Saturday, September 30, 2017

Ephesians 2:8-9: And the Flesh Became Words

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Translated - "You did nothing, I did it all. Depend upon me the way the drug addict needs a doctor. So no one may boast... but me."

For the Joel Osteen's of the world, that "salvation" comes with a mansion and more money than the money changers, who's table Jesus thrashed back in the day, but according to this passage, they shouldn't "boast." And presumably because the mansions and all the luxuries of he enjoys, in his little heaven on earth, not only speaks for itself, but even better, it affords Olsteen the ability to be as far removed from the hell on earth of poverty, that so many of their parishioners both depend upon and help to create, like the rich man was to Lazarus, who was forced to eat the crumbs from his table.    

But what's most ironic of all, is how such people can convince themselves that the "crumbs" they give like the rich man, constitute "God's charity" and benevolence (unless they see themselves as God), while at the same time convincing themselves that they will be like Lazarus in Heaven after they die for having been so generous.

Clearly, the"generosity" people like that are talking about, does not come from their wallet so much as their mouth. And as they talk about how "the word became flesh," they never notice how much their own flesh has become nothing but words. 

How Our Belief Makes Us Immoral

To believe we know the mind of God is to deny that our own mind is only as human as everyone else's.

In fact, no one is more godly or moral or holy, simply because they "believe" they are, and no one "becomes" more moral or holy through a "belief" that they are. But there are plenty of examples throughout history that prove the opposite is true.

It is believed that the "belief" that morality necessarily comes from God, who wields the divine power to punish us eternally for failing to live up to it, is necessary for making people moral.

It never occurs to these "believers" that such a belief is itself the very thing that contributes to most of the "immoral" behavior in the world.

It was just this sort of thinking, for example, that lead Columbus to lead the slaughter of millions of Native Americans, for God and gold (which are essentially the same thing, when you think about it), and why the Catholic Church hide it's child rape problems for so many decades.

Hence a "belief" in morality does not make people more moral, but it does go a long way to help those who "believe" this lie, to shift all responsibility for the immorality they continually exalt through their bible based judgements and actions, to God, in the same way people in the Milgram experiments shifted all of the responsibility for the shocks they "believed" they were administering to the people in the next room in order to "educate" them (they weren't actually, but they "believed" they were), to the people in the white lab coats with clip boards.

This was true even when the subject administered what they believed to be lethal dosages of electricity to the "learner," much like an inquisitor trying to "educate" a person on the correct understanding of Catholicism, which happened more than 60% of the time.

Ironically, this experiment likewise demonstrated how willing people are to do the exact same thing with scientists that they do with priests, which explains as much about America's current opiod addiction as it does about the Crusades and the Inquisitions, and simply because we have been "in chains" for so long, as Rousseau pointed out, that thinking others should have some form of authority over us, for the good of ourselves and society in general, not only allows us to shirk responsibility for what we do and "believe," it is also the very assumption we fail to notice is untrue, the way the fish never notices the water.  

St. Augustine would be proud. 

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

The Tree of Knowledge in the bible is said to have been the place where humanity fell from grace, only to be put right with God by hanging his son Jesus from a tree on Golgotha, which is an Aramaic word for "skull."

Knowledge, in other words, is what fills the mind, while a skull is empty of any thought whatsoever, for obvious reasons.

It is always assumed that by hanging up Christ humanity had redeemed itself for pulling down an apple, but it is more likely the case that the "fruit" from both trees, whether in Eden or on Golgotha, was the same fruit.

What if, in other words, the cross is simply the tree of knowledge of good and evil, since that is exactly what Christians claim to have obtained from eating the flesh and drinking the blood - the Fruit of the vine - of Jesus, that Jesus was "the fruit," as it were, and the Serpent selling the promise that, by eating it, "we will become like God, knowing good from evil," has always been the Church itself?

And while Catholics insist that the bread and wine are transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ, they equally insist that their eating and drinking of the two does not make them zombies or vampires.  

The Tribe of the Lie called The Truth

Nothing is stronger in human experience than our tribal nature, which is why it is so virtually impossible for people to leave their religion, which amounts to a kind of spiritual racism of the soul.

The absolute truth of religion requires it's adherents to be intolerant of accepting any other religions as equal to the one we happen to believe is "the one true faith," which only ensures (since our ever lasting soul depends on defending this proposition, lest we be roasted like hot dogs for ever in hell) that conflict will always be as common to us as breathing.

Catholics deny this, of course, insisting instead that the conflicts in the world are the result of "original sin," which is a convenient "sickness" of the soul, so they claim, that can only be washed away by religion, for the most part.

That Christianity has used it's "absolute truth" claims to justify the killing of Native Americans, Jews, women, the enslavement and murder of African slaves prior to the Civil War and the lynching and constant discrimination and terror of Africa Americans thereafter, right up to the present day in fact, as well as decades of child rape, and more, is no more evidence to the Christian that there is anything seriously wrong with Christianity on the whole, than the mountains of scientific evidence that everywhere demonstrates the effects that human rapaciousness on our planet is evidence that there is anything seriously wrong with our climate.


It's simple, for the same reason that so many Christians who claim we must be selfless in our dealings with each other support an economic system that requires everyone to be as selfish as humanly possible.

They cannot escape their tribe of the lie called truth.  

Every Catholic is a Pope

One of the more interesting reasons Catholics will offer for why the Protestant Reformation was a spiritual error is that, by allowing people to read the Holy Scriptures for themselves, Martin Luther had made each person a pope of their own interpretation of those scriptures.

In truth, however, it is the belief that there is an infallible Pope that convinces Catholics that they're claims are infallible truth, even though not a single Christian agrees completely with any other single Christian in what that "infallible truth" actually is, in every detail.

Far from leading to the practice that everyone is their own pope about the truth of God, the ability of people to read the bible for themselves, thanks in large part to that heretic Martin Luther, lead to a greater diversity, and thus a greater understanding of how "truth" is always a collaborative process, not a dictatorial one, anchored in Rome.

Friday, September 29, 2017

The Allegory of the Cave & The Catholic Church

Great cathedrals and abbeys are, in more ways than one, ways of worshiping "the cave" that Plato talked about in the Allegory of the Cave, only such "caves," where worshiping a God who lives in the sky is most revered by praying within (ironically enough), are purely man made, and whose inhabitants, transfixed by the the shadows cast on the wall by their "light of truth," worship their own disdain of the "outside world."

Monday, September 25, 2017

Climate Change: An Example of How Christians Reject Their Own Bible

The Christian is cock sure that there is a God, named Jesus, who runs the world, according to his divine plan. And in the past, God (or Jesus), used the world's "climate" to murder nearly every living this on the planet he had made, apparently trying to reboot the operating system of a world that started as a garden of Eden, but had apparently gone completely to shit shortly thereafter.

This same God, who decided to murder humanity for not finding the wherewithal to overcome the "stain" of original sin He could've removed from their souls (which would've undoubtedly helped humanity escape the watery wrath  of God's disappointment) but fiendishly choose not to, is a "being" for which there is not a single shred of evidence to suggest even exists, except a book that is so drenched in blood, genocide, sin, and hypocrisy, that it makes Mien Kampf look like a Harlequin Romance novel.

If you ask the die hard Christian "believer" to show you any evidence at all of either the existence of the "God" they proclaim is everywhere, or even any "proof" that their Christianity is not simply a wolf in Shepard's clothing, and some of them will reflexively offer everything in the entire world as "evidence."

The atheist will naturally wonder, of course, why it is that "everything in the entire world"  is so obviously "proof" of God, according to the Christian, when the Christian is so adamant about insisting that "everything in the entire world" is never, ever, proof of man made climate change?  

For the Christian, the former is a fact, that people must either accept in this life or find proof in the next by burning for eternity, while the latter is simply a clever hoax, passed by Liberals and Democrats, intended to "scare" people into "submission" for their political ideologies. Ask the Christian how they know that "climate change" is simply a hoax, intended to "scare" people into submission, but their own cherished "Christianity" is not, and has never been, always the exact same thing, and they will either fly into a rage like a person possessed by a demon (or, in they may insist, "the holy spirit), or they will assure you that they know for certain it is not, even though they are unable to offer any convincing evidence.

And the reason they know they cannot offer any convincing evidence that their religion is not the original "hoax," is because they "know" the person has already made up their mind to "doubt" whatever evidence or argument they provide. In other words, the Christian knows that a "non-believer" will never accept any evidence offered by the Christian to prove God, because the Christian will never, ever, ever, accept any evidence offered by anyone - including another Christian! - that climate change is caused by human beings; regardless of how many scientists or popes may agree that it is, or even how many people suffer and die as a result.

The problem, however, is that by rejecting Climate Change as being man made, the Christian is actually rejecting their own Bible. For if the story of Noah is anything at all, it is a story of how the flood was, far from being sent by a God unhappy with the sinful sods He had created, simply the inevitable consequence of humanity's over indulgence and greed.

If anyone has any question of this, one need look no further than America's Dust Bowl of the 1930s, which was a purely man made disaster which literally swept across the plains of central American and Canada all the way to the coasts, which was created entirely by an insatiable quest for profits by Wall Street. The profit motive, or what the Bible calls "the love of money" (which could just as easily today be called "the love of profit), destroyed crops, livestock and people, by turning much of the area between Texas and Nebraska during the 1930s into a modern day Sodom and Gemorrah.

But yeah, scientists who claim "climate change is man made" are simply trying to drum up money for their "research projects" by spreading something they know is a lie, but corporations and especially the energy industry - ya know, those guys, who spend billions every year on advertising that assures us, among other things, that nicotine was perfectly healthy for our throat, and that marijuana caused not only a plethora of physical diseases but would only turn people into out of control murdering psychopathic rapists - are just as honest about climate change as the Christian is about God.



Saturday, September 23, 2017

A Journey of Denial: Don't Stop Believin'

The miracle of denial caused by miracles is undeniable. 

When a "believer" encounters a "miracle," which is something that they are convinced is always an intervention of God's grace superseding the normal operations of a material universe (leaving the rest of us to wonder why He doesn't do this more often, if it's as easy as simply thinking about it), they see it not as proof of their own ignorance about a seemingly infinitely complex universe, but as undeniable and unequivocal validation of how ingenious they are to hold the particular brand of religious "beliefs" they do (which, by the lottery of luck, they usually have for no other reason than that they happened to have been born into it).

That two people of very different Christian faiths can both interpret the same miracle as both a validation of their own particular brand of Christianity and an invalidation of the Christianity held by the other "Christian," never causes either Christian  to doubt for a second that their own interpretation of the cause and meaning of the "miracle" is the true one, objectively speaking, and that the others is sinfully flawed in a way that they can only see things subjectively, and should therefore turn over their right and indeed their obligation to think for themselves on certain matters (which are always the biggest matters of all), so that the "Church" may do the thinking for them, while pretending to be only a guide.

Like a self-righteous wolf clad in the humility of religious piety, this desire (for some it's actually a need) not only belies an underlying hubris that only assumes both an adequate knowledge of how our infinitely complex world really works, and why, but it is also a habit that the "believer" often singularly applies to their religious belief alone.

For example, the person who encounters a problem with their car or their computer, their washing machine or their refrigerator, does not assume that a "miracle" must have taken place, simply because a problem may seem to have fixed itself without some "divine" (i.e. human, or even just "intelligent") intervention. And this is because, in part, the person is willing to acknowledge their own ignorance of how a car or computer, or even a refrigerator or washing machine, may actually work.

But even though each of those systems have a finite amount of complexity (the 50 million lines of code in Microsoft Windows is still pretty small, compared to infinity), most if not all of which a person can freely learn about on the internet, they nevertheless insist they have enough knowledge of the world - an infinitely more complex system of which we are always discovering something new that dispels the certainties we had for so long relied upon, forged as they were from the herculean efforts of brilliant people through both science and religion, over the course of centuries - to know with absolute certainty that a "miracle" could only ever come from God.

And it could only ever mean one thing, immortalized by the band Journey in 1981: Don't Stop Belivn'

(Cue sound track.)


How Christianity is the Glorication of Violence

God stuck us all here on this rock called Earth, in which everything is forced to eat everything else to survive, and the best "plan" He could come up with, to teach us all about love and morality, is to have us all brutally murder his own son, in defense of His good name (Christ, after all, was executed as a heretic).

God could have come up with any infinite number of NON-VIOLENT ways to redeem humanity, of course, especially considering that the murder of Christ was intended to redeem humanity for petty larceny, but He choose not to.

So, ignoring how God's own plan to redeem humanity and forge a new "Covenant" necessarily hinged on the hope that that same humanity would break at least two of the "Commandments" He'd given to Moses, like the prohibitions against lying and murder, "God" (or whoever dreamed up this silly story in the first place) enthroned violence as the necessary catalyst for redemption.

And from murdering heretics - with the Catholic Church far surpassing the Sanhedrin in bloodshed and the Protestant Churches striving ever more to surpass the Catholics - to Crusades, and from war to honor killings, humanity has been striving to live up to the murderous example, set by their "Father, who art in Heaven, hollowed by Thy name...," in both the Old Testament and the New, ever since.  

Thursday, September 21, 2017

The Striker & The Root

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil, to one who is striking at the root," said Henry David Thoreau.

What he failed to mention, however, is how often the person striking at the root is confused by all those hacking at the branches, for being the root itself.

The Paradox of the Paradox

Only in the paradoxes of our ideas do we find the proofs or the disproofs of our beliefs, and why one person's mystery of faith is another persons self evident contradiction,  even though both equally rely on those same "contradictions" to survive, and often for the same reasons.

What if God's a Lunatic?

"What if there is a God, "the atheist asked the priest, "how could you possibly prove he wasn't a complete lunatic?"

And with the gentle puff of his cigar, he concluded, "The Old Testament, after all, reads like it was written by Ted Bundy, Pol Pot, or Joseph Stalin."

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

MacBeth as Messiah

The most rabid of Christians, like the most rabid of Muslims, have fallen hopelessly in love with their own minds, and the belief that their own convictions are actually "infallible, universal truths" that come from, and indeed reflect, the will of God Himself - the creator and moral author of the universe.

(That such a God famously ignores such "moral" laws, and often commands his "faithful" flocks to do the same, never causes a single "follower" of such "beliefs" to question the blatant contradiction, that atheists forever implore them to consider as the "truest" fruit of their faith, is a miracle of denial that would even make the Devil green with envy.)

As such, they look at the world and "know," with absolute certainty, that they are infallibly "right" in all they proclaim about the nature of virtually everything, especially anything in any way related to sex.

That they proclaim to be "humble" in this absolute certitude (at least publicly, regardless of what their own personal doubts may be - because they feel they can never show such "weakness" to others, apparently), to the point that they see it as the highest virtue of all to die as martyrs for their all too human "beliefs" about what it means to be human, only proves how a pride far greater than Milton's Lucifer can so easily be concealed behind a curtain of priestly robes, all of whom agree only that they each have "infallible" knowledge of the infinite mind of a God that is infinitely more complex than ourselves.

In truth, however, none of them as individuals actually ever really agree on which interpretation of that "infallible knowledge" is necessarily the right one, in every detail, as any cursory conversation about ethics and morality with a couple of priests will reveal. That's part of why so many of them dislike Pope Francis, for example.
 But they do, nevertheless, believe that their collective differences are the very cauldrons brew from which they can divine what it is, even as they deny that people who are not as 'ordained' as they are, not only have no right to contributing to that interpretation (which only ever serves first to strengthen the absolute importance of the Church itself to the "believer"), but have a duty to follow whatever the Church says it is.

And perhaps most ironic of all, by far, is that they actually claim, and Christians actually are willing to believe, that all of this is truly an act of undeniable humility. And they "know" this for sure, of course, because the entire universe was made by the most all powerful God ever, specifically for us, and no one and nothing else.

"Double, double, toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble."

Liberalism & Capitalism vs. Conservatism & Christianity

What if you could detonate your identity, and build an entirely new one that looks nothing like the old one, in the same way we bring down a house or a building, and the one we replace it with can look nothing like what was there before?

 Both Liberalism and Capitalism sees this as a virtue, each in their respective spheres, as long as what is being built is left to one's own free will, instead of through the imposition of regulations imposed by some governing body, whether in Rome or Washington, while Conservatism and Christianity see this to be as evil as 9/11, and thinks this is only a virtue if what is being built it its place conforms to some tradition or set of proscribed rules and regulations.

And this is even more ironic when you consider how much Conservatives hate government but practically worship their Church, and denounce the decisions passed down by the Supreme Court, even though they believe that their religion legitimizes both the existence and power of that court, while claiming no one has any right to question the Church's interpretation of the Catholic Bible, which derives its existence and power from the same "God" as the Supreme Court.

It is to say that every Catholic is Martin Luther when it comes to the Constitution, one written by "Christians" to found a "Christian nation," as they claim, but to dare to be like Martin Luther toward Rome's final decree on the interpretation of some bible verse or moral claim, is to be treated by the Church in the same way that Christ was treated by the Sanhedrin.

One thinks it would be an insult to the makers of our operating system, if we draw outside the acceptable lines of the coloring book we call our mind, while the other thinks its the biggest compliment of all, because it demonstrates the same kind of daring creativity that gave us that coloring book in the first place.  

Or to put it another way, one sees only the edges of the window frame they are convinced they must work within, while the other sees only a canvas as big as the sky.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

The Inquisitions: An Inevitable Consequence of Forced Converson

One of the miracles of faith that bedevils nonbelievers about "the faithful," is the latter's unremitting ability to deny the overwhelming amount of horrible "fruit," as their own Bible puts it, of the "tree" they worship. That tree, like the one in the garden of Eden, is the cross, of course.

Christians claim that God is steering his "Church" to right action, and everywhere in defense of His moral laws. That all of those laws have been repeatedly broken by His holy "Church" in order to ensure that "the gates of hell shall no prevail," is not only ignored by the faithful, but is always rationalized, not as any kind of evidence for the very nature of the "tree" Christians worship, but only ever as evidence of just how right Christians are to worship such a tree.

Consider the example of the Inquisitions.

After centuries of ever increasing laws, of every kind imaginable, laid upon the backs of Europeans like a cross by the Catholic Church, and then the Protestant churches right after (like father, like sons), the Church felt the need to ensure that all those it had tried, in every way it could, to coerce into accepting the faith (Catholics always claim the Church was simply defending itself from error - as if God couldn't be trusted to do it Himself on their behalf) were being honest in proclaiming they had "converted."

Since loss of property, imprisonment, torture, and even death, all waited for those who had failed to convert to either Catholicism or Christianity in its protestant variations, in different countries at different times,those who today are all seen as "converting to the one true faith" from as much enlightenment as Paul on the road to Damascus, were actually forced to pretend (i.e. lie) that they had accepted a faith that was incapable of persuading them through reason.

As such, after the Church had used every horror at its legal disposal to save people's miserable souls, it then had to police all those it had forced to lie in the first place.

That God never once thought it necessary to intervene on the behalf of all those who were tortured and murdered by the "one true faith," much as God decided to do the same thing with his own son at Calvary, was never once seen as evidence that maybe Christianity had simply become a greater form of power and evil than the Sanhedrin. Of course not.

The Catholic church, in particular, was too 'infallible" for any of that.


Saturday, September 16, 2017

Thomas Jefferson on Christian Fascism

Thomas Jefferson once said...

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.  He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

No  wonder the Church sides with the Fascists during the Spanish Revolution and the monarchists and propertied aristocracies during the French Revolution.

The Church who's founder was both penniless  and wholly without property - "they threw dice and divided his garments," his only property, while he hung on the cross - has always sided with those who have property agaisnt all those they stole it from.

Silence & Opium

If you watched the movie, Silence, which tells the story of two 17th century Portuguese Jesuit priests who travel to Japan in an attempt to locate their mentor who is rumored to have committed apostasy, and to propagate Catholicism.

But, as a mental experiment, consider what would happen if we did not traverse through time in a forward motion, so that we are unable to see the hurricanes created by our various butterflies until sometime long after we are gone.

Could Christ, for example, have ever predicted the countless horrors perpetrated in his name?

But if we could instead traverse from those hurricanes back through time, to those moments, and indeed those butterflies, from whence they emanated, would we still see such actions as wise or moral?

If the priests  depicted in the movie Silence, who sought only to Christianize China for God, could see the horrible toll their religion would be used to create in the opium trade, when Christian England forced the sale of such a drug upon both India and China a century later, would they still feel that their work was for the one true God, and the salvation of souls?

Would Oppenheimer have  worked on the atom bomb, or would he have at least tried to sabotage it, if he knew the horrible devastation his monster would produce?

Would the German alchemist Hennig Brand, who discovered phosphorus while living in Hamburg in the 1660s, have abandoned his search for gold in the properties of urine, if he he'd known that his discovery would be used to firebomb that same city three centuries later, during World War II?

Thursday, September 14, 2017

A Tomb of Flesh and Bone

It has long been assumed by "believers" that our souls, and thus some level of conciousness, will be freed from the body when we die, and end up in whatever heaven, or hell, we will inhabit forever.

But how do we know, if we accept that we have souls that outlive our body, we'd ever esacpe our body when it dies?

Maybe, in other words, our spirit is trapped inside of a dead body, and by closing our eyes we have effectively shut all the windows.

A Passion for Torture

We are all trapped inside this tiny little universe, born into a death sentence that we strive in every way imaginable to deny, and by attributing the property of eternity not to death, but "eternal life," by hoping that, after we die, we'll be magically transported to a heaven where we'll never have to go through this hell again.

 That the "Creator" who is alleged to have put us all here in the first place, is the very same one we hope will save us from the one by "beaming" us to the other, is a paradox even the mighty minds of Augustine or Aquinas would have in reconciling with their views.

And we can expect such a possibility, however tentatively,  for having been so happy to have suffered through a world where everyone and everything must, by its very nature, eventually die. 

Some see this reality as the greatest threat to humanity, as if such a perspective would only induce the great majority of people in the world to immediately or eventually start acting like the roving packs of wild dogs, all of whom, so the Church wants us to believe, are tethered precariously by the invisible chains of their Christian "beliefs."

And whenever anyone points out that the Church has been as savage as a lunatic in its attempts to "protect" our souls and our societies from those "wild dogs," having out-heroded Herod well over a thousand times in the process, it claims ever so innocently to have only ever been trying to make sure "the gates of hell would not prevail agaisnt God's Church," but they didn't really trust God to do it.

But worst of all, most of them really believed in their hearts, especially people like Augustine and Aquinas, that if they didn't engage in the torture of those who opposed their God, their God was going to torture them for all of eternity.

So they thought, supposing Pascal's wager before he waged it, if there was no God, what was the harm in their willingness to believe there was one anyway?

And of course their had to be a God, for who else could replace in Augustine's heart, that lust that drove him insatiably into all of the brothels of Rome, with a passion for torturing people into accepting Christ as their savior? 

Another Way C.S. Lewis is Wrong

C.S. Lewis once argued in favor for his "universal natural law" by claiming that no society ever saw cowardice as a virtue.

This may be true, although such a conclusion assumes a knowledge of all societies that is impossible for any human being to grasp, humanity being millions of years old, but it also ignores the fact that every virtue is a vice, when it is too extreme, and how every vice, in moderation, is a virtue, including cowardice, when it is based on having a single foot rooted in the reality of our intellectual limitations and our human mortality.

When Bertrand Russell says he would never die for his "beliefs," because he is humble enough to admit he could be wrong, he is exercising a virtuous degree of cowardice in his willingness to go to his grave for propounding an idea that, however it may have possessed the heart and mind like a demon, is nevertheless no more infallible in its understanding of everything - let alone abstractions like "absolute truth" - than it is in its absolute certainty about anything.

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Insane World

In an insane world, the highest forms of rational thought are often seen by the majority to be insane, because they are using their own thinking as the yardstick of what is normal and what is possible.

Common sense, in other words, is a psychopathy.

Truth & Beliefs

The only thing that limits the seeker of truth is the self-erecting iron bars of their beliefs.

And that all of their pain comes from those who do not believe it, or who do but fail to exercise it as it should, and all of their pleasure comes from convincing everyone else they are right.

And this, to their mind, is the supreme act of humility.

Saturday, September 2, 2017

Pope Leo XIII "the best and strongest support for morality is religion"

Of course Pope Leo XIII said that "the best and strongest support for morality is religion," because getting people to believe this is exactly what ensures he maintains his power over people, both politically and spiritually. That's what everyone does, in fact, to ensure that their position and more importantly their power, are continued to be "believed" in by the masses.

The good Catholic will naturally insist, of course, that to focus on this "power" is to miss the point that "religion is indeed the best and strongest support for morality!," and that that's not only plainly obvious (even if to no one but the "true believer"), but what really matters.

Whatever power a pope may derive from their position, Catholics will further argue, only adds to his responsibility, and for which he will be held accountable to God.

If you point out this there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that can be used to substantiate such clear circular fantasies (and Christians deny climate change as much as evolution??), they will no doubt insist that you have hardened your heart and closed your mind, to the possibility of "God" - and by "God" they mean the ability to allow ideas into your mind that, while they may seem to make absolutely no sense and even drive men to engage in barbaric insanities (and always for the most moral reasons and in defense of all the indelible virtues of God), will give your life "special" meaning and make you feel loved like nothing else in the universe.

He's selling peace and love, after all, and he's willing to go to war to prove it.

Friday, September 1, 2017

When you question a persons beliefs, you are asking them to question what they see in the mirror.

Christianity teaches people to believe that the best in life comes only after you die.