5 Reasons Why God Wants You to be a Homosexual

In response to "Movie69"'s request this post is about religion. Instead of giving a well reasoned argument why you are too old for imaginary friends however, I will give evidence from the book of the lord himself that he wants YOU to engage in acts of homosexuality. Incidentally I am going straight to hell. But hey it's got to be better than heaven which is full of fire and brimstone preachers and holier-than-thou fundamentalists.

Now I couldn't find either of my King James Bibles so I have resorted to stealing my sister's "New World Translation" bible, which I am sure is just a pseudonym to the much vaunted NIV bible. Oh well, it will just have to do.

So why doth thy Lord request thee to engage thy neighbour in butt-piracy?

Need I say more?

1. Genesis 1:26 "And God went on to say "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness"".
What does this mean? If there are homosexuals in the human race, well it's all because that is the likeness of God, since man was created in His likeness. Furthermore, if you are turned on by a man's good looks, then it is because he is the likeness of our Lord. In essence if you love a man then you love God by proxy.

2 Genesis 9:13 "My rainbow, I do give in the cloud, and it must serve as a sign between me and you and every living soul that is with you for generations to time indefinite". Here God is openly declaring his support of the gay flag and hence homosexuals forever and ever.

3 Numbers 17:1-2 Jehovah (God) now spoke to Moses, saying: "Speak to the sons of Israel and take from them one rod for each paternal house from all their chieftains, by the house of their fathers , twelve rods. You will write the name upon his rod.""  So He supports oral sex. Numbers 17:4: "And you must deposit them in the tent of the meeting before the testimony  where I regularly  present myself to you". God happily organizes and participates in orgies. 

4. Judges 2:15 "Everywhere they went out, the hand of Jehovah (God) proved to be against them for calamity, just as Jehovah had spoken and just as Jehovah had sworn to them, and they got to be in very sore straits". Misspelling aside, God promised his followers some straight men and he delivers, much to the soreness of the straights' derriere.

 5. And here is another from the mouth of Jesus himself: John 13:34 "I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as i have loved you, that you also love one another." Clearly though, Jesus isn't talking about homosexuality, he is talking about bisexuality.

And that's all I can be bothered for now folks. If you really want, I can make a part two of this, I'm sure I can quote out of context as good as any priest. Also let me know if you want me to add one! And I shall.

Oh and apparently I was wrong, this is the 7th Day Adventist bible, close enough right?

Separating Religion and Morality

Back in high school I was somewhat religious. Truth be told I was agnostic but my best friend cleverly used peer pressure to lure me to cell group where we would plan bombings in the name of Allah talk about Jesus. One of the issues that kept cropping up was morality.

See, when you believe in Jesus Christ, you follow God's morality which is lain out in the bible. So believing in God means that you have morals and ethics. But what happens if you don't believe in God? Well they really have no reason to follow any rules or morals at all since they don't believe there will be celestial consequences for their unethical actions.

Sound familiar? I'm not the only one who has been subject to that line of reasoning and I'm sure I won't be the last. I knew right from the start it was a load of Evangelical Bolshevik (pardon my French Russian). I only had to look at my god-fearing christian cousins to know that morality was not dictated by the belief in god. They would lie, cheat and steal all week long but their sinning was all okay, because Jesus died for their sins, all they had to do is go to church and pray for forgiveness.

Clearly, when christians can frivolously sin and when non believers can do good deeds then morality and god are mutually exclusive. Right?

Perhaps, but I for one can't shake off the feeling that their might actually be some people out there who only do the right thing for fear of God sending them to Hell. And this is very dangerous thinking, because as soon as they stop believing, then they start murdering people. Which is interesting because I can't think of any examples of this type of thing ever occuring.

Neverthelesss, Neitsche did follow this line of thinking. He came up with a solution. Instead of living for Jesus, live for yourself. That's not to say don't believe in God/Jesus/Allah etc, just make sure that you believe in yourself as well. Be the hero of your own story; do good things because you are an awesome person. Not for some higher power.

Mandatory Religious Post.

 Readers, you never cease to amaze and amuse with your comments. The last two posts weren't easy topics either and I can't help but wonder what is the difference between gender discrimination and a man and a woman just doing whatever they can to stay on top. I am going to leave that topic to rest for now. And so now it is time for a religious post because they are the least common post of mine.

I am beginning to dislike doing religious posts. There is only so many ways I can say "God doesn't exist" and every time someone says "God doesn't exist", God kills a kitten.

Like this one.

So instead of killing kittens, I am gong to discuss some key differences in monotheism and polytheism and my pussy placating opinions on them.

What are monotheism and polytheism? Monotheism is the belief in one god and one god only. Polytheism is the belief that many gods exist.

If you have read my post on the first cause argument, then you probably can recall that a problem with the existence of a god is the origin of that god. Polytheism gets around that without resorting to the weaselly "He exists outside of time". The origin of the god/s is simply the mother of said god/s. Problem solved. And the origin of the mother of the god is simply another godlke mother, and so forth. Not all polytheistic religions prescribe to this, many of them draw the line a few generations back. I admire the analogy to human lineage and the ingenious belaying of the first cause.

The biggest problem of polytheism though, is not it's plausibility. The scientific side of me says that the existence of a god is equally as probably as the existence of many. No, it is the appeal of monotheism over polytheism that makes polytheism seem weak..

There is a deep seated psychological appeal in one all powerful masculine god. One divine bloke, that has absolute power over your destiny. One bloke that can solve all your problems in a heartbeat, all He asks is you to follow the rules of His universe and love Him as much as He loves you. Sound familiar? That was my father when I was 5 years old. All Powerful and All Knowing.

This isn't a new concept, many other writers before me have sagely pointed out the similarities of a monotheistic god and a child's interpretation of his/her own father.

In puberty, our god is shattered as we find out that our fathers are not omniscient and omnipotent. We are fatherless and that's where god comes in.To fill in that paternal void.  For all you religious gurus out there, I pray that you are not offended. I couldn't ignore the obvious.

Polytheistic religions try to fill this void too, but when there are other gods on the scene, the "father"  god seems less important, less omnipotent and less unique.

Again, this doesn't affect the plausibility of polytheism. However, people do not believe in gods out of scientific plausibility. We believe in gods out of emotion and personal thoughts, needs and desires, which makes monotheism by far the most believable.

First Cause Argument Continued

I was going to post this earlier, but dinner preparations have delayed me. For some reason, after successfully making uber gigantic cupcakes by bastardising  Margaret Fulton's recipe, I am the cook of the house. Little did they know that I had prepared for them a meal greasier than the two fat ladies on cannabis.

 The Gman's Cupcakes of Doom. Guaranteed to send Maggie Fulton mad with anguish at what has become of her recipe...

I got a lot of interesting comments last post. I definitely stirred up the hive, and I think I may have not done the topic justice. Civilization has forever been perplexed by this puzzle and so it deserves some more time (for all those muso's and hypnosis guros out there... see what I did there?).

I digress. It's a topic most people don't want to discuss but that is the purpose of this blog really, to discuss what every non-indoctrinated free thinker does not want to discuss

Just like Cheshire commented on my last post, Big-Bangers and Creationists are very much alike.
They are both locked in an impasse when it comes to disproving the other.

In light of the other comments, perhaps the question that should be asked is whether the first cause argument has any merit anymore. The Big Bang's premise is that time existed when space existed, asking what happened before the big bang makes no sense and as for God, God lives outside of time. If we assume these to be true then the first cause argument falls flat on it's face and does not argue for or against anything. It still does not stop Christians from using it though.

Reflecting on my last post, I think I have willingly fallen into the age old trap that Dawkins refers to as the argument from "personal incredulity". I want String Theory to be true because a timeless god makes about as much sense as an event with no cause.

Religion as a Method of Cultural Assimilation

So I was playing empire total war yesterday, and the game crashed, which made me very sad. Before it crashed though I had a bit of a struggle getting my recent islamic conquests to stop rebelling.

I immediately thought of the prospect of training a priest to convert the populace but then found to my dismay that in Empire Total War that you can't train agents.

Now the concept of using religion to maintain control isn't new in these games, but in the past it may have been oversimplified (eg building cathedrals does not convert people to christianity, people convert people to christianity).

I do applaud them for their realism of this aspect of how religion works though.

The fact is, religion is an efficient way to culturally assimilate people. Where religion fails to culturally assimilate though, is where there is another religion present.

Agnosticism

I think it's about time to address the old taboo topic of religion again...

As you may already know, I consider myself an agnostic, but what does this mean?

For many people it means that they are undecided on the issue of religion, for others it means that they believe in a god but don't know who or what that god is.

For me, I prefer the literal meaning of the word. Gnossis is greek for knowing and the prefix "a" means "without".
 So I am without knowing. Which is absolutely true.

I think sometimes the term "agnostic" is used as a derogatory term to describe to people who don't wish to be embroiled in the epic war of Christianity vs atheism. Fair enough, the are not far from the truth. But that does not detract from the true philosophy behind it, which is "we don't know".

It is a solid belief system because it is based on the premise that it is impossible to prove or disprove god, therefore the existence of god cannot be known. Whereas religion proves the existence of god through fallacious methods and atheism happily rebuts said fallacious arguments by pointing out the holes of their logic (which is usually ignored by the theists as they return to their old arguments).

As strong as the atheist position is, they never actually disprove the existence of god in their arguments. They cannot. It's like disproving the existence of a chocolate teapot floating somewhere in space. It cannot be done.
What they can do is disprove the major religions, because they have holy books filled with all sorts of statements that can be disproved.

But that is not the same as disproving god. For all we know the Flying Spaghetti Monster is out there, controlling our destinies with his divine noodly appendage.

Dualism

Before I descend into this topic, I must warn you, this blog is strictly opinion. There are facts in this post, but I will make no attempt to give references and hence, the scientifically minded of you will just have to look up supporting/condradicting evidence yourself. As for everyone else though, feel free to shamelessly believe my unsubstatiated opinion.


So once upon a time in Ancient Greece some smart bloke (a "philosopher", I believe) came up with an awesome proof of the nonexistence of a benevolent monotheistic god. I'm not sure how much of a prooof it is.
In my opinion the only real proofs out there are mathematical proofs, everything else is just hypothesies with overwhelming supporting evidence, but i digress. But it goes a little something like this (please correct me if i am wrong):
If God is benevolent (good), omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (can see everything that is happening) then why is there evil? Does he allow evil to exist despite being able to stop it? Well then he must not be benevolent. If he is unable to to stop evil  then he is not omnipotent. etc.
Of course this does not logically disprove the existence of a god, let alone an abrahamic god.

And don't give my that "God had to let evil exist in order to let free will exist" bullshit. If god is omnipotent then he can make a world where evil does not exist but free will does exist. When you are all powerful you can do these things.

 Let's examine the christian god for one. There are many occasions in the bible where God boasts of being benevolent and omnipotent, but maybe he was exaggerating or outright lying. Hell, I would if I had godlike powers. If anything, God was quite malevolent in the old testament, he happily smote believers and non-believers alike if they weren't doing what he wanted. Just read the book of Judges if you don't believe me. It was only when he decided to visit earth in human form (Jesus) that God finally understood why his minions weren't constantly doing his bidding,and decided to bring out the benevolent doggie bone and toss it to humanity. He may have died for our sins but we all now the real reason he masterminded his own crucifixion was because he realised just how shit it was being a human.

Well that makes sense. Now if only I could convince a christian to believe their god is not morally infallible...

The other big option is that maybe god is not omnipotent. Sure he may be uber powerful but he doesn't quite have enough power to quash evil and banish it to oblivion. Not whenever he wanted to anyway.
That raises the question of just who or what is stopping god from doing so.
Thankfully, Christian mythology has the answer: Satan.
Only instead of Satan existing because God is letting him exist, Satan exists because God just can't get rid of him.

And this is the concept of dualism. Two eternal beings in a balance/fight for contol of the universe. Sounds a bit like the plot to Constantine. In fact, Dualism is a reccuring theme in pop culture. And each time a movie or book comes out describing the eternal battle between good and evil with God and Lucifer as the respective champions, christians just seem to lap it up. Despite the fact that it inherently goes against their religion. Because in Christian mythology, God is omnipotent so the fight for good would have been won long ago.

Now I do not consider myself a dualist or a monotheist but dualism seems a hell of a lot more feasible than monotheism.