In a shameless attempt to get more readers, and hopefully get repeat visits to this blog, I have decided to feature my favorite God mocking lampooning comic routines each Sunday.
Showing posts with label Christian Apologetic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian Apologetic. Show all posts
Sunday, March 29, 2020
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
A Better Ten Commandments!
I'm taking this from another of my blogs because I really like these commandments and think they deserve their own blog entry. You can see the original blog post here.
It's pretty obvious that the bible is not a moral guide, no amount of pretending can change that fact. Only a couple of the actual Ten Commandments have anything to do with an actual moral code, and as many, many people have said all you would have to do is write "Don't fucking own people" and you will have created a more moral book than the Holy Bible.
With that in mind, I present my own 10 commandments. I find them much more moral, even if I use the word FUCK a lot!
...and These are my holy commandments and I expect you fucks to obey. Except maybe the first two, they were practice and got left in because I was feeling lazy and I really wanted there to be ten. Also, we aren't going to do the whole "Hell" thing (so I'm really not sure where that Satan dude lives) but you might have to answer to actual human authorities for being a dick, or maybe we will make you stand in a corner for a millennia or two. The point is fear my wrath asshole!
It's pretty obvious that the bible is not a moral guide, no amount of pretending can change that fact. Only a couple of the actual Ten Commandments have anything to do with an actual moral code, and as many, many people have said all you would have to do is write "Don't fucking own people" and you will have created a more moral book than the Holy Bible.
This is what most consider to be the 10 Commandments
Thou shalt not lie, steal or kill are pretty much the only good ones.
The rest, I think we can pretty much do a lot better.
These are not the actual 10 according to the bible, more about that at the end...
With that in mind, I present my own 10 commandments. I find them much more moral, even if I use the word FUCK a lot!
I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD...
...and These are my holy commandments and I expect you fucks to obey. Except maybe the first two, they were practice and got left in because I was feeling lazy and I really wanted there to be ten. Also, we aren't going to do the whole "Hell" thing (so I'm really not sure where that Satan dude lives) but you might have to answer to actual human authorities for being a dick, or maybe we will make you stand in a corner for a millennia or two. The point is fear my wrath asshole!
- Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's fish even if it's Branzini which is really tasty.
- Thou shalt go to a doctor and get that thing looked at.
- Thou shalt not lie, cheat, steal, kill, rape or own other people as fucking property.
- Thou shalt realize there is some leeway with those first four items for the safety, wellbeing, and health of yourself and others but rape and slavery are fucking no-goes all of the time... forever.
- Thou shall get your children fucking vaccinated and take them to the doctor or hospital when sick. I gave you the science, fucking use it. Also if you make fun of the Anti-vaxxers but don't believe in climate change science, shut the hell up and respect the Earth anyway.
- Thou shalt be as kind as possible to animals, even the food ones for they sustain you, cause them no unnecessary pain.
- Thou shalt be kind to your fellow man and to yourself and when you fail in this you will apologize to them (or yourself), not me! Then actually try not to do it again.
- There is no holy land anywhere ever and the only chosen people are the ones who are truly kind. At the same time treat the land as if it is holy, and no, that doesn't mean fight over it.
- Thou shalt leave people who are not harming you the fuck alone. This includes LGBTQ people and people with different levels of melatonin in their skin and even people you just don't fucking like. Side note - this does not mean you have to respect their unproven or delusional beliefs. It doesn't mean you can't call them out for crazy shit or stop them from hurting themself or others, you can do all that while still respecting them.
- Don't be a dick. Also, it's okay to say fuck, I do it a lot. It's just a word.
Who was the better Moses? Tell me in the comments!
Oh, and what about those real 10 Commandments? Exodus 34 has the replacement set for the ones Moses smashed at Mt. Sinai.
Exodus 34:28 plainly states that these are The 10 Commandments. By the way, if it seems like there are more then 10, you are obviously mistaken. God can count to 10 better than you can!
The bible also claims these are exactly the same as the first... and of course, except for being nothing like the first set, they are exactly the same!
The bible also claims these are exactly the same as the first... and of course, except for being nothing like the first set, they are exactly the same!
- Don't make treaties with people who believe in other gods.
- Conquer people who believe in other gods and destroy their religious property.
- Worship the god whose name is Jealous.
- Don't make any molten gods.
- Celebrate three feasts during the year: unleavened bread, the first harvest, and the last harvest.
- Every firstborn donkey shall be redeemed by sacrificing a lamb. If a firstborn donkey is not redeemed, break its neck.
- Don't appear before God empty.
- Don't work on the Sabbath. Keep the Sabbath day holy.
- Three times a year every male must appear before God.
- When you make blood sacrifices to God, don't include any leavened bread.
- Don't delay in offering your first fruits and liquors to God.
- Don't boil a young goat in its mother's milk.
Tuesday, February 4, 2020
Birth Pangs and Really Bad Apologetics concerning the genealogies of Jesus.
This blog post is not meant to disprove any god. Not even the Christian one (in fact nothing I ever write can disprove god)
So, if you read it, and then come at me and say it doesn't disprove your god, well... your correct, I literally just told you that. I expect someone will do it anyway.
What it is meant to do is refute one really bad apologetics talking point.
We all know there are contradictions in the bible. Some Christians accept this fact, saying that while the bible is divinely inspired it was written by men and they make mistake (which in my mind means you can't trust any of it without just picking and choosing which parts you believe).
Others though will cling to a belief that they are just "apparent" contradictions. Any contradiction in the bible can and have been explained. In my humble opinion, a lot of these reconciliations seem like something they just pulled out of there asses, but maybe they prayed earnestly and God gave them the answer (which he pulled out of his infinite ass).
One of these apparent contradictions is the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke for Jesus. Both trace Jesus' lineage all the way back to the line of David (Luke's even goes all the way back to Adam).
Thing is, after a certain point (After the lists split off from King David) there are a lot fewer names in Matthews's lineage than in Luke's and apparently, they both give Joseph (Masry's husband) a different father. Matthew calls his dad Jocob and Luke calls his dad Heli. It seems like a pretty cut and dry example of a contradiction right?
"Wrong! You are wrong. Stop being a stupid atheist in your stupid atheist's lack of understanding ways! Matthew was a Jew and they were Patriarchal... you dumbass atheist," I imagine them saying, "and Luke was written for Gentiles and for some reason I'm going to claim the Gentiles were a matriarchal society and that therefore the genealogy in Luke is for Mary and they just said it was for Joeseph because. That's why!"
And then, boy will I feel really fucking stupid! I might cry, I might stop writing...
Or I might think about it.
First I'd challenge them to find any other genealogy that terminates at a father when it actually meant the mother. I'd ask them to prove to me it was actually done that way. There must be historical examples in order for them to make that kind of claim right? I'll assume so... you can assume it too because then we get to the fun part. Let's do math! (Actually, I hate math, but.. yet it's still the fun part)
Okay, so if you look at the graphic above (you know the one that fixes everything) then you will notice that they had to use a really small font on one side and add a space between lines on the other. In other words, the maternal line for Jesus (Luke's genealogy) has a shit ton (actual measurement term) more names than the one for Joseph (Matthew's).
In fact, after the supposed intermarriage that both genealogies agreed on Luke has 18 names before it gets to Joseph (Mary in the graphic above) while Matthew's Gospel only has 9.
So let's assume that all the wives of the men represented in Matthews lineage had these children at the average age of 20 (They might have had others when younger, this would be pretty old for a first child at the time). There are 9 men on the list from Zerubbabel to Joseph.
If their wives had the children listed at the ripe old age of 20 and there are 9 names to account for we get 180 years. Maybe these were all second or third children, so it's possible. They could have had these kids at the average age of 20.
So... 180 years, maybe a few more or less.
So 180 divided by 18 (that can't be right, hold on... let me count it again. yep 18) that gives us... U'hm 10. So the average age that each woman represented in Luke's genealogy would be 10.
That's not Mary's age, that's the average age everyone in her line had to give birth in order for one of the lineages to belong to Joseph and the other to belong to Mary.
I would think Jesus rising from the dead may be more probable then this apologetic explanation.
"Okay Atheist, look, the one in Matthew is just missing a bunch of names you dick!", my completely fictitious apologetic spouting friend might say. Okay, so then it's not very fucking useful as a genealogy then is it? (Actually, one really did say this to me today, but just without calling me a dick. That's called embellishment for effect and I'm very immature for adding it)
Think about that for a while... then remember it that apologists will say just about anything to make the bible say what they want it to say.
Then if you want to open a whole other can of worms check out the apocryphal Gospel of James and you find out Mary's dad's name was Joachim. He's a Catholic Saint. (In case you don't know apocryphal books are ones that almost made it into the bible, such as the Apocalypse of Peter, which is where we get most of our ideas of Hell)
So, if you read it, and then come at me and say it doesn't disprove your god, well... your correct, I literally just told you that. I expect someone will do it anyway.
What it is meant to do is refute one really bad apologetics talking point.
We all know there are contradictions in the bible. Some Christians accept this fact, saying that while the bible is divinely inspired it was written by men and they make mistake (which in my mind means you can't trust any of it without just picking and choosing which parts you believe).
Others though will cling to a belief that they are just "apparent" contradictions. Any contradiction in the bible can and have been explained. In my humble opinion, a lot of these reconciliations seem like something they just pulled out of there asses, but maybe they prayed earnestly and God gave them the answer (which he pulled out of his infinite ass).
One of these apparent contradictions is the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke for Jesus. Both trace Jesus' lineage all the way back to the line of David (Luke's even goes all the way back to Adam).
The actual purpose of either lineage was to give Jesus the correct pedigree!
Since Jesus came from God, Joseph's genealogy as stepfather should have been irrelevant.
Thing is, after a certain point (After the lists split off from King David) there are a lot fewer names in Matthews's lineage than in Luke's and apparently, they both give Joseph (Masry's husband) a different father. Matthew calls his dad Jocob and Luke calls his dad Heli. It seems like a pretty cut and dry example of a contradiction right?
"Wrong! You are wrong. Stop being a stupid atheist in your stupid atheist's lack of understanding ways! Matthew was a Jew and they were Patriarchal... you dumbass atheist," I imagine them saying, "and Luke was written for Gentiles and for some reason I'm going to claim the Gentiles were a matriarchal society and that therefore the genealogy in Luke is for Mary and they just said it was for Joeseph because. That's why!"
See, they even helpfully changed Joseph to Mary and drew an arrow
Apparent Contradiction FIXED! Why am I even writing this? It's solved!
FUCK!
Or I might think about it.
First I'd challenge them to find any other genealogy that terminates at a father when it actually meant the mother. I'd ask them to prove to me it was actually done that way. There must be historical examples in order for them to make that kind of claim right? I'll assume so... you can assume it too because then we get to the fun part. Let's do math! (Actually, I hate math, but.. yet it's still the fun part)
Okay, so if you look at the graphic above (you know the one that fixes everything) then you will notice that they had to use a really small font on one side and add a space between lines on the other. In other words, the maternal line for Jesus (Luke's genealogy) has a shit ton (actual measurement term) more names than the one for Joseph (Matthew's).
In fact, after the supposed intermarriage that both genealogies agreed on Luke has 18 names before it gets to Joseph (Mary in the graphic above) while Matthew's Gospel only has 9.
So let's assume that all the wives of the men represented in Matthews lineage had these children at the average age of 20 (They might have had others when younger, this would be pretty old for a first child at the time). There are 9 men on the list from Zerubbabel to Joseph.
If their wives had the children listed at the ripe old age of 20 and there are 9 names to account for we get 180 years. Maybe these were all second or third children, so it's possible. They could have had these kids at the average age of 20.
So... 180 years, maybe a few more or less.
So 180 divided by 18 (that can't be right, hold on... let me count it again. yep 18) that gives us... U'hm 10. So the average age that each woman represented in Luke's genealogy would be 10.
AVERAGE AGE 10
That's not Mary's age, that's the average age everyone in her line had to give birth in order for one of the lineages to belong to Joseph and the other to belong to Mary.
I would think Jesus rising from the dead may be more probable then this apologetic explanation.
"Okay Atheist, look, the one in Matthew is just missing a bunch of names you dick!", my completely fictitious apologetic spouting friend might say. Okay, so then it's not very fucking useful as a genealogy then is it? (Actually, one really did say this to me today, but just without calling me a dick. That's called embellishment for effect and I'm very immature for adding it)
Think about that for a while... then remember it that apologists will say just about anything to make the bible say what they want it to say.
Then if you want to open a whole other can of worms check out the apocryphal Gospel of James and you find out Mary's dad's name was Joachim. He's a Catholic Saint. (In case you don't know apocryphal books are ones that almost made it into the bible, such as the Apocalypse of Peter, which is where we get most of our ideas of Hell)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)