate and shape the course of the journey far beyond our time.

    We find threads of this story in the traditional wisdom teachings of indigenous peoples and the mystical traditions of all faiths, including the Abrahamic faiths. In his expression of his Jewish faith, Jesus taught, “The Kingdom is within.” Muhammad taught, “Wherever you turn, there is the Face of Allah.”

    The Integral Spirit cosmology is consistent with the findings of quantum physics, which reveals that the apparent solidity of matter is an illusion and at the deepest level of understanding only relationships are real. I find that Integral Spirit is the underlying cosmology of a reassuring number of religious leaders and devout members of many faiths, including a great many Catholic nuns, as well as most people who define themselves as spiritual, but not necessarily religious.
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
    There are mixtures of these beliefs, and other separate ones. The first one rises from the Abrahamic faith, but Jesus may have had more vision, and his teachings incorporate more than that. As did Muhammad.

    Long read at http://www.yesmagazine.org/happiness/religion-science-and-spirit-a-sacred-story-for-our-time

    Like

    • Long an ungrounded fantasy, Strewth, and short on fact. Before there can be ANY legitimate speculation about any aspect or process of ‘god’ a ‘god’ must be evident.
      There isn’t.
      In fact, the ‘god thing’ doesn’t even qualify as a ‘hypothesis’, since it doesn’t ~ for the most part ~ relate to known or observed facts.

      In Point 2 above there are a couple of proven facts you don’t mention in re. Newtonian (and associated) physics.
      One is that matter can be neither created nor annihilated, so the idea of ‘a clock running down is ~ in the Grand Scheme of things ~ irrelevant.The clock remains even after (if) it stops. What matter exists has always existed, and will always exist in one form or another. (that’s not to say we’re yet aware of all ~ or variety of ~ the matter that may exist.)
      Not only does the clock continue to exist ~ even if ‘run down’ ~ so does the energy it sheds in the running down, since for every reaction there is an equal and opposite REaction.
      In my own case I’m constantly reminded that the potential energy which continually ‘winds-down out of’ my sugar-bowl reappears as potential energy stored on my waistline.

      And a basic fly in the godbotherer’s ointment is that, if ‘Eternity’ doesn’t exist, then, by definition, neither does ‘god’.
      If, on the other hand it ( Eternity ~I prefer the term ‘Infinity’) does exist, then the most basic concept of logic decrees that: – ANYthing that CAN happen MUST happen.
      With or without an input from the godly peanut gallery.

      Like

      • “One is that matter can be neither created nor annihilated,”

        So where was the matter before the Big Bang occurred? In what form did it exist?

        According to Stephen Hawking and others before the “Big Bang” there was nothing.

        Like

      • I wonder Dabs about your definition of science, where you can believe nothing unless it’s ‘proven’ with hard facts. What about the sciences of psychology, sociology, anthropology, or political science, that interpret human behavior, institutions, society, etc., on the basis of scientific investigations for which it may be difficult to establish strictly measurable criteria?

        Can you prove things like compassion, etc., even exist? Can you give concrete data about when and how love is born or develops, how and when it dies?.

        A bit of abstract thinking can be useful. Or do you think not?

        “abstract thinking,
        the final, most complex stage in the development of cognitive thinking, in which thought is characterized by adaptability, flexibility, and the use of concepts and generalizations. Problem solving is accomplished by drawing logical conclusions from a set of observations, such as making hypotheses and testing them. This type of thinking is developed by 12 to 15 years of age, usually after some degree of education. In psychiatry, many disorders are characterized by the inability to think abstractly. Compare concrete thinking, syncretic thinking.”

        Like

      • >Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang…The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang
        http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

        Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything. … So when people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It’s like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere. It does not have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise.”
        ― Stephen Hawking

        Like

      • Since time itself began …

        Perhaps Hawking could consider that time was amongst the stuff that was created.

        Like

      • After watching The Universe With Stephen Hawking The Story of Everything https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP34E-ozwEM one commenter came to this conclusion –

        (Quote) I’m not religious, but there’s so much evidence of a higher intelligence at work right in front of our eyes that most scientists seem to avoid and that can’t be answered by natural selection, the big bang or random events.

        I’m talking about the “programming” within our DNA and the force that controls the life cycle and path of everything in existence. The formation of a human being, from a sperm into a grown adult is not a random event. It is meticulous and somehow predetermined.

        How does a seed know how to grow into a flower or a tree, how to photosynthesise, cross pollinate and live out a set destiny when it doesn’t even have a brain or anyone to teach it to do these things? Again, there appears to be some kind of intrinsic programming within its DNA.

        What’s more, I’m yet to see a scientist explain the nature of consciousness and I just can’t believe that consciousness is some random creation from “The Big Bang”.

        I accept that these questions are bigger than my limited understanding. (Unquote)

        Like

      • HI Bryan,

        So the answer to the question “Can you cite a reference for Hawking saying that ?”
        would be “no” then.

        You appear to have answered a question a long the lines of “Has Hawking commented on the origins of the universe and the nature of time prior to the big bang”

        Sorry if I asked the wrong question.

        Like

      • I assumed you were referring to davinci’s claim : According to Stephen Hawking and others before the “Big Bang” there was nothing.

        If so I have done so. If you had a different question, what was it?

        Like

      • “So where was the matter before the Big Bang occurred? In what form did it exist?”

        I don’t know. And nor do you.
        But what Hawking says is that since that has no relevance to ‘our’ (observable) universe the question isn’t relevant. (and keep in mind that most of the matter in the universe isn’t (yet!) ‘observable’ by us in any case; only its effects are.) ie To all intents and purposes ‘our’ universe effectively began with the Big Bang. As did ‘our’ ‘time’ ….which is a man-made tool-of-expedience ~ entirely dependent upon relativity ~ and doesn’t actually exist in its own right.
        Read the (established and mathematically-provable) Laws of Thermodynamics, based upon a whole centuries-long body of scientific enquiry by some of the greatest mind this worlds ever produced, if you’re up to it

        And keep a beady eye on the massive ~ and rapidly-growing ~ Black Hole in the centre of our own galaxy, which may be the progenitor of the next (another) Big Bang.

        Like

      • ps:- And Hawking freely admits that he doesn’t know either, BECAUSE:-
        “>Since events before the Big Bang HAVE NO OBSERVATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (by us), one ONE MAY AS WELL cut them out of the theory.cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang (IN THAT CONTEXT)…The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang”
        http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

        Compare that with the unambiguous specifics of the Laws of thermodynamics.
        …… which apparently have Hawking’s acceptance, since he specifically denies the concept of a divine ‘Creation’.
        ….or as I asked elsewhere: When god created the heavens and the earth WHERE was he standing?
        On the edge of the world, perhaps.

        Like

      • HI Bryan,

        Ahh so it should be fairly easy for to source a reference where Hawking states before the big bang there was nothing.

        I look forward to reading it. But i’m curious as to why you weren’t able to provide such a reference in the first instance ?

        Like

      • Hey Bryan,

        On the bright side at least I’m not the goose making claims that I can’t back up.

        Like

      • Well you didn’t answer the question you answered a different question.

        I pointed that out earlier.

        Probably because you can’t answer the question.

        Like

      • The question has been answered Bubba (or whatever your pretend name is this week). The fact that you can’t understand it doesn’t mean it hasn’t been answered. I’m sure you’re not as thick as you pretend.

        Like

      • I meant to stick this in the other day, Strewth, from one of my favourite ‘prophets’-
        “If it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.”
        and:-
        “The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science requires reasoning, while those other subjects merely require scholarship.”

        So no, I don’t think psychology, sociology, or political science, that interpret human behavior, institutions, society, etc., can be ‘conducted’ on the basis of being scientific investigations.. That concept would have to be founded on the idea people being ‘like units’ (or ‘equal’). They’re not, ever. Almost every fight we have is a result of trying to enforce ‘conformity’.

        ‘Anthropology’ might be categorised as a science depending how it’s construed. eg. Much of anthropology is connected to paleontology, which IS an outright science.
        In that instance human development can be measured in terms of, say, carbon dating.
        (Ever read up on the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania?.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_Gorge*)
        And where ‘psychology’ is just a manipulation of perceived statistics, psychiatry is founded in medicine, so certainly qualifies as a science.

        *Incidentally, did you ‘get’ anything useful out of ‘African Genesis’?

        Like

      • Nope the question wasn’t answered. You’ve provided a reference for Hawking telling us that time didn’t exist before the big bang and that events prior to the big bang have no observational consequences and that the universe and time both began at the big bang.

        You’ve haven’t provided anything where Hawking says that prior to the big bang there was nothing.

        The very fact that Hawking acknowledges events prior to the big bang would be the opposite of stating that there was nothing prior.

        And the screen name is Bubba Ray it’s the only name I’ve used on this blog. I’m not responsible for your imaginative fancies.

        Like

      • “*Incidentally, did you ‘get’ anything useful out of ‘African Genesis’?” jasw

        A lot of detail, but I was aware of the basics already.

        Like

  5. Once again ~ as I pointed out the other day ~ it’s generally ONLY a god-botherer who brings up the issue of atheism.
    I’m atheist, and I can assure you that THIS https://bryanpattersonfaithworks.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/atheistcreed.png bit of bulls….er, is it possible to build a strawman from bullshit? ….is NOT part of any atheist credo. Mainly because it isn’t correct, has no basis in any FACT, and is recognisable as nonsense by the average 3-y.o.

    However! A 2-second perusal of Genesis (followed up by any number of supporting references in just about any ‘holy book’) makes it clear that the assertion is the fundamental credo of ‘religion’, right down to the lack of enunciated ‘purpose’.

    “In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth”.
    Question:- Where was HE standing at the time? 🙂

    Like

    • Judas the Apostle
      Judas Iscariot “man of Kerioth,” the son of Simon, was one of the twelve original apostles of Jesus. He was the treasurer of the twelve. He considered it a waste of money when Mary anointed Jesus with expensive oil. And, John states that Judas had often dipped into the funds for his own personal use (John 12:3-6), and that Judas cared little about using the money to help the poor.

      John 12:3-6
      3 Then Mary took a pound of very costly oil of spikenard, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.

      4 But one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son , who would betray Him, said, 5 “Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii[a] and given to the poor?” 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.

      Footnotes: John 12:5 About one year’s wages for a worker

      The Twelve Apostles
      Mark 3:13-19
      And He went up on the mountain and called to Him those He Himself wanted. And they came to Him. 14 Then He appointed twelve,[b] that they might be with Him and that He might send them out to preach, 15 and to have power to heal sicknesses and to cast out demons: 16 Simon,[d] to whom He gave the name Peter; 17 James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James, to whom He gave the name Boanerges, that is, “Sons of Thunder”; 18 Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananite; 19 and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him.

      About Bible Prophecy com

      Like

      • To quote that other whore (Mandy, not John; at least she was honest about her activities and motives!) :- “They WOULD say that, wouldn’t they?” —>
        “6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.”

        It’s what you WOULD say if you were trying to discredit someone years after the event?
        As suggested elsewhere there are far more likely reasons for Judas being the cash-box-bearer.
        But if ‘John’ or anyone else had made that accusation the FIRST question that springs to mind is ‘Well if you KNEW Judas was dipping into the till why did you fwits persist in putting more money INTO it?’

        The accusation paints John as a vindictive liar or an outright idiot
        In either case ‘John’ is NOT someone upon whose reports you could rely.

        ( But keep in mind the ‘gospel’ was written years after the event by an anonymous author. I doubt any genuine disciple would come this sort of crap.)

        And in fact John allegedly also tells us (21:20) that Judas was “the disciple whom Jesus Loved” ~ the very same one to which he leaned and whispered sweet nothings at the Last Supper, and whom ~at the very crucifiction ~ Jesus charges with the care and protection of his mother.

        Clearly:- 1…The message whispered at the last supper was to tell Judas WHERE to bring the coppers (Gesthemene); there was NO other way he could’ve known, since he left BEFORE it was decided..
        2…….(John 21:20) Judas lurking in the distance was the ONLY one that
        could’ve been referred to as ‘ the disciple Jesus loved’ ~ and that AFTER the so-called ‘betrayal’.
        3…….. Was it only because the others stayed away from the crucifiction from fear of being recognised and implicated in the crime that Jesus passed on the responsibility for his mother’s welfare to Judas, (the beloved disciple)
        Or was it that Judas wasn’t wussie like the rest of them, but a hardcase and street-savvy zealot.
        Casting Judas as the ‘traitor’ also separates him from the lethal fate Jesus tipped the others would suffer…which means he’d be around to to take care of (elderly by then) Mary.*
        And in any case it was obvious from the start that Judas was never going to make an ‘apostle’: Judas’ only interest lay in promoting a messiah (ANY messiah!) to lead the Zealots against the Romans. (as prophesied centuries ago.) Shrug off the theological bullshit and it all falls into place nicely ~ in a way that makes sense.

        ps….”20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?”
        A more common-sensical take might be that Judas asked “which is he that betrayeth thee?” on the basis of ‘Lord, which of these sissies here can be trusted to betray you, according to (pre-prophesied) plan.?’

        *As a counterpoint:- should ISIS ever get active in WA, and the circumstances arose, to whom would you entrust your ‘grandbabies’?? Me or, say, Bryan?
        (or davinci, whose relatives might flay them alive and eat them if they ran out of other animals?)

        Like

      • More idiotic blustering from someone who doesn’t know.

        And in fact John allegedly also tells us (21:20) that Judas was “the disciple whom Jesus Loved” ~ the very same one to which he leaned and whispered sweet nothings at the Last Supper, and whom ~at the very crucifiction ~ Jesus charges with the care and protection of his mother.

        Nope. Judas wasn’t at the crucifixion. The Gospel of John mentions “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” John 13:23 tells us, “One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to Him.” John 19:26 declares, “When Jesus saw His mother there, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, ‘Dear woman, here is your son.'” John 21:7 says, “Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, ‘It is the Lord!’” The identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved is clear. The disciple whom Jesus loved is John, the son of Zebedee and brother of James.

        Dabbles. you ain’t no Bible expert nor a theologian. As I said, you only real skill is in self-interest.

        Like

      • “More idiotic blustering from someone who doesn’t know.”
        Implicitly asserting that you DO know. So:-

        1…. YOU know this (“Nope. Judas wasn’t at the crucifixion.”) how??

        2….”John 13:23 tells us, “One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to Him.””
        And YOU know this WASN’T Judas, how??
        But, by what twisted interpretation would YOU say John would speak of himself as “One of them?”

        3…..And by what ‘authority’ do YOU insist that (“John 19:26 declares, “When Jesus saw His mother there, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, ‘Dear woman, here is your son.’ ) John was ~ quite unprecedentedly ~ speaking about himself in the third person? Nowhere else does he (or any of the others) do so. (What’s more, since ‘John’ is narrating the scenario, it’s irrational and linguistically incorrect to describe himself as ‘the disciple standing nearby’. THAT disciple would’ve been ‘standing nearby’ to the narrator/author. ie. NOT rhe narrator/author.

        4…..Ditto:- “John 21:7 says, “Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, ‘It is the Lord!’”
        How do YOU know John is referring to himself?
        There are at least half-a-dozen more rational explanations for this. Personally I’d reckon it was a self-serving comment thown in by the anonymous, actual, writer ‘the gospel of John’. After the reality that nobody ~ including his own mother! ~ had been able to recognise him, the point had to be
        made via some literary device that it was, indeed, ‘him’.

        There’s more, but I can’t be bothered; you’re as bigoted ~ and wrong ~ about this as about the self-serving interpretation of Jesus approving of taxation.
        None of the other ‘gospels’ confirm ANY of this blather (except a left-handed mention about the fishing-tip in Luke, who wasn’t, in fact, a disciple and who makes no claim about having been an eye-witness. Hearsay- rumour at best.
        And what’s more, the final sticking-point: none of your blather makes ANY sort of sense. None of the dogma you recite addresses the fundamental questions:-

        1….. Why would Peter ~ ask about :- ” Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?” if it was John, who, presumably was with them, not “following”?,

        1 (a) and then ask: Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

        2….Why did Jesus, omnisciently knowing Judas would betray him, choose Judas as a disciple?
        3….How did Judas KNOW to bring the authorities to the Garden of Gesthemene, when there’d been no previous discussion of it ~ and
        since the ONLY private comment mentioned was when ‘ the beloved disciple’ leaned over for a quiet word with Jesus at the last supper.
        ….and left soon after.

        I don’t expect a rational answer. Just another personal attack:- in the best christian tradition.

        Like

      • The gospel accounts tell us Judas suicided BEFORE the crucifixion. But I suppose you – the self-proclaimed expert on everything from the school of hard crocks – might know differently.

        Mate, you are not in even the slightest sense a Biblical scholar. And yet you reckon you know more than the ones who have bothered to study the books, the history etc. Do you seriously think you are fooling anyone?

        BLUSTER DOES NOT EQUAL ARGUMEHT

        You won’t get a rational answer because your premise is irrational. Even if you were given a rational answer you probably wouldn’t listen.

        Like

      • It still boils down to your fanciful imagination against the Word of Truth, Dabs,
        and of course, I will choose God’s Word any day over your’s or anyone else’s.

        As far as I am concerned there is no ambiguity about Judas’ character or mission in the Bible, and Jesus himself says of Judas (and the Antichrist) that “None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.”

        As a new Christian I too felt very sorry for Judas. In fact, many of my Christian friends were convinced that Judas was in Heaven and not Hell as Jesus had stated, and I actually asked the Lord one day if he was saved. The response I received from the Lord was a rebuke to stop my unrighteous judgment towards God. In His words, “Do not be quick to judge, for your humanness is quick to judge that which you do not understand.” He even goes on to tell me that anyone who has a ‘sin consciousness’, that is, acknowledges that they have committed sin, that in His infinite mercy He will redeem, let alone if His creatures turn to Him and ask for forgiveness (His words to me). And in case you do not know what ‘unrighteous judgment’ is, I’ll explain:

        It’s a haughty spirit, the fruit of which is pride. The motive is selfish ambition and its ministry is acccusation. Its personal mission is condemnation and its corporate mission is division. Its motto is “Divide and Conquer”…..(thanks to Rob Winters of j.b5z.net—“Righteous vs. Unrighteous Judgment”)

        “A good picture of a person who is a “son of perdition” appears in Hebrews 6:4–8, which describes a person who, like Judas, has experienced a certain closeness to God and has a good understanding of salvation, but then denies it. Instead of bearing good fruit, he bears “thorns and thistles.” This is a person who sees the path to salvation, which is trusting in God’s grace to cover sin (Ephesians 2:8–9), and instead either flatly denies the existence of God or denies God’s gift of salvation, preferring to pay his own debt. Judas chose the second path, punishing himself by suicide instead of accepting grace.”…..Got Questions Org

        No Dabs, it’s always going to be your word against God’s, and I’ll choose God’s every time.

        Like

      • And might I add, without God’s grace, we’re all doomed to perdition.

        Obviously God knew beforehand what Judas’ choices would be, that’s why he was chosen for the pivotal part he played, and obviously God let Judas reap the death that was sown by him.

        I once prayed for a witch/clairvoyant and God actually told me to stop praying. He said that her fate was sealed; that it was too late for her (she was elderly). They were the most devastating words that I had ever heard from the Lord. I still cry to this day when I remember. So obviously Judas’ fate was sealed. He made his choice to go it alone.

        Like

      • More about ‘unrighteous judgment’: “We must love the sinner enough to tell them the truth of God’s Word, not the humanistic philosophies that are rooted in the unsanctified mercy of fallen human nature. Unsanctified mercy can be as damning and damaging as the cruelty of self-righteousness.”…… Rick Joyner

        Like

      • “Yes Mon. I doubt very much that Dabbles himself really believes all the rubbish he posts.”

        But he does Bryan.

        Honest to God, he does! (believe in what he posts). And if I am mistaken Dabs, then let me know. He is so passionate about what he thinks that he will stop at nothing to let everyone know. Isn’t that right, Dabs? 🙂

        Like

      • Don’t you get tired of being wrong?? —> “The gospel accounts tell us Judas suicided BEFORE the crucifixion.”
        AGAIN I challenge you to put up or shut up. Nominate the chapter and verse in which “the gospel accounts tell us Judas suicided BEFORE the crucifixion”

        I’d be particularly keen to see references to ALL the quote “gospel accounts” unquote (note: plural) upon which you base your entirely UNfounded assumptions.

        But, as always, it’s easier to attack the messenger than the message. That way you get to avoid answering questions that may provide answers contradictory to the brainless dogma absorbed by psychotics* who hear voices in their heads and decide, naturally!, that it’s god talking to them.

        Neither do I claim to be a “biblical scholar” ~ only to have a sense of logic and common sense not found in the usual religious bigot,
        …and an aversion to superstition and ignorance masquerading as reason…let alone ‘fact’. And particularly so when you wilfully misquote/misrepresent your (already ridiculous) sources,

        *ps
        Mon, I finally got in touch with Reg Deane ~ and as soon as I began to mention you he went white, waved a crucifix around and told me that if I cherished my Eternal Soul I shouldn’t listen to a single word that issues from your lips.
        Apparently during one of his regular visits to Reg’s bedroom god had warned him that you are in fact are a conduit for the Voice from Hell.

        NOW I don’t know what to believe, since Reg’s credentials are at least as good as yours and Bryan’s combined.
        What d’you think?

        Like

      • “You won’t get a rational answer because your premise is irrational.”
        More accurately: “You won’t get a rational answer ~ period”)

        Wrong! As far as biblical gobbledegook may even remotely be described as ‘rational’, ‘my’ premise is rational insomuch as it explains ‘reports’ the ‘traditional’ claims don’t.
        ….let alone the adhoc/adlib add-ons by self-righteous twerps who make it up to suit whatever circumstances prevail….and/or hear voices in their heads and automatically attribute them to the (alleged) god of all the universes.
        ***
        “Even if you were given a rational answer you probably wouldn’t listen.
        Did you get this ‘truth’ from god or your crystal-ball?? 🙂
        ….or didja just make it up as you went along?

        Like

      • “Yes Mon. I doubt very much that Dabbles himself really believes all the rubbish he posts.”
        “But he does Bryan.”

        No he doesn’t Mon. Wrong again. ( I understand how difficult it, given it’s rarity) is to realise Bryan’s got one right.)

        I’m not imbued with with a desperate compulsion to possess ‘a belief’. I have no ‘afterlife’ to worry about, nor any hysterical urge to be a groupie for one team/gang or another for the sake of ‘belonging’.. I don’t need that sort of crutch to identify myself or to justify my existence. It’s called ‘self-respect’.
        But I’m always keen to learn, so I jiggle input from all quarters and try to make some sense out of what is and what may be…and sometimes even what I know isn’t (just in case an oversight has occurred or parameters have shifted).

        …. and from all that input formulate some reasonable propositions/prospects that may add to the ‘usefulness’ of my existence and ‘life’ in general.

        But everything changes all the time; so to lock things into place and never have an original or helpful idea (ie turn the variables into a ‘Belief’) is the very definition of stupidity.
        And although seeing a prospect/proposition come to fruition (:eg building a bushfireproof house from bits of theoretical input garnered from experience through the years and seeing it survive a horrendous bushfire) is both comforting and exciting, it doesn’t constitute the manifestation of a ‘Belief’ upon which all else hangs.

        Just for interest’s sake, do you REALLY think what you ‘Believe’, no matter how much you believe it (or say or think you do), will make the slightest difference to what is, was or will be??

        If you do: what?

        ps Remember that erky movie where a man is handed god’s powers AND his (believed) responsibilities?
        His first problem was trying to distinguish individual prayers from the general universal, overwhelming prayerful racket
        And his next problem was how the hell to grant the prayers of supplicants who were demanding mutually- exclusive outcomes.
        Do you think THEIR beliefs had the slightest bearing on ANYthing?

        Like

      • Actually ~ and not atypically ~ you’ve got THIS arse-about, too:-
        “As I said, you only real skill is in self-interest.”
        I don’t accept any bit of the ‘bible’ as accurate or ‘truthful’, so I have NO self-interest to pander to. YOU DO.

        And while I’ve always been the first to say I “ain’t no Bible expert nor a theologian.”
        (and that I depend on common sense and logic ~ and facts!)
        that ain’t the case with your average godbother
        Including you ~ who make the most absurd and DEMONSTRABLY false biblical-style pronouncements and expect them to be accepted due to your ‘expertise’.

        The sort of theological ‘expert’ who feels compelled to defend the most absurd propositions because to admit even one falsity causes the whole self-interested edifice to crumble.

        Point blank:- Can YOU walk on water (without the use of a flotation device)??
        Can YOU, with a tiny modicum of ‘faith’ alone, command mountains to move.

        Like

      • ALSO point-blank:- (No Dabs, it’s always going to be your word against God’s, and I’ll choose God’s every time.)
        God’s word is that you can walk on water (without a rubber duckie!)
        God’s word is that you can, with a (tiny modicum of faith) command mountains to move hence.
        MY word is that you can’t.
        Take you pick.

        Like

      • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Iscariot

        It seems, despite tradition, that biblical accounts show there were still twelve disciples around after the crucifixion, and before Matthias was appointed?
        http://www.jba.gr/Judas-death.htm

        I was unaware of the Muslim belief that Judas had taken the place of Jesus, was crucified in his place. Doesn’t feel right to me, and I wonder if all Islam believes this.

        In any case, I don’t think we’re going to be judged on any of this!

        Like

      • jasw on March 1, 2015 at 10:15 said:
        (quote.)
        But I’m always keen to learn, so I jiggle input from all quarters and try to make some sense out of what is and what may be…and sometimes even what I know isn’t (just in case an oversight has occurred or parameters have shifted).

        …. and from all that input formulate some reasonable propositions/prospects that may add to the ‘usefulness’ of my existence and ‘life’ in general.

        But everything changes all the time; so to lock things into place and never have an original or helpful idea (ie turn the variables into a ‘Belief’) is the very definition of stupidity.
        (Unquote)

        Applause!

        Like

      • Ok Dabbles. You didn’t bother to answer my post of yesterday when you were arguing with Mel about who was the most generous.

        I said: Put it where your big mouth is. Tell us all which charities and how much money you have contributed to people via charities in the PAST 12 months. Dare ya

        You, of course, ignored the challenge.

        Like

    • LOL Dabs,

      That’s the funniest thing I’ve ever heard. Don’t you know you’re safe anyway?Because, when have you ever stopped talking long enough to let me speak? Never! And so, if I can’t even get a word in edgeways, then please assure dear old Reg that you are perfectly safe from this ‘devil’. In your company, this ‘devil’ is rendered mute!

      Like

      • Guess who?? Looks like any evangelical spruiker.
        You know..the ones who think it’s of far greater importance to really believe what you’re saying than to legitimately believe what you’re saying.
        Like walking on water and REALLY believing you can command mountains to remove themselves no matter HOW ‘illegitimate’ the assertion is.

        Otherwise, PROVE ME WRONG!
        Walk across the Bay!
        Order Mt Dandenong to zip down to Rosebud.
        Resurrect PharLap.

        How idiotic do you WANT to look?
        (I’m willing to help you achieve your ambition!)

        Like

      • Ok Dabbles. You didn’t bother to answer my post of yesterday when you were arguing with Mel about who was the most generous.

        I said: Put it where your big mouth is. Tell us all which charities and how much money you have contributed to people via charities in the PAST 12 months. Dare ya

        You, of course, ignored the challenge.

        Like

  6. “Almost every day, ever discovery, every FACT supports and confirms the general Darwinian view of the advent and propagation of Life of Earth.
    We emerged from a life-giving pondage.” (Woodn’t’Cha no)
    Where does it prove this happened by chance?

    Contrary to popular opinion, Charles Darwin did not originate the idea of evolution. By the middle of the 19th century, the mere fact of evolution had been around for a long time, and most thinkers of the time were perfectly content to leave it at that. The absence of a theory to explain evolutionary change didn’t trouble them, wasn’t experienced as a pressure, as it was by Darwin. He knew there had to be some intelligible mechanism or dynamic that would account for it, and this is what he went looking for–with well known results. In his Origin of Species, he wasn’t announcing the fact of evolution, he was trying to make sense of the fact.

    A long but interesting read here.
    http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/our-religions-are-they-the-religions-of-humanity-itself/

    Like

    • Where does it prove this happened by chance?

      Hi Strewth.
      My use of ‘chance’ refers to the co-incidence of the particular components necessary to producing what we call (but still don’t define ) ‘Life’.
      However, as I keep saying:- Given infinity, anything that CAN happen MUST happen….at some point. That ‘point’ is what’s determined by ‘chance’, as I see it.

      ie. the ‘chance’ co-incidence of different environmental ‘components’ may have (and inevitably MUST) produce other forms of what we (or others) may or may not call ‘Life’. One good example, perhaps, is ‘plant-life’; where a ‘chance’ co-incidence of environmental factors which resulted in ‘life’ would never have sustained animal ‘life’. That animal ‘life’ depends upon the excretions of plant ‘life’, however must be seen as ’cause-and-effect’, which may not (except in seriously-heavy philosophical environs) be seen as the result of chance.

      Chance could, however, have been in play if animal ‘life’ resulted from a symbiotic (non-dependent) relationship with gravel, say. In the same way (sort of) as plant ‘life’ didn’t originally require the CO2 produced by animal ‘life’.
      Gotta go…Life’s too short!
      Chances are……. 😉

      Like

  7. ps. I WILL get back to shoot down your little misrepresentation purporting to show Jesus approved of taxation.
    Meantime, here’s a link which pinpoints where the christian breed of godbotherers were first documented ‘Making it up as they went along’. (Of course it’s well known the original band of wandering minstrels (including their bandleader) never documented ANYTHING of the nonsense it’s claimed they disseminated, so we’ll ignore that bit) and begin with the actual document-scribes ‘reports’.

    http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/judas357931.shtml

    Meanwhile the question remains (unanswered) How do YOU know Judas wasn’t at the (aptly-named) crucifiction party?

    Like

    • Ok Dabbles. You didn’t bother to answer my post of yesterday when you were arguing with Mel about who was the most generous.

      I said: Put it where your big mouth is. Tell us all which charities and how much money you have contributed to people via charities in the PAST 12 months. Dare ya

      You, of course, ignored the challenge.

      Like

  8. Still waiting for the references which show that:- “The gospel accounts tell us Judas suicided BEFORE the crucifixion.”

    tick-tock, tick-tock…………

    Like

    • Ok Dabbles. You didn’t bother to answer my post of yesterday when you were arguing with Mel about who was the most generous.

      I said: Put it where your big mouth is. Tell us all which charities and how much money you have contributed to people via charities in the PAST 12 months. Dare ya

      You, of course, ignored the challenge.

      Like

  9. ….and your ‘expert’ authority for insisting “Nope. Judas wasn’t at the crucifixion.”

    …Making it up as you go is one thing; having absolutely NO basis for doing so amounts to deliberate bull-shit-bluster.

    Like

    • Ok Dabbles. You didn’t bother to answer my post of yesterday when you were arguing with Mel about who was the most generous.

      I said: Put it where your big mouth is. Tell us all which charities and how much money you have contributed to people via charities in the PAST 12 months. Dare ya

      You, of course, ignored the challenge.

      Like

      • Gee how terrible of Dabbles – perhaps he should just edit the comment out of existence or keeping awaiting moderation for a few days.

        Like

  10. For Strewth and Dabs’ attention, in particular:

    1 Corinthians 15:3-5 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.

    Bible Commentary No. 1: We have these appearances:—(1) To Cephas (see Luke 24:34). (2) To the Twelve—the phrase “the Twelve” being used to indicate, not the number of those present, but the group to which they belonged, as Decemviri might be used, or Hebdomadal Council, not to express the exact number but the corporate body—(see Luke 24:36; John 20:19). This was probably the appearance to the ten Apostles, and is distinguished from a subsequent appearance to “all the Apostles.

    Bible Commentary No. 2: “Then of the twelve” – The apostles; still called “the twelve,” though Judas was not one of them. It was common to call the apostles “the twelve.”

    Bible Commentary No. 3: the twelve” —The round number for “the Eleven” (Lu 24:33, 36). “The Twelve” was their ordinary appellation, even when their number was not full. However, very possibly Matthias was present (Ac 1:22, 23). Some of the oldest manuscripts and versions read, “the Eleven”: but the best on the whole, “the Twelve.

    Bible Commentary No. 4: “then of the twelve”; though there were then but eleven of them, Judas being gone from them, and having destroyed himself; and at the first appearance of Christ to them, there were but ten present, Thomas being absent; and yet because their original number, when first chosen and called, were twelve, they still went by the same name;

    Bible Commentary No. 5: “And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the {c} twelve”:
    (c) Of those twelve picked and chosen apostles, who were commonly called twelve, though Judas was put out of the number.

    Bible Commentary No. 6: The twelve (John 20:19, 26). Some officious scribes have in some manuscripts altered the word into ” the eleven.” But “the twelve” is here the designation of an office, and great ancient writers are always indifferent to mere pragmatic accuracy in trifles which involve nothing. To witness to the Resurrection was a main function of “the twelve” (Acts 2:23; Acts 3:15; Acts 10:40, etc.).

    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_corinthians/15-5.htm

    Like

    • For Monica’s attention in particular.
      Nonsense. Self-serving twaddle based on two (or more) premises for which there is no basis.
      1……That ‘eleven’ refers to ‘twelve’. Sometimes anyway!. (or sometimes ten….or 13..)
      2……That Judas had killed himself already. Even Bryan knows there’s NO biblical authority for such an assumption. Ask him! 😉
      (Try explaining to whom John 21:20-23 refers.:- “20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was FOLLOWING them.” It CAN be none other than Judas.)

      I did have ( and have lost track of) a truly ‘authoritative’ link which casts a lot of light on the subject, which not only supports my contention ~ and backs it up ~ but goes further and builds a sensible proposition to the effect that the Sanhedrin was in on the plot.
      Think! Consider the possibilities that actually FIT the stated ‘facts’ in a commonsense explanation.
      ….or the next time you’re chatting with god, ASK him!
      Gotta go to bed. Just back from a nearly-4000km almost non-stop drive and feeling my age..

      Like

      • The Gospel of John is the only Gospel which mentions “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” John 13:23 tells us, “One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to Him.” John 19:26 declares, “When Jesus saw His mother there, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, ‘Dear woman, here is your son.'” John 21:7 says, “Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, ‘It is the Lord!’” This disciple is never specifically identified, but the identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved is clear. The disciple whom Jesus loved is John, the son of Zebedee and brother of James.

        First, only the Gospel of John mentions the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” Second, John 21:2 lets us know who was fishing with Peter: “Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together…” The apostle John was a son of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21). Third, there were three disciples who were especially close to Jesus: Peter, James, and John (Matthew 17:1; Mark 5:37; 14:33; Luke 8:51). The “disciple whom Jesus loved” could not be Peter, as Peter asks Jesus a question in regards to this disciple (John 21:20-21). That leaves us with James or John. Jesus made a statement about the possible “longevity” of the life of the disciple whom He loved in John 21:22. James was the first of the apostles to die (Acts 12:2).

        Early church tradition was unanimous in identifying John as the disciple whom Jesus loved. It seems that John had a closer relationship with Jesus than any of the other disciples. Jesus and John were essentially “best friends.” Jesus entrusted John with the care of His mother, gave John the vision of the transfiguration, allowed John to witness His most amazing miracles, and later gave John the Book of Revelation

        Again in the gospel of John’s last chapter, it states that the very book itself is based on the written testimony of the disciple whom Jesus loved

        Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/disciple-whom-Jesus-loved.html#ixzz3TTdJ4QmU

        Like

  11. Not sure mate. Sick off computers after 36 years. Wouldn’t mind being a case worker or helping people out. Still up in the air.

    Like

  12. WOW!! SIX identical entries in under ONE minute! ~ and a few others dribbling (sic) around the edges.
    THAT’S a dummy-spit of biblical proportions! I’ve been expecting Charleton Heston to turn up at any moment!

    And a typical effort, also of heroic proportions, of distracting attention from the 17 ridiculous false assertions you’ve made in the last fortnight, and the 43 direct questions you’ve refused to address. You’ve not only scaled new heights in outright avoidance, but also in sneaky strawman-building also designed to avoid the issues raised.

    Firstly: You’ve never known me to ignore a challenge.
    Secondly: Neither have I ignored your dummy-spit. I didn’t see it until three hours ago when I got home, having been interstate to buy a property.

    Nitty-gritty:-
    1…. Contrary to your claim, the basis for your tantrum, I was NOT “arguing with Mel about who was the most generous.”.

    I was responding specifically to Mel’s three accusations:- (a) that I was a parasite,
    and (b) that I probably had no ‘real’ friends.
    and (c) that I didn’t care about anybody but
    myself.

    (a)…… I suggested we do an audit (having privately agreed to the terms/values at issue) to establish who was, in fact a parasite upon ‘society’
    (eg. Who benefited most from Bryan’s tax-dollar ~ via Centrelink, among other things.)

    (b)…… I suggested that (having defined ‘real friend’) we (Mel and I) could compare notes, and, I here add, ‘references’.
    Though it has never occurred to me to categorise nor keep a running balance-sheet as to ‘real friends’, I’ve recently received ‘references’ from half-a-dozen reputable people ~ five of them volunteered unsolicited ~ which I doubt Mel (or you) could match without counting your mums, or people who owe you a favour. And I reckon I could probably acquire rather more of the same sort thing if it were necessary.

    (c) Each one of those ‘references’ definitively mentions my ‘caring’ with cash and in kind (including providing lodgings for street-kids) going back 20 years. (And ask, again, about the last occasion on which you had any homeless people crash at your place for a few days or week?)

    ‘Knock and it shall be opened unto thee’, right?…..
    (That’s from the gospel of Matthew. I wouldn’t’ve thought it necessary to point that out, except for your recently demonstrated abysmal ignorance of the gospels:- eg—> ” The gospel accounts tell us Judas suicided BEFORE the crucifixion,”
    eg. “Nope. Judas wasn’t at the crucifixion.”, etc.

    Talk about “idiotic blustering from someone who doesn’t know.”

    Like

    • Challenge rejected again Dabs. I’m not surprised.
      Besides if you wanted to indulge in a pissing contest with Mel, you’d surely lose. She works for an overseas aid agency caring for “homeless” kids in places that you probably have never been to or could imagine. She donates most of her wage back into the program she works for.

      Like

      • Good for her. Doesn’t alter the fact that she knows nothing about me, but feels free to make assumptive, snarky comments anyway. Neither does it tell us how many ‘real friends’ she’s got. I could make a ‘friend’ of a rabid hyena if I fed it consistently.
        In fact, I’ve often made almost instant ‘real’ friends of ferociously ravening guard-dogs with a pocketful of liver bits.
        But what IS somewhat indicative of her ‘generosity’ is that she gets a wage for her ‘charitable work’.
        ‘The price is right’?? ~ even politicians and other whores do as much ( to paraphrase Jesus).
        I suggest that ‘generosity’ and ‘compassion’ (I know that’s a word you have trouble with!) is something you do over and above your ‘normal’ life ~ not in lieu of a ‘normal’ life. (see: The parable of the Widow’s Mite.)
        Nobody likes a martyr; there’s something ‘not quite right’ about them.
        The word ‘unnatural’ comes to mind.

        Like

      • Doesn’t alter the fact that she knows nothing about me

        She’s read your posts.

        But what IS somewhat indicative of her ‘generosity’ is that she gets a wage for her ‘charitable work’

        As I told you she ploughs most of it back to the agency she works for.

        Nobody likes a martyr; there’s something ‘not quite right’ about them.
        The word ‘unnatural’ comes to mind.

        She’s not a martyr. She’s compassionate and is not full of hot air. Maybe you’re more than a bit jealous of that. I can see why.

        Like

    • But wait! There’s more!

      Your bogus ‘challenge’ doesn’t deserve a response, because it’s just another underhanded attempt by you to avoid an issue by shifting the stipulated parameters.

      The ‘challenge’ stems from your absurd insistence that you ‘paid my way’ via your taxes ~ which prompted me to demand you demonstrate the veracity of your claim by telling us how much tax you payed last year; a figure which could then be audited as to where the money went.–>
      so much for politicians’ pay and perks, machine-guns for the police and bombs for the army, compensation payments for breach-of-contract
      lawsuits against the government, dole payments for paedophiles, etc.etc.etc. and so on. Oh!…and that of the tax-exempt religious gangs, at least some of which no doubt send some of your (indirect) tax ‘obligation’ contributions to ISIL. Or to the christians who are over there trying to kill moslems.

      And the idea, of course, being that the bottom line would reveal how much was left of your taxes to ‘pay my way’.
      You can see, can’t you, that I was merely trying to help you validate your repeated claim ~ without which validation you’d look pretty stupid?

      THAT’S where my “big mouth is”.
      It made no mention whatsoever about ” which charities and how much money you have contributed to people via charities in the PAST 12 months.”

      And for good reason(s).
      I… It wasn’t the issue, notwithstanding your bogus strawman-manipulation.

      2… I don’t make a point of keeping account of whatever contributions I may make ~ in cash OR kind ~ because, unlike you and the other holier-than-thou god-groupies I do keep in mind the biblical injunctions like:-
      “But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth”:
      and:- “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen.

      ….and anyway ~ unlike you lot ~ I can’t write off any ‘charitable’ contributions! 😉

      3……. I do NOT make ‘contributions’ “to people via charities” ~ which skim up to 80% off the top for ‘administrative costs’ (and probably to pay “wages” to their field-workers…. Like Mel.
      ….and in any case might put any left-over cash to uses of which I’d disapprove: such as operating a Salvation Army Boy’s Home.

      4…… And I must admit to being a little bemused as to why you stipulate “in the PAST 12 months”, when I have ‘references’ going back 20-odd years.

      Could it be that Mel is on a 12-month contract ~ and then can stop contributing? That was the case with a mate of mine who spent a
      year in Eritrea ~ in the middle of a fierce drought and even fiercer civil war ~ for an aid agency in the mid-80s. He was a ‘Hard Man’, but the
      experience wrecked him, mostly due to human stupidity and the pointlessness of it all. Every morning they’d bring hundreds (or more) of dead
      kids out of the camps, and that night hundreds more would be born…..
      And in that year they spent ~ and mostly wasted ~ $23 million of ‘contributions’ from all over the world.
      I can think of better ways to waste anything I can contribute.

      Anyway, so much for your phoney “challenge”….. Now you can get back to the unanswered questions; like when and how Judas died…according to the ‘gospels’…..and particularly informing us ‘ biblically uneducated’ yobbos who it was Peter saw “following” them and Jesus wouldn’t condemn. (John 21:20-22-23)

      Try getting around the ‘fact’ that John (the ‘author’ ) describes what Peter does and then records the conversation Peter has with Jesus, WHICH MEANS HE, JOHN, IS STANDING WITH THE GROUP AND DISCUSSING WHOEVER IT IS “FOLLOWING” THEM AT SOME DISTANCE.
      It’s OBVIOIUSLY not John, but whoever it is is described BY JOHN HIMSELF as the disciple that Jesus loved.

      I’m REALLY looking forward to your learned answer, since ‘no way I ain’t no theological scholar’, as you say.

      Like

      • Claims without verification Dabs. Apart from your ridiculous self-justifying stance of tax avoidance.

        I do NOT make ‘contributions’ “to people via charities” ~ which skim up to 80% off the top for ‘administrative costs’ (and probably to pay “wages”

        Evidence of that?

        That was the case with a mate of mine who spent a
        year in Eritrea

        Really? Can you privately send me his contact details so I can talk to him?

        It’s OBVIOIUSLY not John, but whoever it is is described BY JOHN HIMSELF as the disciple that Jesus loved.

        No you ain’t no theological scholar yet you think you know better than the credible theological scholars.

        Like

  13. “She’s read your posts.”
    Obviously not with any insight nor an open mind. I’ve read god’s posts with less prejudice or judgmentalism. The fact is that for all her ‘reading my posts’ she doesn’t challenge ANYTHING I say, but is happy to launch a personal attack. A true christian!

    “But what IS somewhat indicative of her ‘generosity’ is that she gets a wage for her ‘charitable work’
    As I told you she ploughs most of it back to the agency she works for.”

    So what? How she chooses to spend her pay-packet is irrelevant.
    Would she be there if she had to ‘pay her own way’, including food and lodging?
    Simply redistributing somebody else’s money is no big deal. The Salvation Army and the ATO does as much.

    Like

    • ps…… “Maybe you’re more than a bit jealous of that. I can see why.”
      Another perfectly irrelevant personal attack.

      pps….. ps. ….and in response to ~ and entirely because of ~ your crass comment:- “if you wanted to indulge in a pissing contest with Mel, you’d surely lose.”,
      I’m compelled to declare that, with my feet flat on the ground I can piss over a 4-foot high fence without wetting my boots. Wanna check with Mel about her record?

      Like

    • A true christian!

      How do you know she’s a Christian Dabs?

      So what? How she chooses to spend her pay-packet is irrelevant.

      What isn’t irrelevant is how she gives her time, passion and skills to help people. What do you do?

      Like

      • How do I know she’s (or appears to be) a christian?
        As I said: Dodges issues and fires personal attacks ~ without knowing anything about her target.

        “What isn’t irrelevant is how she gives her time, passion and skills to help people.”
        Correction:- ‘SELLS’ her time ….etc.

        What do I do?….What I can when I can. And sometimes run risks in the process.

        Like

  14. “How do I know she’s (or appears to be) a christian?
    You, as usual, jumped to conclusions.”

    Hey…if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck……..

    Like

      • You’re sounding more absurd by the minute.
        Your comments gave me the impression that she was a godbotherer, and her post denigrating me supported that. (That’s why I said ‘apparently’.)
        If that’s not so, then so what?? She still fails to address the issue and launches personal attacks on people she knows nothing of. Classic symptoms of a godbotherer.
        However, though not all ‘conclusions’ are incorrect, some are. So what?
        DO stop embarrassing yourself.
        (and I’m not sure what you mean by “put your mythical $5000 bet on that” ~ though taking a bet on something I’m already told is a loser would make me stupid enough to be a christian.
        …. and I’m not removing half my brain for anybody!)

        ps. “What isn’t irrelevant is how she gives her time, passion and skills to help people.”

        Perhaps so. But it occurs to me to wonder why someone who
        “….. works for an overseas aid agency caring for “homeless” kids in places that you probably have never been to or could imagine.” would bother going overseas to do so,
        when there’s no shortage of ‘homeless kids in need of care’ right here in OZ.
        Even Melbourne.
        Hell, she could walk around the Reserve at the end of the street here and feed as many kids as she could carry food for…though she’d have to search the shrubbery and ditches they live in.

        Perhaps the pay is better where she is? But so, no doubt, are the ‘Administrative running costs’, too…. including the transport of ‘carers’ to and from.
        The efficient use of available finances would dictate a reduction of costs.
        But hey! Who cares so long as others are providing the cash?

        Like

      • Once again, you pompous, pious godbotherers have nothing to say on the issue to hand. Instead you attack the messenger.
        Typically gutless and gormless.
        …and SOP

        Like

      • When the message is

        A Few Good Men’ would fix what ails her!

        The one speaking the message deserves to be called out. You’re pretty good at dishing out the dirt but you can’t take it when you are criticised for it.

        Typical cowardly bully behaviour.

        Like

      • Prayers are powerful, because God’s Word says the prayers of the righteous avail much. And it’s our prayers Dabs, that you have absolutely no control over. That must surely terrify you. And if not, it should, because He who is in us is greater than he who is in the world. Your goose is well and truly cooked, just wait and see. 😉

        Like

    • This poor pathetic man should be banned. He seems to be escalating in his nasty delusions. It’s not good for us or him.

      Like

      • 😆 …and prove once again that prayer doesn’t work.
        The only ‘not good’ place I get to is when you pompously-pious pricks dish out the insults and censor any reality-check. Your ‘faith’ must be a feeble and fragile thing
        THAT’S “typical cowardly bully behaviour”, and godbotherers have always depended upon it to compensate for being gormless and gutless.

        Like

      • YOUR sniffy-smarminess could probably benefit from a ‘few good men’ too Karen
        They’d do wonders for your sense of inferiority; a sense common to all godbotherers, particularly those who can’t score due to a lack of conviction about their self-worth. (It’s why they look to god in the first place, of course.)
        I’d be happy to contribute some money if you can’t afford a few “real men” to roll you in the hay.
        ….and will make the same offer to Bryan; spiteful backlashes and narky censorship are a sure sign of sexual frustration.

        Like

      • Mark 5:1-20New Living Translation (NLT)

        Jesus Heals a Demon-Possessed Man

        5 So they arrived at the other side of the lake, in the region of the Gerasenes.[a] 2 When Jesus climbed out of the boat, a man possessed by an evil[b] spirit came out from a cemetery to meet him. 3 This man lived among the burial caves and could no longer be restrained, even with a chain. 4 Whenever he was put into chains and shackles—as he often was—he snapped the chains from his wrists and smashed the shackles. No one was strong enough to subdue him. 5 Day and night he wandered among the burial caves and in the hills, howling and cutting himself with sharp stones.

        6 When Jesus was still some distance away, the man saw him, ran to meet him, and bowed low before him. 7 With a shriek, he screamed, “Why are you interfering with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In the name of God, I beg you, don’t torture me!” 8 For Jesus had already said to the spirit, “Come out of the man, you evil spirit.”

        9 Then Jesus demanded, “What is your name?”

        And he replied, “My name is Legion, because there are many of us inside this man.” 10 Then the evil spirits begged him again and again not to send them to some distant place.

        11 There happened to be a large herd of pigs feeding on the hillside nearby. 12 “Send us into those pigs,” the spirits begged. “Let us enter them.”

        13 So Jesus gave them permission. The evil spirits came out of the man and entered the pigs, and the entire herd of about 2,000 pigs plunged down the steep hillside into the lake and drowned in the water.

        14 The herdsmen fled to the nearby town and the surrounding countryside, spreading the news as they ran. People rushed out to see what had happened. 15 A crowd soon gathered around Jesus, and they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons. He was sitting there fully clothed and perfectly sane, and they were all afraid. 16 Then those who had seen what happened told the others about the demon-possessed man and the pigs. 17 And the crowd began pleading with Jesus to go away and leave them alone.

        18 As Jesus was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon possessed begged to go with him. 19 But Jesus said, “No, go home to your family, and tell them everything the Lord has done for you and how merciful he has been.” 20 So the man started off to visit the Ten Towns[c] of that region and began to proclaim the great things Jesus had done for him; and everyone was amazed at what he told them.

        Like

      • Remember, the thousands of demons in the madman of the Gerasenes were not able to keep the man from running and falling down on his knees at Jesus’ feet, and finding salvation

        Like

      • Bryan,

        “Satan fears virtue. He is most terrified of humility; he hates it. He sees a humble person and it sends chills down his back. His hair stands up when Christians kneel down, for true humility is the surrender of the soul to God. The devil trembles before the meek because in the very areas where he once had access there stands the Lord, and Satan is terrified of Jesus Christ.”……. Francis Frangipane

        Like

  15. “….oh!….AND I pay my own way.
    No I and other taxpayers also pay for you.”

    In the first place, you can’t speak for others: you have NO knowledge about what they do or don’t do. And keep in mind quite a lot of them are existing on the dole. Expect many more by the end of this year. (Do you get centrelink payments?)

    I also insist you can’t legitimately say you ‘pay for me’. For one thing you don’t know WHERE your money ends up.
    But if you’ll send me a detailed account I’ll certainly look at it.
    …and, if the arithmetic adds up, send you a refund.
    But bald-faced assertions amount to bullshit at the bottom of a bottomless hole.
    (Boy! Would Freud like THAT one!…He was a anal yst, y’know.

    Like

    • Dabbles, If you use the roads, hospitals, bridges footpaths, sewerage, water, and all the other taxpayer-funded services etc we Do as taxpayers pay for those who refuse to pay their own taxes.
      And no I don’t receive centrelink payments. Do you?

      Like

      • No I don’t ~ in fact centrelink has been into MY bank-accounts with VERY sticky fingers.
        And as explained (though, in your own bigoted fashion, you never listen to what somebody else says!):- I pay amply for the use of services like hospitals, roads, bridges and footpaths, etc. that I CHOOSE to use.

        I see NO legitimate (‘moral’, if you like) reason that I should pay for things I do NOT choose to use. (for example, water and sewerage rates if there’s nobody living at the address or, indeed, on a vacant block. Let alone ‘Rates’ on a property I’ve paid full price for and own….and paid the unjustifiable, iniquitous ‘stamp-duty-tax’ upon. ( a major reason more and more people sleep on the streets: each purchase of a house adds THOUSANDS of dollars to its price ~ but NOT its value.
        And I see there’s a move a foot ~ already established in Spain ~ to TAX SUNLIGHT! falling upon solar-panels people have paid for and own outright.
        ….and GST on top of it all ~ including ‘stamp-duty’ :- a tax upon tax.

        Just because some waste-of-space politician or bureaucrat that I wouldn’t feed to a hungry dog (much less pay oversized salaries and perks for!) decides to ‘make available’ a Tullamarine Freeway, Westgate Bridge (neither of which I’ve even SEEN), public-transport system, City-Hall stuffed with (quite pointless except to operate a self-manufactured make-work system) ‘public-servants’, etc. is NO reason to pay a tithe.
        Moses ~ having murdered “more than 3000” dissenters ~ invented taxation under threat of the most vile and violent punishments for abstainers, and the tradition has been consistently increased and institutionalised for millennia ~ to the point where people have been so cowed by the threat of punishment for themselves and their loved ones that they pay up. Cowardly (since you’ve brought up the accusation elsewhere) indeed, but not nearly as sad as those completely-brainwashed idiots who loudly advocate and support the most bullying and corrupt ~ and longest-lasting ~ imposition in the history of the world.
        And one can’t even get out from under ~ emmigrate! ~ without the permission of the tax-collectors….and, of course, paying an ‘exit-tax’.
        ….All with the exception of tax-exemption for religion…just as Moses exempted the Levites.
        And for the same reason: the support of a gang of enforcers to lean on the cowardly masses.
        Not that long ago the Americans fought a bloody War of Independence over the imposition of ‘unfair’ taxes.
        Now look.
        Just a change of ‘war-lords’ ~ as in the case of Moses handing over the piggy-bank to Joshua. (Without ever constructing a single road or hospital or bridge or footpath or sewer or water-supply.)

        …..and, as always, ‘because god said so’.

        ps….. Isis also claims the authority of god to extort taxes. …..and also metes out the most violent punishments for non-compliance.

        How are they any less legitimate (moral) than any other tax-collector?
        Despite your usual reluctance to answer questions, I REALLY would like an answer to THAT question.
        …or are you to “cowardly” to take a stand?

        Like

      • !):- I pay amply for the use of services like hospitals, roads, bridges and footpaths, etc. that I CHOOSE to use.

        How????

        I see NO legitimate (‘moral’, if you like) reason that I should pay for things I do NOT choose to use

        No you just let others take up your slack. Our taxes go to many things, including support for the disadvantaged. The ones you don’t seem to give a stuff about.

        Like

      • ” I pay amply for the use of services like hospitals, roads, bridges and footpaths, etc. that I CHOOSE to use.
        How????” ~ you ask.
        How else?..By putting the price required on the counter, in cash.

        If I’m paying the price demanded there IS no “slack” in what I pay. It’s stupid to say otherwise.

        “Our taxes go to many things, including support for the disadvantaged.
        The ones you don’t seem to give a stuff about.”

        Obviously that’s YOUR choice. And also includes, say, dole payments for child-molesters, military and police murders and sleazebag politicians, to name but a few.
        But by what right do YOU impose upon anyone else YOUR evaluation of who’s “disadvantaged” and who isn’t?
        And likewise “The ones you don’t seem to give a stuff about”. Who the hell are you to dictate who I give a stuff about or don’t.
        (Not that you’d have a single clue about that in any case; once again you’re talking through your rrrs.)

        I expect your ‘church’ is exempt from taxes, and also assume it tries ~ selectively ~ to help those it decides are ‘disadvantaged’.
        But I also assume it doesn’t need me to shitcan it for not supporting those I think are disadvantaged.
        Tell me I’m wrong ~ if you dare!

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s