God does not love everyone, and God positively detests you.  The Good Lord wants you to suffer.  God wants you to be in pain.  God hates the sin – but even more, He despises sinners like you.

You are going to Hell, and there is not a damn thing that you can do about it.  God loathes a human who believes in Him merely to gain a chance at Heaven; those sanctimonious opportunists will be tortured in the Afterlife for all eternity.  Someone who believes in Christianity merely to gain entry into Heaven is only a fair-weather devotee.  God reviles a disciple who gets down on his knees only because he wants a chance at Paradise.

Sure, you could beg and beseech for lenience, but the All-Powerful doesn’t listen to frauds like you.  You could try to change your ways, but God would see through such phoniness – and hate you all the more. You could do good deeds for the rest of your brief life here on Earth, but God would see the insincerity behind your motives – and make you suffer even more after death.  You can give every cent you have to the poor- and you will still end up scorched and scalded in Hell, but with empty pockets.  No matter how much time you spend in church, you are never going to Heaven.

The more you pray, the more you just annoy the Almighty.  Repent all you like – but God is not going to be fooled by your performance.  God is as nauseated by your fake piety as everyone else in your life.  The more you bow your head, the more God just wants to slap the crap out of you.  The Almighty is repulsed by your supplication – and, to be honest, who wouldn’t be?

Like an insect crawling across a trouser leg, your very existence only serves to irritate the Almighty – so you’re certain to be incinerated no matter what.  You are as helpless as an ant beneath a sun-drenched magnifying glass – God wants to see your limbs jerk and twitch as the hellfire sizzles and shrivels your tendons.  You could become an atheist and you’ll certainly go to Hell; or go ahead and believe in Christ as much as you can stand, and God will send you to Hell anyway: it just doesn’t make any difference whether the ant beneath the looking-glass believes anything – the critter is still going to end up smoldering.

You, sir, will end up in a bottomless pit and fire and brimstone – and there is no way to change such destiny.  The more misfortune you experience here in this life, the more certain that you will be tormented in the next world.  If your Maker really loved (or even liked) you, do you really think that you would have been subjected to quite so many maladies & miseries in life?  God knows what worthless asshole you really are – and there is no way to alter this fact.  There is no hope, no hope for hypocrites like you, so get used to it. There are no 72 virgins waiting for you in the Promised Land no matter what – the only thing you can expect is further torment beyond the grave.  Let’s face it, some souls just aren’t worth saving, and like a piece of underwear that has seen a few too many skid-marks, your shit-smeared personality is certain to be kicked into the fire pit.

What?  You think that God doesn’t remember what you did in this world?  You think that God doesn’t see how disgusting you truly are?  Hell, you know you deserve it.  You are going to burn, and – deep down – you know that you have it coming.  Let me tell it to you straight: God don’t give no second chances.

No grace is going to happen for you, pal.  God is already giggling about the agony He’s got in store for you.  God is already snickering about the anguish that is awaiting you.  God is already smacking his lips at the thought of your gonads sizzling on the grill. If you ask for mercy, you’re only going to get it worse.  You can’t get on God’s good side no matter what; you’re only going to make things worse for yourself – so don’t even bother trying.  Better to stand on your feet and realize the absolute horror of salvation than to grovel and ass-lick because you are duped by optimistic feelings about the realm beyond.

God has the kind of smirk that says you are going to burn in Hell no matter what: your testacles are going to be toasted and your foreskin is going to flame.  The Good Lord wants to see you humble yourself a few more times while He gets the furnaces the right temperature for you.  You screams are going to be more delicious than any Heavenly choir.

Truth be told, God is a bit of a sadistic fuck, but what the Heavenly Father can’t tolerate are all those smug bastards who think they are going to Paradise.  Mark my words, God is going to take you down a notch or two – and those notches are going to end up in your self-righteous flesh, my friend.  God wants to see you on your knees – the Lord wants to hear you squeal.

You are going to burn in Hell for time without end – and there is nothing you can do to change your fate.  No redemption for you, chum.

God is counting the days till you die.

The old God, the true God-
Prime Mover, Prime Arbiter-
By whom all shall be measured-
Still present,
Yet silent,
Odiferous.
You can smell his scent, as can anyone.
It is of putrefaction.

Our modern discourse is a garden of refuse.
He is its fertilizer.
All things are useful.

Back to response:

The old God needs no defenders,
No vanguard party,
No world revolution,
(Forgive the metaphoric perversion of Trotsky)
He spoke for himself.
Who need defend that before which they defer?
Answer:
Those who doubt,
Rushdie’s party of anti faith,
Those who confess to their pillows,
And their pillows only.

By virtue of your response,
You have committed the cardinal sin.
Patricide by implicit doubt.
The vehicle of Adam’s, of Eve’s, expulsion.

You have defended God.
You have donned the guise
Of the Archangel Michael,
Yet the War in Heaven was
Not
Fought by those befrocked
In costume,
Thrift shop costume.
You are the laughingstock of the Heavenly Host.

The Prime Mover has abdicated
To the Prime Misconception.
By contesting “God is dead,”
You have
You fucking groveling hypocrite
Denigrated your deity to that
Which requires defending.
The prior splitting of clause mirrors your cleaving of God’s armor.

Academics may contest this, that, deus ex
For the sake of their paychecks.
But Occam’s Razor still holds sharp
Against Yahweh’s Beard.
In graceful simplicity,
Your call to arms
Has exposed your deity.

God is dead, and you have killed him.
Gleeful instigators owe
You
A debt
Of gratitude.
You have clarified Nietzsche’s allegory,
And justified Diogenes,
And betrayed your mother cause,
And laid bare your fumbling similes,
And without dutiful pause,
Have interred all that you see as Holy.

We thank you,
Us heretics,
Us fuel for Satan’s furnace,
We who hold no fear of
Hellfire,
For corpses only offend the olfactory.
For God is powerless,
And His divine plan
Has worked out
Swimmingly.

Most favored by He on high,

Fairest of all creatures,

Lords and masters of all here below,

Amen.

Thus spaketh the prime deceiver.

Myth.

Most treasured by those without sight,

Beautiful, oh-so-venomous, graceful,

Nearly self-fulfilling, not quite,

Fin.

In solitude, thus spaketh the cassocked puppeteer.

Ignoble.

Corpulent mind,

Ill-fed flesh,

Crepuscular soul,

Behold.

Thus liveth the high primates.

Behold our works, and weep,

But not for us,

For we are ugly,

And horrible.

I know you better than you know yourself

And know God.

Lies have their own distinctive odors.

Some are astringent, alkaline.

Some are putrid, soggy.

Yours are sickly sweet and provoke anoxia.

I know you’re nearby when I’m short of breath,

And need a shower.

The body is incapable of falsehoods; hence,

Your devotion to the soul.

It distracts you from the nausea.

God may exist but He’s still a lie,

A lie who lies,

And you are His mouthpiece.

Shall I list your fibs for you?

Redemption, salvation, retribution:

Lie.

Sin, grace, blessedness:

Lie.

Creation, resurrection, reckoning:

Lie.

Divine love: the Lie of lies.

I don’t mind that your flock chose you;

We need them.

They provide wool, milk, and easy meals.

The meatpacking business is grateful.

A silvery, bloodstained lining to an otherwise

Nasty charade.

But I am content and resigned.

I have seen your works,

The slow torture of the good,

The rewarding of the bad.

I smell your lie of free will

And dry heave.

My informed, responsible decision:

Fuck the celestial pew and fuck You.

I choose the hard and noble truth

Of purifying flame.

All good things have to come to an end, the course of even the greatest glories finding finality and so it is with Belgian post black metallers Gorath as they depart leaving in place their sixth and final album The Chronicles of Khiliasmos. The band over the years has made a major impressive and acclaimed mark on the genre with their progressive blackened experimental explorations and the new release is no different. It arguably is not the final massive adventure one might have expected for a farewell, an explosive and dramatic statement, but as a fully enveloping funereal outpouring the album impacts firmly on thought and imagination to be ultimately rewarding.

Formed as a one man project back in the nineties by Filip Dupont, the band found a real presence with their released demos in 2003 which led to the release of debut album Elite in 2005 with Black Owl Records. The following year saw The Fourth Era appear through Descent Productions, the cosmological themed release finding strong acclaim for its Mayan based concept. It was at that point that the band became a quartet and ventured out live to over the subsequent years, share stages with the likes of Foscor, Watain, Graven, Darkspace,  Mayhem, Dark Funeral, Shining, Dark Fortress, Nazxul, Gallhammer, Primordial to name a few. Misotheism came next in 2008 to again impressive responses which grew stronger still when MXCII was released two years later. The Chronicles Of Khiliasmos follows last year’s Apokálypsis – Unveiling The Age That is not to Come and finds Dupont alongside guitarist Bart Put, bassist Raf Meukens, and drummer Bart Vanderheyden, bringing band and overall concept to a conclusion timed with the prophesised end…

The ConSouling Sounds released album is made up of three chapters, a trio of doom soaked tracks which complete a legacy which will impact black metal for time to come. Khiliasmos I begins with a dawning stir of guitar and seemingly random sonic pulses, the track taking its time to extend to its full height. It is a teasing presence at first toying with expectations that are waiting for the track to unleash something, Soon the scowling growls of Dupont enter to rile up the air though still the track resists offering mere fluctuations of energy within its prowling doom lit engagement, the song remaining relatively subdued and content to provoke and evoke reactions through intelligently inciting craft and imagination. It is the little incursions which invite the imagination to play within the track, the distant vocal sirenesque harmonies and insidious tones of Dupont within the exhausting repetition of riffs and intensity, distracting whilst igniting further responses to fine effect. The track possibly out stays its welcome before its ten minutes finishes with the senses, though the last couple do evolve into an acidic melodic stance which fires up the intrigue.

Khiliasmos II is a hungrier and more aggressive encounter, vocals and sounds bringing a surer thicker intensity and malice to their gait. The emerging groove brings an infectious lure to the song which within its first moments already has a stronger grip than its predecessor. The barbs of the track in hooks, grooves, and vocal additions, ensures a welcome compliance to its demands with the drums of Vanderheyden and guitar invention of Dupont and Put a magnetic pleasure. The track is easily the best on the album making a thrilling bridge between the opening and closing blankets of doom driven atmosphere. It at times makes for an uncomfortable listen as one immerses within with relish, but at the same time contrasts the vast and in comparison underwhelming pieces surrounding it perfectly.

Closing the album, Khiliasmos III is a massive soundscape of sonic clouds and vocal storms again brought with a labouring but compelling presence. At twenty minutes long, the track like the first maybe pushes its limits but does make every second of its encounter an impacting yet magnetic weight on the ear. There are small offerings of melodic respite for some alleviation from the incessant and oppressive blackened heart of the release but like the opener has its own emotive and imaginative aspects which makes it never less than provocative and like the album as a whole ultimately rewarding.

The Chronicles of Khiliasmos is a strong and satisfying release though it falls short of certainly the previous two albums from the band. It is still a worthy farewell from a band which has pushed black metal to strong levels over the years and will ensure whatever the members do next there will be an eager audience waiting.

https://www.facebook.com/gorathblackmetal

RingMaster 30/11/2012

Copyright RingMaster: MyFreeCopyright

A cat on a grave in Pere Lachaise Cemetery (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Cover of A Grief Observed

Sam was a wonderful cat–a yellow and white tabby whose fur matched that of Sienna, a sweet cat whom I really loved, who sat on my leg at night when I lay down on the couch and was by my side when I woke up in the morning. Sadly, she had multiple health problems and had terminal kidney failure for which she had to be put to sleep. From the start, Sam was every bit as sweet as Sienna. He’d virtually clamp to my side every morning and I’d reach over and rub the smooth white fur on his belly. Then he started having urinary problems. Two surgeries, which would have cured 98% of all cats with his condition (crystals blocking a narrow urethra, causing damage resulting in massive scar tissue growth) did not sure Sam. I was so upset when he was put to sleep (he was only five and a half years old)I could barely function. I was also furious–at God. It wasn’t that long before Sam died that I had lost my best friend to breast cancer–a woman who ate well, exercised, took care of herself, and died at 46. The two deaths so close together infuriated me, and the object of my anger was God.

God took our first cat, Liebchen, a real ornery character who still loved us; within a month He took Sienna. Then He took my best friend, then Sam. I was so furious I called God about every name from the depths of hell. I imagined that God became incarnate in a human body so He could “enjoy” Himself when animals and people, especially children, suffered. I mocked the design argument, pointing to the windpipe and esophagus having one entrance with only a flap making the difference between life and death. No human designer would be stupid and incompetent enough to make such a system. Evolution seemed cruel and arbitrary, and if there was a God, He seemed a cold, uncaring b…rd.

Some people were horrified when they heard my thoughts, saying I would go to hell–that helped me a great deal–to increase my anger. Some people understood, including some Christians, thank God. I remembered the book of Job, which some Christians conveniently forget–or they do not read it carefully. Job is faithful to God, yet is clearly angry at God. He believes God is behaving in an arbitrary way toward him–”if it is not He, who is it” who is causing his suffering. Even after that, God says that what Job said regarding Him was “right.” This does not suggest, as some suggest, that there is an evil part of God, but it does suggest that God understands human anger–it often does seem as if the universe is unjust, uncaring–and that Stephen Crane‘s conception of nature as not giving a d..m about humanity is correct. The only plausible answer to the mystery of evil is eschatological. That seems inadequate for many atheists, agnostics, and even theists. Dostoevsky understood that unless somehow the pain and suffering of this life were rectified in an afterlife one could, with some justice, blaspheme God.

I was falling apart to the point that my work was suffering when I saw Sam lying on the other side of the bed one night. I was neither asleep nor obviously dreaming. I reached over, touched the soft fur, and watched him slowly fade away. I have seen him two times since then. I think it was a true visitation, though skeptics will have their own answers. It helped me get on my feet and mitigated my anger at God. God and I still have a love-hate relationship (on my part–God is love so He cannot hate). But without God, nothing is redeemed, and all the suffering and pain of humans and animals from the dawn of evolution until the present is ultimately worthless. I’d rather be angry at times at the only Source of meaning rather than be indifferent.

Christians should not condemn someone’s anger at God, but should bear with the person since most of the time the anger is temporary. Give positive advice at an emotional level–do not condemn the person who is angry to hell. It’s not your call in any case. Suggest books such as C. S. Lewis‘s, A Grief Observed and Nicholas Wolterstorff‘s Lament for a Son. Too many Christians have driven doubters and those angry with God permanently from the faith by their legalism. If you are angry with God, realize that such anger may not be permanent–it is best that it not be permanent, for that would lead to the bitterness of total lack of faith and a sense of meaninglessness in life. If a Christian is legalistic about your anger, confront him–let the person know that he is responding in an inappropriate way. Be patient with yourself and with others–only then can one day, perhaps you can be patient with God when bad things happen.

“As plagues, earthquakes, hurricanes, starvation, wars, floods, etc., continue to increase exponentially, lots of people want to be encouraged in their faith,” said Rev. Charles Aster.  “People forget what life is all about.  Suffering.  And, being reminded, they want someone to blame.  That’s where God comes in.  Here, at our weekly services, people get to tell God off, piss on a cross, hear lectures reminding them why God is such an asshole, and they indulge in sinful activities to anger God with cheap lodging and excellent room service available.  We find reasons to hate God in almost everything–the atrocities and contradictions in the Bible, our inadequacies, our strengths, good news, bad news–you name it.”

I decided to interview a member of the church.  Why did Thelma Louise attend?

“Honestly, I like the partying,” said Louise.  “I mean, yea, I think that creation is a pretty botched job.  But after we get worked up in a lather at service, the drinking, drugging, and fornication are what keep me coming back.  Keep coming back, as we say.  I pretty much started hating God when my mom committed suicide thanks to her mental illness and I intend to make the best of it.”

If you can blame God when things go wrong, don’t you have to thank him when things go well?

“Fuck no,” said Louise. “When things go well God’s just buttering you up for the next big let-down. And, as we all know, it’s a-coming. In the meanwhile, party while you can. All roads go straight to Hell.”

Aren’t you worried about pissing God off?

“Obviously, He’s already pissed off,” said Louise.  “Thousands of innocents are dying for some reason.  Also, I figure God doesn’t care if we mock Him.  He’s all powerful.  He’ll get the last laugh.  If you want to know what it’s all about, read Ecclesiastes and Job.”

Are you absolutely certain there is a God?

“Yea,” said Louise, “how else do you explain all the evil?  Do you think it just made itself?”

Moses set up the tables of the Law in the midst of his people, so they might read what the god had commanded. Each one read with eyes and fingers probing the still-hot grooves where the god had burned his Law into stone.

They pondered and studied, discussed and argued, interpreted, wrought commentaries, and commentaries on the commentaries, and after a time they forgot that there had been anything but commentary, while the grooves in the stones of the Law slowly filled with desert sand.

or — They read a different thing, each as he wished or dreaded to see, and together they sought a reading from Moses, to settle the Law forever. And then Moses himself read the tables, probed the cold grooves with his fingers where the fire of the Lord had once burned hot, and stopped. He said something very quietly, something they couldn’t quite hear.

or — They read, tried to read, but the letters merged into each other, the words turned soft to their sight and blended into other words; hot grooves of the Law burned together: and the tablets crumbled into sand. Each one groped in the dust to carry off a commandment, a word, a letter.

or — They read the words of the Law together, aloud: I will rule you with a rod of iron. I will crush you where you stand, if you do any of the nine million things that displease me. I will make every other nation despise you.

And then they turned over the final table and read the final curse: I will preserve you as my holy nation, your children and your children’s children, forever.

Aaron and Moses observed all this and more. Finally, Aaron turned to Moses and said, Well, what did you expect when you went to the mountain? And Moses was silent.

<END>

Image via Wikipedia

Naysayers: this is not an argument against the existence of a god. It is an argument against the existence of a benevolent god, and therefore the Christian god. Today’s topic is Infinite Punishments for Finite Crimes.

Let’s agree on one thing: killing somebody is bad. If you kill somebody, you should be punished. Perhaps you should go to jail. Perhaps you should spend the rest of your life in jail. Perhaps, even, that punishment should be sped up a bit and you should be executed. In each one of these cases, the punishment is finite. In other words, it has an end. Even if the end is at the end of the criminal’s life, it still has an end. It is not infinite.

God, on the other hand, punishes criminals infinitely. Kill someone? Eternal punishment in a fiery pit. Maybe you agree that this would be an appropriate punishment for somebody who has killed another person. I must ask you, though – why? The crime is finite. Person A kills Person B, and so Person B is dead. That’s it. It happened once. It’s over. Yes, Person A absolutely should be punished. “An eye for an eye,” they say. So our legal system takes over and (assuming Person A was caught and tried properly) they are sent to prison and [perhaps] even executed. Great. Now we’re even. And that’s it. Right?

Wrong. God, who is allegedly benevolent, is going to punish Person A again. Not just for a while, but for ever. Person A will suffer like he has never suffered before; not for the rest of his life, but forever. This is not “an eye for an eye,” but more like an infinite number of eyes for one eye.

Maybe that’s a bad example. Killing isn’t just bad – it’s really bad. But what about one of those weirder Biblical laws? “Thou shalt not steal.” Almost all of us can probably agree that stealing is bad, and almost all of us can probably agree that thieves deserve some sort of punishment, but also that that punishment should be a bit milder than that reserved for a murderer.

Nope, not in God’s eyes. You broke one of his commandments. You go to Hell. You burn for eternity. Did God catch you wearing polyester along with cotton? You’re going to Hell. Even after a benevolent god who gave you free will (as though that even makes sense) and therefore the ability to doubt, do you doubt it exists? Sorry, what’s in store for you is far worse than a life sentence. God isn’t even going to kill you. He’s just going to torture you – not for life; not for two lives; but for ever. Ever, and ever, and ever. There is no end to the pain you will endure.

If the Christian god exists and what the Bible says about it is true, then it is not benevolent. And yet if what the Bible says is true, then the Christian god is benevolent. These statements cannot both be true. Either the Bible is only correct on one count, or it is correct on neither count.

If it is correct on the first, then I would hardly say a malevolent god is worth worshiping. If it is correct on the second, then I imagine a benevolent god would be perfectly okay with the fact that I don’t worship it.

Related articles

• Morality and the Bible (atheistdave.wordpress.com)
• The Concept of Hell (hadeelness.wordpress.com)
• Burning in hell forever: Islam’s absurd punishment “Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system.” – Thomas Paine (maldivianapostates.wordpress.com)

As I write this, it is Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday.  I am sitting in a Starbucks surrounded by people of every skin color – mostly high school students – who share the same appreciation for over-priced drinks, sugared pastries, and free Internet.  My beverage of choice?  Not a latte or a cappucino.  No.  I’m drinking plain old black coffee, as American as baseball, Mark Twain, and a McDonald’s hamburger.  Except the coffee I’m drinking didn’t originate in the United States [Maybe it is American?].

As I reflect upon this further, I am reminded of the interconnectivity and complexity of our world.  With coffee there are multiple steps involved in getting it from the field where it is grown to the cup in my hand.  Several people along the way contributed to the process of preparing this beverage.  But there is something that is occurring today, faster than ever before, which is even more basic than the coffee trade: the transmission of ideas.  Like coffee, there are several people along the way that shape an idea.

Throughout history, the greatest influence on ideas within culture has been religion.  More than four out of every five people in the world claim to be religious in some sense.  But also  found in the world’s complicated mix of religious traditions is the idea of atheism.  Atheism is a concept as old as civilization itself.  It is the belief that God does not exist.  The world literally means, “without God.”

Atheism has always existed within every culture.  In the Western world, atheism has been an unpopular system of thought.  But as the centuries passed and Christianity expanded, the corruption of power within the Church became apparent.  Because people felt they could no longer trust the Church, it began to lose its cultural influence in Europe.  So, atheism became less taboo within Western civilization.

Before the rise of atheism, people – scientists included – would label something as a miracle of God, when it wasn’t a miracle at all, it was something natural.  We understand that God is intimately involved in both the natural and supernatural.  He created all that is natural.  But when scientists would label things as a “miracle” as some sort of default mode, scientific investigation was dropped on that particular issue.  Atheism, however, pressed scientists to keep exploring because it rejected the idea of miracles.  Though we still give God the credit for all things natural and supernatural, we can appreciate the conviction of early atheists to take science a step further.

But what we are seeing today is a militant form of atheism that is more aggressive in its attack on religion – particularly Christianity.  The so-called “New Atheists” are represented and spearheaded by five authors – most notably Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, two British born, Oxford-educated writers of different disciplines, but also Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett, and Victor J. Stenger.  The New Atheism movement presents a radically hostile answer to the question of how to live in  a world of differing ideas and values.  Somewhat like the extremists of every ilk, the New Atheists have an aggressive intolerance of ideas different from their own.

As part of “educating the masses,” Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have independently undergone a series of debates with Christian counterparts Dinesh D’Souza and John Lennox.  The debates are sponsored by Fixed Point Foundation.  You can watch these debates on their website, www.fixed-point.org.  The debates between D’Souza & Hitchens are at times quite amusing.

As mentioned earlier, the arguments for or against atheism are as old as civilization itself [one might even say as old as the Fall].  Many of Christopher Hitchens’ arguments in particular stem from issues of “theodicy,” or the problem of evil.  Hitchens’ question is, how can a good God allow evil to exist in the world?  This is a question that every person must seek to answer.  Christians answer this by drawing from the wealth of sacred Scripture supported by tradition, which is informed by reason and confirmed by our experience.  We understand free will and sin, and most importantly, we understand that Christ has provided salvation from it all – a salvation that will one day be complete.  Christopher Hitchens doesn’t have the foundation.  His answer to the question of pain isn’t necessarily a defense of atheism but a sign of “misotheism”: the hatred of God.

Richard Dawkins, a zoologist from Oxford, perhaps takes a more elegant atheistic position within the debate.  His arguments stem from  two theories: Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and the Theory of the Multiverse.  The Theory of Evolution teaches that systems emerge over time, gradually becoming more complex in nature.  That would mean that the possibility of a god-like being – a deity that is all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. – would come about as an organically evolved creature towards the end of the history of the universe and not its beginning.  Obviously that’s exactly the opposite [from any definition of God and] of the biblical truth that God has always existed.

The second premise Dawkins uses, the Multiverse explanation, suggests that the universe, as it appears, is fine-tuned for life.  But if an infinite number of universes exist, then the probability of life is more likely.  This theory, like any theory, is a “proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural,” it cannot be proven either true or false.

Dawkins counterpart for many of his debates is John Lennox, a matter-of-fact mathematician, who takes history seriously.  In the debates, Lennox considers the criteria for criticism placed upon non-Christian historical evidence.  He applies the same standards to the historical record within Christianity.  If one is so impartial, then the testimonies in the New Testament regarding the historical Jesus must be taken seriously.  But atheism does not begin with an impartial position.  As Lennox would say, atheism is a prejudiced paradigm, and it does not weigh historical facts with fairness.

So this leads us back to where we started – with belief, not proof.  John Lennox in one of his debates with Richard Dawkins that there aren’t any “proofs” outside of Mathematics.  In other words, atheism is also based on faith, perhaps – as is suggested above – more so than Christianity.  Atheists are purportedly all about fact, not faith.  But at the end of the day, it takes just as much faith, if not more, not to believe in God as it takes to believe in Him.  In this way, perhaps, the New Atheism movement is self-defeating.

So where do we go from here?  In light of this “New Atheism” that has emerged over the past few years with a particularly hostile stance towards Christianity, what can we learn from people like Dr. Martine Luther King, Jr. who not only displayed uncommon decency towards those who saw things differently than he did, but who showed extreme courage through Christian love for his neighbors, black or white?  As I meet my atheist brother or sister on the road (or in Starbucks), I am reminded that we have more in common with one another than just sugared pastries, over-priced coffee drinks, and free Internet.  I am reminded they too are created in the image of God, the Imago Dei, and they are worthy of Christ’s love.  It’s my job to demonstrate that love to them.

Re-published with permission from YS Magazine: Young Salvationist, March 2011, pg. 12-13 ys@usn.salvationarmy.org

“In your March 9 editorial about tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve [“A crude idea”] you said that historically, “presidents have tapped the reserve to cope with acts of God (hurricanes Ivan and Katrina) . . . .” Hurricanes are not “acts of God.” They can be described as “acts of nature” or “extraordinary events” or the like, but, since there is no evidence of a “God,” the events are definitely not “acts of God.” It might take insurance companies a long time to eliminate the terminology, but The Post should do it right now.”

TK: Have you ever noticed that “acts of God” are all really bad stuff, like tsunamis and volcanic eruptions? They’re also big stuff. A one-inch snowfall isn’t an “act of God”, but a 36-inch snowfall could be, if it causes enough disruption. Where’s the boundary? And if an old woman in Des Moines suddenly finds herself cured of metastatic cancer, that might or might not be a miracle, but no one would call it an “act of God”, especially the insurance companies.

“Acts of God” is right. There is a God. And He’s pissed.

<END>

But the idea that God kills U.S. soldiers is truly stupid; service members are just the kind of healthy, vigorous breeding stock that He wants to see more of on the farm, not fewer. And they’re good eatin’, too.

<END>

My servants, I must say I’m in a deliciously good mood today.  Reading of my peeps on earth exhibiting depraved minds, usually in tandem with insolent arrogance, just perks me right up.  So it’s with great pleasure that I introduce a book by a Mr. Bernard Schweizer called, “Hating God: The Untold Story of Misotheism.” 

Although not himself a misotheist, Schweizer looks at men and women who are, that is, people who do not question God’s existence, but deny that he is merciful, competent, or good, and otherwise live in senseless, faithless, ruthless pursuit of my kingdom. 

Schweizer shows how misotheists go atheists one better, recognizing (like I do) that God certainly exists, but he exists to be rebelled against.  I’ll bet most of them even disobey their parents.

Yes, my friends, I’m assigning required reading today.  Found at Religion Dispatches, in an article entitled “Hating God: The Untold Story,” Mr. Schweizer introduces his readers to those brave souls who, unlike atheists, hold to ”an even more rebellious concept of religious dissent: misotheism.”

Believing that atheists cannot hate God because “one cannot hate that which does not exist,” Schweizer highlights those who believe the wiser path on earth is to acknowledge the obvious, that God exists, but act like puffed-up men and women who stupidly belittle God as stupid.  Or, as he explains misotheism in contrast to atheism:

“Misotheism is a different kettle of fish. In fact, it may well turn out to be more threatening to the pious than atheism because misotheism makes the radically subversive claim that there is a God but that he is malevolent or at least incompetent, indifferent—in any case not worshipful.”

Ha ha ha ha ha.  Yes, that’s my lie.  Someone, or something, will always be worshipped.  The worldly wise path is to worship created things rather than the Creator, who, by the way, is said to be “praised forever.”  Blechhhh!

What if “forever” includes right now?

Reviving a “rarely used term—“misotheism”—to capture just this sort of antagonistic religious belief (“misos” meaning hatred in Greek and “theos” God),” Schweizer describes “a paradoxical religious phenomenon—people who cannot disbelieve and yet find that God is cruel, indifferent or incompetent.”

Now, my servants, here is kingdom knowledge:  there is no paradox.  A proper understanding of God and history leads one to a proper understanding of the human condition.  Thanks to me (you’re welcome!), humans are born hating God. 

Therefore hating God is the default human condition, and those who believe themselves big and brave to reject the remedy and choose pride in their fallen, blinded position merely perpetuate foolishness into eventual destruction. 

Misotheist, then, is just another name for unregenerated human, who in his or her unrepentant state can be accurately described this way:

“They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.”

How do I know?

Because that is the way God describes God haters.  And by definition no one knows God haters better than God.  Right?

God speaks of those who know he exists, but do not glorify him as God nor give thanks to him, so their thinking becomes futile and their foolish hearts darkened.  These people, God says, claim to be wise, but are fools, just like atheists. 

I love the irony of my lies fulfilled on earth.  Here we have mere men who believe they boldly live a novel approach to relationship with God, and yet they actually live in their default, factory condition, as described by God in his word hundreds of years ago.  Believing themselves avant-garde over cowardly atheists (who are fools), misotheists merely remain on a different path to destruction (and are also fools).

And I’m the one keeping them in blind conformance to a fallen creation, captive to the lie that their condition is hopeless.

And here’s another thing, my servants:  misotheism is only an “untold story” to the ignorant.  In fact, it is the told story of the Bible, God’s story (history), and I am the original misotheist. 

I, my servants, am God Hater One.

And through all history, I have been leading as many captive fools as I can down my path of deception to sure destruction.  I relish men on earth who with boastful denunciations poke little man-sticks in God’s eye , or nails in his hand, or spears in his side. 

Irreverence in any form on earth is my will on earth.  And seeing my gladness work God’s sadness energizes me to ensure that those who have escaped my plan don’t spring any more captives free.

And as long as men are ignorant of who and what they are, my job is half done.  And while my servants did not invent God-hating, they please me greatly by arrogantly believing they did, and then going about inventing new ways of doing evil.

And I get to watch their thinking become more futile and their foolish hearts get darker.

It’s a beautiful thing!

The answer: A giant John Wilkes Booth. Obviously.

Well, the Reddit commentators at the Atheism subreddit are having a lively (and quite enjoyable) conversation along the same lines — How do you kill a viral, living religious force (aka Allgod)?

With virile, living atheist superheroes, of course!

Spinning out of the pictured sequence between Marvel Boy (aka Noh-Varr) and Fantomex (aka Weapon XIII), the discussion delves into how both characters and readers view gods (or “gods”) in the superhero genre. And it leads to some excellent observations and quotables, including Wolverine being a misotheist and God looking like Stan Lee.

Worth checking out!

Yahweh is the divine farmer. He grows people (and other species, perhaps) as a farm crop. At death he harvests our souls. He moves people to have many children, so He can have more souls to raise to Heaven, i.e., to devour, making us (it is said) “eternally happy”.

Beliefs in the soulful meal are apparently of long standing. For example,

“Whatever men want, ghosts want. … Often the notion is that the gods eat the souls.” (Sumner)

We raise chickens and care for them. We feed them and harvest them and eat them. They become part of our selves, part of whatever bodily glory we have. Are they eternally happy to be so honored? That’s not quite the question. The real question is, is the universe arranged to accommodate the purposes of chickens, or people — or God? The latter, apparently; and that is what is evil to Man.

Notes:

.. Dystheism is also known as ‘Maltheism’.

.. William Graham Sumner, Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manner, Customs, Mores, and Morals (1907), p. 336.

.. See the Baltimore Catechism [of the Roman Catholic Church], edition of 1885:
“LESSON FIRST[:] ON THE END OF MAN
“6. Q. Why did God make you?
“A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.”

<END>

Washington Post, March 28, 2009, page A4

Fargo, N.D. — As thousands of residents left North Dakota’s largest city Friday, others stayed and prayed that miles of sandbagged levees would hold against the surging Red River.

“It’s to the point now where I think we’ve done everything we can,” said resident Dave Davis, whose neighborhood was filled with backhoes and tractors building an earthen levee. “The only thing now is divine intervention.”

(Isn’t that what they’ve been suffering from?)

= = = = =

[Can there be an evil god? Is the concept contradictory? In the book of Job, Yahweh certainly seems to be evil, but that’s only from the point of view of Job’s dead sons, and his dead servants, and his dead sheep). In the end, Job’s faith was rewarded with seven new sons (among other gifts) -- as if his sons were all just interchangeable, no matter about the first batch now that he has more.]

<END>

Dark Matter?

“What do scientists look for when they search for dark matter? We cannot see or touch it: its existence is implied.”

Yeah, this is a cool subject. What I wish to point out here is that scientists can, at this time, merely imply or infer the existence of this so-called dark matter. It simply has to be there even though it can’t be seen.

But while this inference is perfectly acceptable to them on the subject of universal existence it is acceptable to very few (believers excepted) on the “existence of God” subject.

Yet this is possibly the best, and perhaps the only, way to demonstrate the existence of God through logic and reason and inference. You cannot prove the existence of the meta-physical by laboratory methods.

Whether the dark matter is MACHO (massive astrophysical compact halo object) or WIMP (weakly interacting massive particles) is irrelevant to this subject.

If the existence of something can at all be implied then it can be implied for anything for which, without it, there is insufficient ability to explain precisely observable phenomena.

In other words, if without God it is impossible to explain the existence of the universe (or universes) then His existence must be inferred.

So, how do we infer that the Supreme Intelligent Being – God - exists?

One simple way is through logical absolutes. They do exist.

For example : 1+1=2 is true and it is always true and under no circumstances can it not be true.

Numbers, as you see them here above, are mere visible lines of black pixels on a pixeled computer screen background.

Numbers do not exist as physical entities – they are conceptual. Logic is conceptual. It does not exist as matter. It is not an inherent property of matter. Information is not a property of sugars or enzymes. Information is something other than the matter or energy that carries it. For examlpe, the information contained in DNA is not itself DNA.

Therefore the conceptual must imply the meta-physical since it is not physical.

Unless of course you try to prove that thought itself is merely electro-chemical movement in the grey matter. But that position no one seriously believes; as it relegates all reason and human experience to involuntary actions and reactions within the brain to internal and external stimuli.

That, in turn, would mean that there really is no such thing as reason, heart, soul, spirit and that you actually have no free will and you cannot possibly be a moral agent. It would mean that what you perceive as choosing and willing is really no such thing at all, but mere irresistable reactions of your bio-chemical or genetic makeup.

Reason and logic must necessairly be meta-physical. Therefore the meta-physical exists.

Logic and reason are elements or properties of intelligence.

So based upon these simple, and certainly non-exhaustive comments, we can infer the existence of an original Intelligence from which all others were conceived, since we did not create ourselves.

So the possibilty of the existence of God is 100% and the probabilty of His existence, considering the vast amounts of intelligence and evidence for design in the universe is equal to 1 or 100%.

No amount of calculation or logic can infer or imply the non-existence of God.

Therefore God exists.

The existence of the Supreme Mind can be inferred by any number of similar arguments. Like the existence of good and evil as something more than mere human fancy.

Since both good and evil are necessarily both conceptual, but real and related to intentions, motives and free will, there must be an ultimate good and an ultimate evil in the universe. Back to absolutes. If there were no absolute goodness there would be no way possible to measure any goodness or any evil at all.

All definitions of good and evil would not only become purely subjective and without foundation but would also be the concoctions of bio-electrical output within the brain. This would reduce all crime, all rape, murder, incest, deceit, robbery etc. to nothing.

Think it over.