No More Hall-Decking for You Guys

“Twelve Jews were brutally murdered, huge numbers maimed,

and many Jewish women were raped. Two million rubles worth

 of property was destroyed.”

~ Lawrence Kelleman

I

sn’t Christmas a wonderful time of year?

Consider this:

     Thus says the LORD, Do not learn the way of the nations, And do not be terrified by the signs of the Heavens, although the nations are terrified by them; For the customs of the peoples are delusion; Because it is wood cut from the forest, The work of the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool. They decorate it with silver and with gold; They fasten it with nails and with hammers So that it will not totter” (Jeremiah 10:2-4).

     Okay, that's it for all you Christmas-tree-hugging Christians. If you believe in what the Bible tells you, there will be no more Christmas trees or decorating!

     Thou mustest not decketh the halls!

     And lest you think the tree is the only borrowed symbol or tradition practiced by the God-fearing, allow me to shed a little light in a dark place.

In ancient Babylon, the date of December 25th was a celebration in honor of the son of Isis, the Goddess of Nature.

     In Rome, long before the birth of Christ, the Winter Solstice day of Saturnalia was celebrated in honor of Saturn, the god of agriculture. The Mummers, who went house to house, singing and dancing, sprang from this celebration, and from it, the tradition of caroling.

     Northern Europeans celebrated Yule, on Winter Solstice, the shortest day of the year, in honor of the birth of the sun god, Mithra. Kissing under the mistletoe began there, as a fertility ritual. Evergreen trees were brought indoors to remind them of the coming harvest.

     Even the Druids had a ritual around a tree.

     Since pagan Romans were in the majority in the year 350, Pope Julius I declared that the birth of Christ would be celebrated on December 25th, so as not to alienate them, and in hopes that they would convert to Christianity a bit more easily if they could keep the date of their feasts. The ritual of gift-giving began in Rome, as well:

     In pre-Christian Rome, the emperors compelled their most despised citizens to bring offerings and gifts during the Saturnalia (in December) and Kalends (in January).  Later, this ritual expanded to include gift-giving among the general populace.  The Catholic Church gave this custom a Christian flavor by re-rooting it in the supposed gift-giving of Saint Nicholas.[1]

The history of Saint Nicolas began in Turkey, where Nicolas was a bishop who convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. After his death December 6, 345 CE, he was idolized, and eventually became the central figure when his bones were moved to Italy, and he replaced Pasqua Epiphania, “The Grandmother,” who used to put gifts for children in stockings. When The Grandmother was ousted, Nicolas became the focus of gift-giving. This cult made its way to Germany, where Nicolas was merged with the god Woden, and the white beard, winter clothing and his travel on a flying horse became the norm.

In a quest for adherents, the Catholic church adopted the Nicolas figure, and encouraged the pagans to exchange gifts on December 25^th, rather than on the 6^th. He soon became known by the Dutch version of his name, Santa Claus. The rest is just the natural progression of time and tradition.

     Christmas, then, is not a history of Christian celebration of the birth of Christ. It is more accurately a time when Jews were tortured and murdered, and a modified incarnation of the most reprehensible pagan rituals ever known. Here’s why:

     The pagans of Rome would force one community member to partake in debauchery and gluttony, and then when the festival ended on December 25th, they would destroy the dark forces by killing him.

Some of the most depraved customs of the Saturnalia carnival were intentionally revived by the Catholic Church in 1466 when Pope Paul II, for the amusement of his Roman citizens, forced Jews to race naked through the streets of the city.  An eyewitness account reports, “Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them and at the same time more amusing for spectators.  They ran… amid Rome’s taunting shrieks and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily.[2]

In Warsaw, on December 25, 1881,

Twelve Jews were brutally murdered, huge numbers maimed, and many Jewish women were raped. Two million rubles worth of property was destroyed.[3]

Julius Streicher, a particularly depraved assistant to Hitler, wrote a Christmas editorial to Der Stuermer, an Anti-Semitic newspaper. In it, he said,

If one really wants to put an end to the continued prospering of this curse from Heaven that is the Jewish blood, there is only one way to do it: to eradicate this people, this Satan’s son, root and branch.

     Merry Christmas, everyone.

And that’s not the only thing that Christians don’t understand about their own beliefs. Many common themes and terminology don’t stem from the actual scriptures.

     Dan Barker, an ex-Christian minister and author of many essays and several books, including, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, confronts this.

The next time believers tell you that "separation of church and state" does not appear in our founding document, tell them to stop using the word "trinity." The word "trinity" appears nowhere in the Bible. Neither does Rapture, or Second Coming, or Original Sin. If they are still unfazed (or unphrased) by this, then add Omniscience, Omnipresence, Supernatural, Transcendence, Afterlife, Deity, Divinity, Theology, Monotheism, Missionary, Immaculate Conception, Christmas, Christianity, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Methodist, Catholic, Pope, Cardinal, Catechism, Purgatory, Penance, Transubstantiation, Excommunication, Dogma, Chastity, Unpardonable Sin, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Incarnation, Epiphany, Sermon, Eucharist, the Lord's Prayer, Good Friday, Doubting Thomas, Advent, Sunday School, Dead Sea, Golden Rule, Moral, Morality, Ethics, Patriotism, Education, Atheism, Apostasy, Conservative (Liberal is in), Capital Punishment, Monogamy, Abortion, Pornography, Homosexual, Lesbian, Fairness, Logic, Republic, Democracy, Capitalism, Funeral, Decalogue, or Bible.[4]

---

[1] Clement Miles. Christmas Customs and Traditions: Their History and Significance, (Dover Publications, 1976), 178, 263-271.

[2] David I. Kertzer. The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican’s Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism. (Alfred A. Knopf, 2001), 74.

[3] Lawrence Kelleman. “The Real Story of Christmas.” Simple To Remember. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm.

[4] Dan Barker. “Quotations.” The Infidels: Infidels, Freethinkers, Humanists and Unbelievers. http://theinfidels.org/zunb-danbarker.htm.

No More Hall-Decking for You Guys

Devout Follower seeks Advice from Dr. Laura....

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread. (cotton/polyester blend) He also tends to curse and blaspheme alot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

-------------------------------

this joke came from D.A.F.T. message board via Atheistalliance

Devout Follower seeks Advice from Dr. Laura....

Is God Pissed with Christians?

I'm sensing a trend, here. My previous post was about god electrocuting a preacher in the baptismal. Now, he's allowing someone to gun down the pastor? Is god turning on his PEOPLE?

Pastor gunned down in Illinois church Posted: 02:38 PM ET

(CNN) — The pastor of a Maryville, Illinois, church was shot to death during a service Sunday in front of horrified parishoners who then tackled the gunman, state police said.

Fred Winters, the pastor of the First Baptist Church, was shot and killed during the 8 a.m. service, while his attacker and two parishoners suffered knife wounds, Illinois state police spokesman Ralph Timmins said.

The gunman walked in during the service and walked up to the pulpit, opening fire when he was met by Winters, Timmins said. The man’s .45-caliber pistol jammed after he shot Winters, and he pulled out a knife and turned it on himself before being tackled by some of the roughly 150 worshippers attending the church,
Timmins said.

Two of those who went after the attacker suffered non-life-threatening injuries, while the suspect’s injuries are “very serious,” Timmins said.

Thankfully in my Baptist Church we have 2 police officers who wear their guns under their suit coats during services. My heart goes out to the congregation and families at that church in Maryville IL


Okay, a couple of questions:
1. why does this poster need armed police officers in his congregation? Does this happen a lot?
2. Can't your God protect you in His own house?

I mean, let's assume, for a quick, brainless moment, that there is a mythical omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being in the cosmos. Doesn't it seem like he's pissed at christians?

Is God Pissed with Christians?

Honk if You'll Kill for God

(from my book in progress, Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology")


...We have had time to evolve since those dark days. Yet, how could we, when there were so many examples and encouragements to keep us uncivilized and vicious?

In the story of Abraham and Isaac most Americans are familiar with, God commanded Abe to sacrifice his son to Him. Old Abe never batted an eye. Good thing an Angel stilled his hand just in time. Abraham was praised and promised blessings because he feared the Lord enough to sacrifice his son, whom he loved, because "God" told him to.

Abraham's "devotion" to God makes him a model of faith to Christians and Jews alike. . .right. But a model of WHAT? I have a few suggestions. How about a model of zealotry? A model of stupidity? A model of a schizophrenic killer?

What would have impressed me more, and made a great deal more sense, is if Abraham would have instead said, "I will not kill my son for you, because to ask this of me proves that you are evil, and I will neither worship nor obey an evil God." That would have shown Abraham to be truly a model for other people-not of faith, which this shows is not a positive thing to have, but a model of ethical, loving behavior. This would have also shown him to have courage in the face of some request made by a God he worshiped, but who had obviously become something not worthy of adulation or obedience. And if God had really been testing Abraham's mettle, He would have responded, "You are indeed a man of great courage and integrity and compassion and ethics, and I am well pleased." But as we all know, that's not what happened.

To anyone reading this, Christian or not, if you really believed God was telling you to kill your own child, would you do it? It is my most fervent wish that all of you will answer a resounding and unhesitating "No." If you answered otherwise, you are no better than Abraham, and no better than our more modern example of the 39 year old Texas woman, Deanna Laney, who thought that God told her to kill her three sons. She managed to succeed with two of them, sparing only the infant, who will now have a life of dependency on others, since the injuries from the attack will forever render him incapable of self care.

As a nation of ethical, loving, and compassionate people, we were shocked and disgusted by this heinous act. Why do we see this behavior as abhorrent in real life, but hold it up as some paragon of virtue when referring to faith and the Bible?*

Oh, it gets worse. This next tale is not one I ever heard before reading the Bible, and it is glaringly apparent why not. It's another example--not so summarily candy-coated--of why blind faith can be one of the most evil things in existence.

Jephthah. He made a stupid promise to God that if He would award him victory in battle, he would sacrifice the first person to walk out of his house and greet him, after returning from a mission of slaughter in war, and give this doomed candidate as a burnt offering to the Lord. **

When Jephthah returned home from the exhilarating slaughter of thousands, the target for sacrifice turned out to be his daughter. He just decided, "Oh, oops. Too bad, have to kill her. I promised."

I can mark that off to human stupidity, but then, God didn't stop him. Was God stupid? Or just unfathomably mean? God allowed Jephthah to kill his own daughter, and proves Himself again, a blood-thirsty apathetic being.

With complete comfort, I challenge God Himself to come down here and explain that one to me. But God won't do that, because though Christianity is one of the "revealed" religions, this in no way indicates that God ever reveals Himself in any real way.

Both of these stories are examples of religious zealotry, not at all contrary to what the Muslim hijackers did when they piloted the planes into the Twin Towers. They, too, were following the literal instructions given to them in their holy books, the Koran and the Hadiths, (which is second only to the Koran in sanctity, and gives more detail about the life of Mohammad).

Now, it would be cowardly of me not to think about this, and what it really means. A parent would actually kill his own child because some deity told him to-told him, apparently, by way of a voice in his head. (Isn't this similar to what murderous schizophrenics experience?) Abe didn't know God would stop him. He did it with the fullest intention of completing the hideous task. And Jephthah not only did the same thing, but came up with the wager by himself, as a way to reach his dubious goal of successful, widespread slaughter.

So. This still happens today, though not cloaked in the shroud of admirable character. Quite the opposite is true, isn't it? God didn't stop Deanna Laney, either, though she was about to kill her kids believing that's what God wanted. Why didn't God step in and say, at the very least, "No, no, Deanna. . I'm not doing that stuff anymore. I decided it was better to just kill my own son to cover all the sacrifices we might need in the future, and be done with it." (Well at least God did what he expects of others, that one time). But God didn't stop her, just like He didn't stop Jephthah. Thankfully, our judicial system did something about it, by putting her on trial, judging it wrong and worthy of punishment. Unfortunately, she was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and was committed to a mental facility for an unspecified period of time.

But if you are either guilty or insane for thinking that God told you to kill your kids, are either of those valid reasons to defend the virtues of Blind Faith?
Um. No.
-----------------------
*And more poignantly, there is no mention of how Isaac felt after his sacrificial test. I can't imagine that he would be able to love his father after being tricked and nearly killed by him. The two dead Laney children could not be reached for comment, and the one who survived won't ever be able to comment.
** First, I am struck by the absurdity of this deal. Why would anyone make such a vow in the first place?

Honk if You'll Kill for God

Pascal's Wager: Hedging The Bet

(from my book in progress, Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology")


One explanation that often comes from the lips of the faithful is this: "I'm not sure, but I think I will go with the God is real thing, just in case--if I do, and it's true, I'll be covered; if I don't, and it's true, I'll burn in hell."  This is known as Pascal's Wager. [1]

First, this ideation doesn't address WHICH God you should accept or worship. This is often referred to as the "avoiding the wrong hell" conundrum.

And what if God is real, but there is more than one god? How do we know which guidelines to follow for the god of that particular faith?

And there can be a negative consequence for believing something that isn't true. Refer to the plethora of historical documents, and even current incidents where Christian Scientists believe that prayer, rather than medical intervention, will assure the safety of their children, and those children suffer and die.

At the root of this hedging mentality is a religion of fear. If God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (the 4 Omni's) as well as the Alpha and Omega (beginning and end), Infinite, Incorporeal,[2] and Ineffable[3]....the most perfect and indeed the original being in the universe, then why does He need to be worshiped? Why would He care? A perfect, non-human being would not have a human division of consciousness like ego, much less any human emotions we tack onto him.

There's an essential point to be had here, and that is the tendency Christians have to anthropomorphize God-that is to say: personify or humanize Him. This being, as He is understood by Christians, is anything BUT human. If this deity exists, and is what Christians testify to, then he is INCAPABLE of having His feelings hurt, or being lonely; if he were, he is simply not the God Christians tout, and thus not worthy of worship anyway. An imperfect being does not warrant worship. And if the "truly inspired word of God" is to be our touchstone, then I submit God is not only imperfect, but mean, petty, cruel and, at times, evil.

It makes more sense to me that I make my decisions about what I believe based on sensible arguments, on empirical evidence, or the lack thereof. If we were not meant to use the reason inherent in our working brains, then why would we have it? If God is the Creator of us all, why would he create beings with the ability to choose to deny Him?

As previously mentioned, according to Christians, God needs us to worship Him. So creating something that was contrary to His needs, when he has complete and utter power over the process, is again nonsensical. And another example of the inherent contradiction of the Christian God.

I have had my moments of clarity over this. One came when I sincerely and earnestly asked God to show Himself to me. I told God that if He could show me he was real in a way that was undeniable to me, personally, that I would not only admit I was wrong, but would spend the rest of my life helping others to believe in Him too. This was not the first time I had had this little discussion with God. But they all garnered the same result. No sign; No message, no change at all. A silence that was cosmically deafening.

I know that Christians will be quick to say that this was because I didn't have enough faith. (Again, anther ad hoc argument that falls flat in the face of reason). But I know for a fact that my faith was larger than that mustard seed found in Matthew 17:20. And I wasn't trying to move a mountain, nor was I asking God to move one. I was asking for a clear sign. I got nada.
The absence of a sign gave me another sign. (A sin of omission by God?) The sign that said "God is not real."

At the same time, I have other moments when I wonder. But I am smart enough to recognize that any reticence I have to completely deny the existence of God is attributable to religious insemination--my fear that if I'm wrong, I might meet a horrible fate that includes the mind-numbing pain of feeling my skin melt off in the furnace He so lovingly provided for me throughout eternity. If I had no other reason, that concept alone is enough for me to turn away from this deity, even if I don't ultimately deny His existence entirely.
-------------------------------

[1]“Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose. It was set out in note 233 of his Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics. Historically, Pascal's Wager, ground-breaking as it had charted new territory in probability theory, was one of the first attempts to make use of the concept of infinity, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated the future philosophies of pragmatism and voluntarism.” (Wikipedia).
[2]Having no material body or form.
[3]Incapable of being expressed in words.

Pascal's Wager: Hedging The Bet