Monday, April 14, 2014

Crazy Black Christians

Monday, December 30, 2013

The Bible And Rib Tips


Last summer - my neighbors, living two doors away - very nice people, but particularly enthusiastic Christians were in their backyard having a small get-together. I was walking home from Walgreens through the alley, they saw me passing, and invited me over. After I had dropped my items off at home - I came by, and was generally enjoying myself. They announced to their friends that I was the "Neighborhood Atheist" - but to my surprise, they were cool, reasonable and curious - I engaged in some interesting, and possibly productive dialogue with their guests. Most of them seemed to be well-educated, and they asked good questions (And, unlike what most Christians irritatingly do when you attempt to dialogue - this group politely allowed me to answer their questions without them shouting at me while I was speaking, or cutting me off before I could finish my statements. I must praise them sincerely for their very un-Christian like behavior).

Food was available, the offerings included chicken wings, hamburgers, and rib tips. My neighbor's wife graciously prepared a plate for me that included rib tips. I did not want to waste any food, so I informed her that "I cannot eat the rib tips." She was a bit surprised - she said: "I know you are an Atheist, you a Muslim too?" I intimated that I do not eat them for health reasons (which is the truth). She took the plate - removed the rib tips, and everything was cool (and tasty). The other guests were eating those rib tips with extreme relish - and informing me that: "You don't know what you are missing!" In actuality - I do know what I am "missing" - I used to eat pork, and believe me, I know it tastes great. I had to let it go in my early twenties because I was developing adult-onset diabetes. I did not want to be tethered to medication for the rest of my life, or lose a limb, or go blind (a diabetic eye condition called "diabetic retinopathy"). My girlfriend at the time suggested that I stop eating pork, and severely cut-back or eliminate dairy products and sugar from my diet. I did this - and after seven clear months, my diabetes backed-off and disappeared. I limit my consumption of dairy to the occasional pizza, no soda, and I do not touch pork at all.

When I was transitioning away from pork - I did some research about it. For food use, it is pretty hairy. I would include pork on any list of hazardous substances. It is quite toxic to the human body - this is not from a religious standpoint, it just is. The red flag for most people should be the fact that you have to be even more extra-careful in the handling, preparation, and cooking of pork, than any other animal product. For example; on the rare occasions that I eat red meat (beef and lamb), I prefer my meat cooked medium, with just a little pink inside. Can't do that with pork - you better cook the shit out of that piece of meat - or you may be playing roulette with your life. There is too much potentially negative shit health-wise with pork for anybody to mess with that is truly interested in maintaining good health.

This is a partial list of the bullshit you can get from eating pork:

1. Yersenia Enterocolitica - this bacterium can send you to the hospital with bloody diarrhea.

2. Salmonella Enterica - this is straight-up food poisoning. Symptoms can include; fever, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, stomach cramps, and muscle aches. The presence of this bacteria in some people can be fatal.

3. Staphylococcus Aureus - infections from this bacterial agent can be severe and deadly. This virulence can infect your heart valves, and give you a tenaciously persistent form of pneumonia.

4. Enterococcus - (Includes: E. Casseliflavus, E. Gallinarum, and E. Raffinosus) this bacterium causes bad urinary tract infections.

5. The Nipah Virus - this causes a deadly kind of encephalitis, an acute inflammation of the brain.

6. Salmonella Typhimurium - this bacterial infection can inhibit the operation of one's immune system.

7. Tania Solium - or "Pork Tapeworm," an actual worm, this is a major cause of epilepsy in humans.

And the big one...

8. Trichinella Spiralis - trichinosis can be fatal from worms entering the central nervous system. Death can be caused by stroke, myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle), encephalitis, or pneumonia.

This is a pretty nasty list. The fact that this [pork] can give you "bloody diarrhea" if somebody lapses in the way they handle this shit should cause any THINKING PERSON some pause before they decide to eat it. And again - this is not the entire list of things that eating pork can cause.

Now - I always will have a ton of negative things to say about the Bible. Because it is negative. But - in order to be a good Atheist, one must also be fair... The Biblical prohibition against pork was extremely good advice. Why was this prohibition put in place? Is it possible that folks in ancient Palestine understood a cause and effect relationship between eating pork and certain illnesses? Was there too much of a societal cost to allow its continued consumption (a public health issue)? And they decided to use authoritative means to stop it? OK... Makes sense to me.

So - why is it that so many Christians eat pork? Why do they blow past the prohibitions? Because - when you look in your Bible, God makes a couple of pretty strong no-no's when it comes to eating pork - like:

"And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you" (Leviticus 11:7-8 KJV).

And...

"And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase" (Deuteronomy 14:8 KJV).

Now, we must point out that these verses were allegedly spoken directly out of the mouth of God. No "inspiration" through a "messenger." No third parties. And the information that was expended is unambiguous. And in the case of the verses extracted from Leviticus, those verses are from the same part of the Bible that prohibits homosexuality. Christians seem to have no problems enforcing God's suggested penalties that are attached to the prohibitions regarding homosexual behavior. But when it comes to eating pork chops? "Oh - um (cough) - didn't Jesus change all that?" Could this be a bald-faced case of scriptural "picking and choosing?"

A biblical salad bar? Just asking...

When I was growing up in Chicago, during the 1960's and 70's - anytime a Black person stated that he did not eat pork, folks would immediately ask if he was a "Mooslim," and if he was not, he was looked upon as some kind of weird outlier - "What's up with him?" If you were a Black Christian - you were fucking EXPECTED to eat pork, because if you didn't - there was "something wrong" with you. That's how it was. But then, in my latter-day studies of the Holy Bible, I developed a curiosity as to how Christians got around this quite, quite obvious restriction, because Jesus himself (quite obviously) certainly did not make the change - as you can see:

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, not one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:18-19 KJV).

You will find me using Matthew 5:18-19 KJV a lot in future posts - this is because I consider it to be Jesus' main, irrefutable liturgical and doctrinal "bridge" between the Old and New Testaments. Now - as you read the remainder of this post - I want you to especially keep in mind the part of Matthew 5:18-19 where Jesus says: "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven..." Now, focus on the word "Whosoever" - from a dictionary standpoint, the pronoun "Whosoever" would also include Jesus himself. And of the "commandments" that Jesus is indicative of - I think we could safely assume that he is talking about only those rules issued by GOD himself - Right? OK... As you read on folks, keep that "Whosoever" word in mind please... "Whosoever" - OK?

We also have JESUS stating:

"Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law?" (John 7:19 KJV)

"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail [than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid]" (Luke 16:17 KJV).

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17 KJV).

Ain't that the New Testament? OK...

So it wasn't Jesus that allows you [churchgoer] to serve ham sandwiches and Jell-O (gelatinized, fruit-flavored pork) to the little kids in the church fellowship hall. Again folks, it wasn't Jesus. The guy that had allegedly opened-up the reason to invent mild-sauce was (the faith-conflicted and emotionally disturbed) Saint Peter, with two, weird, off-track passages:

"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean" (Epistle to the Romans 14:14 KJV).

And...

"And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common" (Acts of Peter 10:10-15 KJV).

So - according to most Christian scholars, apologists, spiritual hustlers, and well-educated clergy, these are the two scriptures that "abolished" the prohibition on eating pork - despite the fact that God himself said not to, and despite the fact that these two scriptures are not precisely messaged in any useful way. This is interesting... Now - scripturally, and within this post; we have two strong, and unambiguous prohibitions directly out of the mouth of God; we have four clear assurances from Jesus, that in no respect that the Old Testament permissions and prohibitions laid down by "The Father" and "The Prophets" were to ever be revoked by him; and then we have a full 180 degree turn on all of those strict, God-given dietary prohibitions by one off-track disciple of Jesus. Just like that. 

Wow... A disciple of Jesus was able to fuck with something that Jesus himself wouldn't? Or, could there be some kind of interpretational slight of hand in play here? COULD there be? 

OK... Folks - keep your mind of potential possibilities open.

Now...

As we clearly see in reading The Acts 10:10-15 KJV - this guy [Peter] is apparently "tripping" on or because of "something" (Can I get a hit?). "And there came a voice to him???" We have no literal way of knowing if this "voice" was God himself, or possibly a wayward angel, or maybe even "The Devil." "A voice" that never gives its identity - and then we have Peter (whom is clearly not clear at this point) making an ASSUMPTION that he was hearing the voice of "The Lord." Really? Folks - please notice that when the "voice" spoke a second time - "Mr. Voice" speaks of God in the third person. Doesn't sound solid to me. But I can see these verses - in the hands of a skillful apologist, being used as a slick "workaround" to get around certain distasteful commandments or prohibitions that some Christians might find "inconvenient." This shit has gone on for centuries.

If I were a Christian - it would seem to me that if you are talking about amending or even possibly abolishing any commandment or prohibition that came directly out of the mouth of God - there would be a righteous demand for a much higher standard of proof than "a voice," before taking actions that could possibly take myself and fellow Christians straight to hell. God said directly - "don't even touch the fucking carcass dude..."

But since Apostle Peter heard "a voice" - everything's cool? 

We also, in The Acts, have to deal with good ol' Peter having some kind of "vision(!?)." Now again, we don't know what brought on this "vision" - if he were dreaming, or hallucinating, or possibly being high on something - we really don't know. But I suppose that if you are already hearing voices - you might as well have "a vision" too, just to complete the experience...

So, the scripture says...

"He (just) fell into a trance..." Now - I suppose, to some folks - "a trance" is serious business. But - I've never personally considered "a trance" to be a good source for reliable information... But - I don't know everything - OK? So - cut me some... OK? But, I would like to ask you folks: "When was the last time YOU acted upon supposedly serious information someone had given that was acquired while they were in "a trance?" Would you take seriously any recommendations given by your dentist; for example - he hasn't examined you in two years, but he knows exactly what dental work needs to be performed now, and he got this information while he was "in a trance." I don't know: You, in the dentist's chair - mouth open - power drill going - guy in a trance... Doesn't sound like a good mix to me...

OK...

Well, how about this: The President, deciding through his capacity as the "Commander In Chief" to order 250,000 troops and nine warships to a place in the world where no hostilities toward the United States or any other country is occurring. He then explains, through a televised press conference that he sent those troops and ships - because HE KNOWS "something is about to happen" - and he only wanted to get ahead of that "something" before it occurs. The press asks: "Were your actions based on some new intelligence?" The President replies: "No - I got my warning through a vision I received while I was in a trance, and from that vision, I knew I needed no other advisement or information to make that move, dear ladies and gentlemen. So - I am having this press conference today, because I wanted the American people to know - that this order was not some arbitrary or impulsive action decisioned by me alone -

A VOICE, told me to send out the troops - Now..."

Seriously folks - how do you think the electorate, the press, the United Nations, our allies, and the U.S. Congress would deal with that one? OK...

And Christians wonder why Atheists call the Holy Bible and Christianity inconsistent... Come on now - Peter??? This is the same guy that initially confessed Jesus as the Messiah - then put down (denied) Jesus on three separate occasions after Jesus' unjustifiable arrest at The Garden Of Gethsemane (Luke 22:39-47 KJV) - he then flipped again, and preached on the Day Of Pentecost (Acts of Peter 2:1-13 KJV). 

Ahh... This is the go-to guy for diet advice? 

"And there came a voice" - "Rise Peter; kill, and eat." - Really?

Now - I know that Peter has those applied titles of  "Apostle" and "Saint." But - in the Christian hierarchy; wouldn't the word of Jesus, being "The Son Of God" take precedence over one of his apostles? Wouldn't "The Word Of God" take precedence over the word of Jesus? Jesus was pretty explicit about not fucking with that - you know - that "Word Of God" thing. You know? So, how did Peter get the authority to end-run Jesus, and then overturn "The Word Of God?" Romans 14:14 KJV reads like the kind of random ruminations that one might find in a diary, or on a legal pad one might use to capture certain thoughts that capriciously pop-up during the course of the day. So - he was "persuaded" by Jesus to go off God's script? A divine "mutiny" - if you will? Sounds like either Peter is full of shit - or somebody else is... If I were a real Christian that actively studied the Bible, and therefore being a studiously serious follower of Jesus - that [Romans 14:14 statement] would be interpretively unacceptable to me - and it should be biblically suspect (considering the source) to anyone else.

So - "The Word Of Peter" takes precedence over "The Word Of God?"

Sounds like a "play" to me. If I were a believer, I would say: "Any 'repeal' of 'The Word Of God' would have to come from God himself - or his directly appointed representative (Jesus) - not from some 'apostolic underling' (like Peter), to righteously carry any real weight with me. And me also, now being especially reflective when it regards something as fragile and serious as one's health." So what, if it's in the Bible - any thing or agenda can be strategically dropped "between the verses." Any meaning that you want can be strategically well interpreted "between the lines." Christians always talk about "interpreting" and "misinterpreting" - this decision [not eating pork anymore] is a reasonable conclusion (not an "interpretation"), a valid correlation, that is based upon actual experience [demonstrable illness on my part], and the direct testing(!) of the alleged "Word Of God." Thereby, making my illness go away - and it has to this day, stayed away.

In this case - "The Word Of God" has absolute validity.

I know that there are a lot of the "clean pig" apologists out there - and the things they say may be scientifically accurate about modern pork-handling practices. But I wonder if Peter ever spent any time in a spot where pigs were being raised - or was he actually just angling for a way to legitimately sink his teeth into a nice, juicy pork chop - without offending "The Lord."

Understand folks - even if pigs are raised in "clean" conditions, and are fed "clean" foods, there is something about the basic "chemistry" of pork that makes it offensive to the human body - no matter what you do. It can be a major factor in the development of tumors, cancers, rheumatism, high-blood pressure, diabetes, gout, obesity, and stroke. Renal failure seems to be common with long-time pork eaters (possibly from the additional toxic load that the kidneys must then process as a result of sustained pork consumption). The divine prohibition against pork consumption was clear, no-nonsense, and pro-health. There are some people within the "healthy eating" community that think pork actually accelerates weight-gain, makes excess weight harder to lose, and produces an especially offensive body odor from its consumers. The "healthy" folks also believe that the daily consumption of pork will indelicately degrade one's physical appearance - giving some extreme eaters a "piggy" or "hoggish" look.

And some Christian ladies will put lipstick and a weave on top of that...

There are many Christians that are aware of the things that I am saying here. But most Christians say "fuck that" - even with the threat of hellfire smouldering beneath that barbecue pit - bacon, ham, ribs, and pork chops are simply "too good" to give up. Even if God says to do so - "Don't we live under 'grace' pastor?" - "Can't we just pray over this, and let that be that?"

"Forgive me Lord - I gotta roll with Peter on this... Amen."

As a child, I used to spend some spring breaks on my grand-auntie's farm in Alabama. She and my cousins had a generous spread, and they owned about 50 pigs. They are quite strange creatures; they are assertive - not shy in the least. Sometimes, they are almost humanly intelligent - they occasionally seem to know what you are thinking. They also seem to learn from mistakes faster than dogs. On the other hand - they are the most indiscriminate and unrestrained when it came to what they will eat.

I have personally seen pigs do these things:

- They will eat the feces from other animals, and their own feces.

- They will drink urine - their own and others.

- They will eat their own stillborn piglets.

- I have seen them eat maggots off the carcasses of deceased animals.

- They are not afraid of snakes - they will attack and consume them.

- When bitten - snake bites do not seem to affect them.

- They will eat cancerous growths, and infected flesh - dead or alive.

Sounds tasty - doesn't it? Again folks - pork is a hazardous substance. If you have any real interest in staying healthy - letting go of that nasty-assed pork is a good start. Funny though - it seems that Christians hate the truth, even if that truth comes from their own "perfect and inerrant" book - The Bible. Joel Osteen - yes, the fucking mega-church TV pastor, told the truth about pork, and of his personal eating habits in one of his sermons (click on the link below to watch). The aftermath was funny as hell!!! Christians from all quarters unleashed a firestorm of negative criticism towards this man - FOR TELLING THE TRUTH... Joel quickly realized that telling the truth(!) fucks with the Christian Marketing Plan - so he stopped giving his congregation any real and useful information from that time forward.

"What the fuck you trying to do Joel - make your congregation think?"

This time - Joel was right - Peter was wrong - dead wrong. This should make you wonder: Do Christians REALLY believe "The Word Of God?"

Check out the link: http://youtu.be/LJrJkFBEt_c

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Christians - Read Your Bibles!!!


"[Christians, please!] Read your bibles and holy books. One of Atheism's biggest problems [with Christians] is that not enough Christians read their Bibles. This allows preachers to interpret the Bible's contents as they see fit because nobody who owns what they claim to think is the 'perfect word of god' can actually bring themselves to read it. It's no mystery why so few believers actually read their Bibles. They are afraid that if they did, they would understand how flawed [a document] it really is. In short, ignorance of their own Bibles keeps Christians Christian and empowers crooked preachers and politicians to do as they see fit, without challenge, in the name of god, with parishioners' money. Indeed, Christians who don't read their Bibles are allowing religious freedom to be endangered, hurting themselves and their country on the whole."

David Silverman - 
American Atheist Magazine, 4th Qtr 2013 - Pg. 8

I am what you might call a "Bible Atheist." My first verbal eruption that there was something profoundly wrong in Christian America, occurred in the summer of August 1966, I was eleven years old at the time, and Martin Luther King Jr. was campaigning in Chicago for open housing and the desegregation of all neighborhoods in the city. On the 5th of August - a march was staged through an all-white neighborhood in the city. King and his group was met with the usual (at the time) race-fueled hostility. Flying bricks, bottles, rocks - "Nigger! Nigger! Nigger!" - etc. King was blasted in the head with a big fat brick. That brick knocked him dead on his ass. The proceedings were televised, and we were intently watching - he said at the time: "I have seen many demonstrations in the South, but I have never seen anything so hostile and so hateful as I've seen here today." 

Wow...

From things that I have seen and heard in church, things that I have seen and experienced in society, independently turning over in my mind what I received from certain sermons in my grandmother's church - I had been developing all kinds of doubts about Christianity, Jesus, God... A Christian country? Something was just not adding up. I had been harboring these doubts for at least a year - but I never said anything about them. After Rev. King made his statement - I turned to my grandmother and said: "Gran, why does God only help white people?" She said: "What? - Baby, I know that's what it looks like - but God has a reward for folks that keep the faith! What you looking at is the Devil - not God - OK?" She then put her hand on my head, and started "speaking in tongues." In order to "keep the peace" - I just said "OK" - and kept it moving by changing the subject. 

That following Sunday, after services, one of the "elder ladies" of the church pulled me to the side and began to question me about my doubts. She asked, "have you been praying for understanding?" - I said, "no." She said: "No wonder!!! You haven't been reading your Bible - have you?" I had to admit - I had not read it at all - I just went by what the preacher said. "Well - you should read it - it will straighten you out!!!" I said - "OK, I will." I don't think she realized that I would actually do it. But I am glad she asked, because reading the Bible in its entirety, is what made me a hard-core Atheist. It took me twenty months, because I was not just reading it - I was studying and cross-referencing, and compiling notes on it, and THINKING. By the time I finished Book 66(!) of the "King James Version" (Revelation), I was done with Christianity and everything associated with it.

FINISHED.

When I started - from page 1 (Genesis), till the day I closed the book on the very last page - 1834 (Revelation), I encountered a dismal world of incomparable weirdness. I never found much that was useful there. But I did find a lot of stuff that simply was not true. A lot of stuff that outrages any sense of operational morality. A lot of stuff that if put into practice would be dangerously uncivilized, and - a lot of stuff that is so opposite to any concept of a quality life, that it is understandable why most Christians of today ignore many of the most unworkable and unreasonable parts of the Bible ("Do not wear clothes of wool and linen [or any two fibers] woven together" - Deuteronomy 22:11 KJV - "Silk and wool suit Pastor - huh?").

The problem is that there are no repealing statements anywhere in the Bible for not doing the most heinous or nonsensical stuff anymore (like slavery, stoning, or killing gays). The Bible is so open-ended, contradictory and disjointed that anyone with a slick plan or agenda can "interpret" into existence any kind of doctrinal set-up that he wants - and could actually back it up with good Biblical justification if anyone decides to call him on his bullshit. The Bible is not time-sensitive at all - nor is it intended to be: Matthew 5:18 KJV, gives us this: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, not one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." OK - how long will that take?

Not much room for interpretation either... "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (2Peter 1:20 KJV). So what is your pastor or priest talking about? Isn't he "interpreting" in that pulpit? Giving HIS "take" on scripture? How HE feels? This verse means - NO interpretation of the scripture. All he is supposed to do - if anything, is read any verse aloud, and shut the fuck up. Do you really need to go to church for that? And give up money? Can you do that yourself?

Is the Bible "God's Word" - or the pastor's?

And - how many Christians are there that know other Christians that work on the "Sabbath?" What about the restaurants many Christians go to after services? Well - according to the Bible - the penalty for the waiters and the cooks is death (Numbers 15:32-36 KJV). Right? Well... Yeah - the Bible has no exceptions for restaurant personnel working on the Sabbath. It ain't in there. How in the minds of Christians does it process that the people that work in the restaurants they go to after Sunday church services, are somehow exempted from those Sabbath prohibitions? So... Where are these Christians biblically - being the willing enablers of sin by patronizing these establishments? On a more practical level - I don't see why good wait staff would want to work in any restaurant that has a large patronage of Black Christians that loudly arrive after Sunday services - they don't tip anyway... So why mess with that? No biblical exceptions for Sunday NFL games, the folks that work at the electric company (your lights on?), or the Fire Department (Answering machine kicks in: "Keep the Sabbath holy... If your house is on fire, please call us back Monday morning."). Would "The Sabbath" (Exodus 20:8-11 KJV) work for you, in this instance?

I had mostly kept my atheism to myself (with the exception of immediate family) for years. I did not open my mouth to the public about my position until immediately after 9/11/2001. That was when another "Party Of God" decided to make a political and religious statement by flying planes into buildings. A good friend (Seima Aoyama) was on American Airlines Flight 11. I had never read a book written by any Atheist up till that time. I had my own good reasons for not believing - so I had no real need (so I thought) to seek other viewpoints. When I did start reading Atheist literature - one of the things that struck me - and still does, is the tremendous knowledge of the Bible that many Atheists possess. Not just direct and encyclopedically accurate knowledge of the literal text, but Biblical History, Bible Criticism, Christian Apologetics, Biblical Exegesis, Free Will Theodicy, synoptics, Christian Ontology, theonomy, Christian History, and hermeneutics.

Most Atheists that I have read and listened to seem to have a better grasp of the Bible and of the many diverse Christian doctrines, along with general Christian philosophy and theology than professional religionists or clergy. My personal observations reveal that - the greater the amount of detailed knowledge one has about the Bible, the greater the likelihood that one may become Atheist - or may already be so. That is why I strongly believe that 97% of clergy (especially those with advanced degrees), professional apologists, and well-educated politicians are privately Atheist, but will never publicly admit the fact because of social, political, strategic, and economic reasons. A bunch of pragmatic wimps and liars.

It is a solid fact that many people become Atheists as a result of going to college classes in theology or biblical studies - there are a LOT of those. People that have been formally educated in some of the world's best divinity schools (And I mean like - Oxford, Princeton, Harvard, etc...) are presently some of the biggest and most passionate advocates for Atheism (like Professor Hector Avalos - to check him, click on the link below). Why do these sorts of people become hard non-believers? I think it is because Atheists truly care about whether their "operating system" is true or not.

On that note - it is irritating as hell to talk to most Christians about certain passages in their scripture - because they don't know what the fuck you are talking about. "That's not in my Bible!!!" - at that point, you have to grab THEIR Bible away from them, turn to the appropriate passage, cite it, watch the cognitive dissonance arise, kick-in, and then let yourself be entertained with the apologetic dance they always do when they encounter something in the Bible that THEY recognize is literally heinous, literally untrue, literally contradictory, or literally stupid. I recognized those things in the Bible when I was a mere teenager - so I know that astute religionists and the clergy see those things also. The average, run-of-the-mill believer needs to read and see those things as well - so that person may formulate a pure, un-assisted, but informed judgment. For instance; a critical read reveals that the Bible is horribly edited - for example; there are TWO creation stories, with TWO different versions (uh... Oops!) of the order in which God created things (No.1 - Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 and - No.2 - Genesis 2:4-24) - oh shit - which one? - Make up your mind Yahweh!

And then there is the problem of the tremendous inconsistencies of the "Four Gospels" in the New Testament - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Between the four - the Gospels have got to be some of the worst reporting on a single story, about a single guy (Jesus) in the history of reporting anything. If you had employees that botched a very important business report, and had fucked it up to the same exalted level of ineptitude that is reflected in the Gospels - you would not have just fired the bastards - you would have those employees blacklisted from ever being employed in the same industry that you may be a part of, anywhere in the motherfucking world, as a matter of protection... The Gospels are put together that badly.

And I am supposed to base my life on a fuck-up?

Mathematical errors abound here, and many Gospel accounts are not in any useful way complementary between the four on important details. For example: My own studies (as a teenager) counted at least 160 points that don't totally square, or don't square at all, points that are here, but are not there, and accounts that may be told of the same occurrence - but the telling(s) themselves are in themselves totally different stories - or the occurrence is missing entirely, and something else replaces it, within the same time frame, in another Gospel - or two - or three. Did you get that?

Good... Most don't.

Matthew says there was an earthquake when Mary Magdalene and the other Mary(?) came to visit Jesus' tomb (Matthew 28:1-10 KJV). How did Mark, Luke, and John miss that? I mean seriously - how in the fuck do you miss an earthquake? Three guys out of four? The GOSPELS? Look for yourself - the other three Gospels make no mention of this event at all. As a fact of scripture - each one of the four Gospels has a totally different resurrection story regarding the first visitors to Jesus' tomb. It is not like these particular books are dispersed into different locations within the New Testament, or that they have no relation to each other. Hell NO buddy - these are the first fucking four books of the New Testament: Matthew - Mark - Luke - John - sitting there, in that order, together, like a set.

These - "Gospels" - supposedly, being the most important - the central part of the Bible for all Christians, should be the tightest, most profound, and most unimpeachable part of scripture... But - they are literally not!

There are also problems recounting Jesus' genealogy; specifically laid-out by Luke and Matthew. But before we go into this - I want to point out that the fact that there is any "genealogy" regarding Jesus in the Bible, is just one example of the kind of confused reasoning that abounds throughout the Bible. Has anybody ever thought to ask: "How could Jesus - being 'The Son Of God,' even have a 'lineage?' OK? Having no 'earthly' father, or genetically related 'mother' on the one end - and him not 'begetting' any children of his own on the other end -  what possible 'lineage' could Jesus have or produce?" This is not an unreasonable question.

According to some Bible scholars, Luke's account (3:23-28 KJV), follows the lineage of Mary. Really? Wasn't that booty supernaturally hijacked by the Holy Spirit for a minute? And the Bible makes no note of any possible genetic connection to Mary. OK? "The Blessed, Immaculately Conceived Virgin" (I love it)... Mary - basically functioned as a "total surrogate." No egg was donated - no sperm was introduced. That was a "spirit-injected" - then transitioning into "flesh" type operation. OK? Matthew (1:1-17 KJV), follows the lineage of Joseph. How is this? Sounds like Joseph needs to make that appointment with Maury... Right? "Well Joseph - You Are Not The Father!" OK? "Jesus is the SON OF GOD..." Right? So, I must ask: "For what purpose is an earth-sourced 'lineage' even in there?"

Well - this is what happens when you read your Bible...

Anyway - both Gospels sweetly begin, showing that Jesus was sired, not by Joseph, but by God - then, after a hot and heavy pregnancy - we have Jesus himself, "The Savior," wet - popping up and out of Mary's sweeet, immaculate, virgin ass (Yes)!!! "Here's a towel..!!!" Now... The lists are consistent between Abraham and David - but after that, everything goes waaay off-track. Biblical scholars (for centuries) have tried to explain why the lists are so different - putting forth various theories (and to this day have not come to any consensus). Past Abe and Dave, ain't nothing matching-up nowhere. The Bible itself makes no distinctions, or gives-up any kind of explanations for these discrepancies. The output from Bible scholars for hundreds of years regarding this issue amount to guessing. But the latest (formal) scholarship now regards these genealogies as pure inventions. So - either way, we laymen don't know what we are looking at.

"Look man, either you're related to me - or you're not." - This is bullshit.

Now...

The core teaching, the rationale of the "Good News," the witness of the itinerant ministry of Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice of his flesh for the sake of mankind - and, the great promise of his future return should have been solidly and accurately recounted here. FINE... But - instead of the Gospels being the most finely-tuned and organized example of revelatory literature on the planet (After all, it was "divinely inspired" and motivated - Right?) - we have a holy mishmash so haphazardly compiled and nonsensically messaged that it should raise serious doubts in the mind of any THINKING person about its historic accuracy, the veracity of any claims made, and - most importantly, the existence of any divine influences in its creation.

Before I read the Gospels, I had already had doubts about Jesus' divinity - "The Son Of God" - all that stuff. You know... At that point I did not have any doubts about Jesus' possible existence. But after I thoroughly read, exhaustively analyzed, and reflected (for a long time) upon the Gospels - I came to this place; until someone comes my way with solid, accessible, and verifiable evidence - not belief, EVIDENCE - I will remain pretty much convinced that the Biblically asserted Jesus never existed... OK?

Now - we won't go into detail on this post regarding some of the stupid shit that allegedly came out of Jesus' mouth during his "ministry." Those will be subject matter(s) for future posts. But for the moment - well, let's put it this way: Some of the stuff he said - I would have crucified his ass too...

Understand this believers - Think... There is a full, international Gospel sub-industry that spends its working time trying to reconcile these four accounts of Jesus' birth, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection into forms that are "digestible" and reasonably coherent to the believing public, and also, easily usable by clergy. There is a juicy lot of creative energy being expended on this part of the Bible. There are organizations, professional apologists, hundreds of books, articles, and thousands of internet pages addressing this single problem - one term used to describe this challenge is the "Synoptic Problem" (check Google and Amazon) among others.

Biblical scholars have been working their holy asses off to resolve this un-resolvable since the middle of the 18th Century. What is this - the 21st? - and they still haven't been able to put this shit in sync? Ask yourself, good Christian: "If 'The Gospel' was 'divinely inspired by a perfect God' - why would 'The Word Of God' need to be 'fixed' - after the 'inspiration?"

The Gospels are an editorial mess - this is not good work...

As an aside - my grandmother belonged to what is called a "Full Gospel Church." Now - there are lots of them in Black neighborhoods. As a kid, I actually thought that "Full Gospel" was probably something you graduated to. I never expressed anything regarding that - but I harbored the notion that there must be "Half Gospel," and maybe "Quarter Gospel" churches in existence somewhere. Right? Otherwise, why would it be necessary to distinguish a church as "Full Gospel" when the prime concentration of any CHRISTIAN church is supposed to be "The Gospels" anyway? OK?

Now... Let's talk slavery.

Black Christians hate for the slavery parts of the Bible to be brought up because that embarrassing slavery issue hits so very close to home and ancestry, and because any divinely permitted slavery calls into obvious question the actual quality of biblically sourced "morality" - seeing as how slavery in itself is morally indefensible in any context, in any way. That's right Niggers - if SLAVERY is permissible, then rape, murder, battery, kidnapping, false imprisonment, forced labor, and theft is also permissible, since those seven criminal components are the principal aggregates of slavery. So, with that - all of those "moral barometer" niggers (like Steve Harvey) need to ask: "Where is God's 'moral barometer' at?" before any of them ask anyfuckingbody else, "where is theirs?" if the same God that all these Black, christianised motherfuckers believe in can approve of, sanctify, and allow, this kind of immoral, inexcusable, bullshit...

Was that offensive? Oh, Jeez - I'm sorry...

The slavery directives from the mouth of God kinda destroys the "all men are equal in the eyes of the Lord" argument. And likewise, the tired-assed Black preacher bromide: "We are all God's children..." Fuck that shit. So niggers - how does God permit some of his "children" to enslave some of his other "children" if we are all "equal in the eyes of the Lord?" Especially if many of those enslaved "children" have done nothing obvious within this lifetime to deserve to be so onerously circumscribed - in this lifetime. Abortion opponents consistently tell us that every soul is created at the moment of conception. Well - are they? And if they are - by what process are some "equally-sighted" souls designated for enslavement - or not?

Understand, people...

The Bible is literally a sickening slave-o-holic orgy of God-given morality in action. Some parts, like in Leviticus, spell out directly from the Lord's mouth, rules, regulations, and standards: Like - "You can enslave those motherfuckers - just don't enslave these motherfuckers (Leviticus 25:45-46 KJV)." And: "You can beat the shit out your slave - just don't beat ALL of the shit out of him - OK? (Exodus 21:20-21 KJV)." Other parts read like a manual of slave etiquette - pretty stuff like: "Slaves - no matter how big an asshole your slave master might be - do not hate him, but continue to serve him well, only because he belongs to the congregation of believers. Oh - and don't forget to teach other slaves this shit (1Timothy 6:2 KJV)." The Bible also says: "Slaves - no matter how far your slave-master may have his foot up your ass, or how badly he may mentally abuse you - it is your duty as a good and faithful slave to maintain your devotion to your master, as well as your decorum towards him (1Peter 2:18 KJV)."

Wow...

That [1Timothy & 1Peter] was the New Testament..? OK...

And no Christian could rightly bring to me the convoluted and meaningless equality statement expounded in Ephesians 6:5-9 KJV, nor the excretable lie of Galatians 2:6 KJV. These verses are used a lot by spiritual hustlers to "wallpaper" over other biblical verses that are clearly not acceptable to the generally enlightened moral sensibilities of 21st Century Americans. Folks - open your Bibles and read these verses directly for yourselves. Then think about my reaction to them: "No matter how adeptly clergymen and spiritual hustlers may work their interpretive magic on these verses, there is not, nor ever will be equality between master and slave..."

So...

That is why I like to bring slavery up when we niggers are talking Bible shit among ourselves, because when I do bring it up, one or more Christian motherfuckers will lose their fucking minds, and then start sputtering about "mis-interpreting" and "twisting," and that shit is so funny! And it is too damned bad somebody a long time ago did not have the foresight to edit that shit out of there - but they didn't. And it is too fucking late to take that shit out of there. And many folks in the world have seen those words, and now they have to stay in there, for everybody else to see... Because if you took them out now - somebody will look like they are full of shit...

Those words being there - are a really big inconvenience to Christians.

But I am glad those words are there - gives us something to talk about...

Now...

Black Atheists get particularly peeved when a faith-addled Black person will say: "The slavery in the Bible was different than the slavery we had here!" Niggers! Even if slavery were "different" - given our history, why would any sane African-American type motherfucker be cool with slavery on any level, in whatever flavor, whether the permission to do slavery came from heaven or earth? Talk about "mind control!" Every society mentioned in the Bible, from Babylon to Egypt, was a fucking slave regime. If anything - slavery was probably even more brutal during Biblical times, than the nasty American version. Why? Because slavery in those times was actually cultural, punitive and political, whereas the American version was an important part of a great international agricultural-industrial complex. So - there was a greater "corporate" interest in keeping slaves in the best working condition as possible. And may I remind you... Slavery is SLAVERY motherfuckers!! And according to the Bible - God and Jesus is OK with it, from Leviticus, in the Old Testament, till the end of the New Testament, with no repeal:

"Exhort servants [slaves] to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things(?); not answering again [talking back]; Not purloining [stealing] but shewing [showing] all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things" (Titus 2:9-10 KJV).

What the FUCK???

That is the New Testament - there are 66 books in the King James Bible - Titus is book number 56 folks (count um)! Jesus himself used slaves and slavery in several parables to illustrate certain points - but sadly, he never repudiated the practice itself (Christians - THAT is just one of the things that you discover when you take the time to read the ENTIRE Bible, like most Atheists have). I'm glad niggers can't apply that kind of excuse or logic easily to other things: "It's bad now - but, murder then was different than the way they kill people today." What? It kills me how many unlearned Christians always attempt to amateurishly sanitize huge piles of theistic bullshit - and then expect everyone to respect their pious-assed nonsense just because it is arrogantly asserted as religious and Biblical.

They may be able to do that with others - but not me. 

And Christians...

When you critically read your Bible, please don't allow part-time apologist Christians to persuade you to believe that "nice" word "servant" (in some translations), means something other than "slave." Some translations render that word (slave) in a "softer" way so that you can ignorantly "skip-over" the ugly brutality of what that word actually communicates. "Servant" means SLAVE within any context in any Bible - along with all the bullshit that comes with it. Now - some amateur apologists will say that the Bible is really talking about an "employment situation" (seriously?!), or that most instances of slavery as being some kind of contractual agreement:

"Both thy bondmen [slaves], and thy bondmaids [slaves], which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen [non-Israelites] that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids" (Leviticus 25:44 KJV). 

Does that shit sound like a "contractual agreement" to you?

How about this killer - "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren [tribe] the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour" (Leviticus 25:45-46 KJV). So - if you "hire" a slave you get to keep his kids too? This is "employment?" How do niggers blow past this shit?

What would an "application for slavery" look like?

Another thing that one should be on the lookout for, as you are reading your Bible without assistance; is the tired - Old Testament versus New Testament smokescreen when the issue of slavery is being discussed. Again - there is no repeal of the practice in either testament, and there are more positive references to slavery in the New Testament as opposed to the Old Testament (read your Bible and see). And did not Jesus state: "Think not that I am come to destroy [revoke] the Law or the Prophets [of the Old Testament]. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17 KJV)? Meaning - "Don't think I came to change things - I am here to make sure all of this Old Testament shit will keep going down, and that includes SLAVERY motherfuckers!" That's Jesus, for you... So don't fall for being accused of "mis-interpreting," or "twisting the word," of "not having enough faith," or for "taking things out of context," or for "not being covered in the BLOOD," or, for not understanding some "deeper meaning." This is, all, off-track bullshit. If you allow yourself to be influenced by this nonsense - please. The Bible has no more "deeper meaning" than a roll of toilet paper. Stop listening to the pious knuckleheads, and get yourself a beer...

Now...

The last thing to peep from amateur apologists is what I call "The Oldest Diversion:" This shit is usually pulled-out by astute but semi-educated believers that know enough about the Bible to recognize that there are a lot of things within that book that are straight-up indefensible. So, if you are doing a reasonably good job of pointing out the bullshit - they will attempt to change the focus by saying: "In order to get the true meaning of God's word - you've got to get the oooldest manuscripts from the Dead Sea, and read them in the original languages." Really? OK - Let's, let's process this... "So, OK - In order for me to get the 'true meaning' of 'God's Word' - because hey, according to you, it apparently ain't in the Bible - Right??? -

OK - So... I have to:

1. Learn to read dead languages.

2. Update my passport.

3. Get a visa.

4. Purchase a travel package.

5. Purchase a bulletproof vest (That is the Middle East, you know).

6. Learn to swim (I'm not good at it).

And, once I do ALL this...

Ding!!! - I GOT IT!" - Is that how it works?

This trick is usually effective against potential unbelievers that are not well-versed in the literal Bible or don't know much about biblical history and construction. But one thing that should be blatantly obvious about these "Deadseamen," if you ask, you will find that none of THEM have done any of this shit. Every one of those "Dead Sea" motherfuckers have in their possession, and are referencing from the same Bible that THEY say that the "true meaning" contained therein is somehow compromised - and that YOU will never understand it properly because YOU are not reading it in the "original languages." If that is the case - why do THEY even own one single Bible in English, if it is not literally leading them to the truth?

Just a question...

Now, check this shit - these are the same motherfuckers that can barely pronounce a word in English that has five or more letters in it properly. So now - they are trying to tell YOU to read something, not only in another language, but in a dead language at that. (Take a good hit off your blunt at this point...) Really? (Now exhale...) - Can you believe the balls on these motherfuckers? When they expend this bullshit; notice when they say the word "oldest" - they always hang on the "O" - "The OOOldest." They know niggers are enamored with ancient sounding shit - and that "O" sounds "mystic," and "spiritual," and "back-in-the-day-ish." So they hang onto that long "O" sound like somebody is trying to stick a dick in their ass...

Please.

So Niggers - what do we do with the Bibles that we have in hand - if this "oldest" shit is correct? If the Bibles that we have are so faulty - that we have to take a geographical and literary trip back in time to get the "true meaning," I would like to ask the "Dead Sea" folks: "What is the pastor at the church that you attend referencing from, and if he does have the same awareness of the 'true meaning' theory, that you do - what is he doing?" Never mind - I have the answer: "It is because of the fact that he has been 'called to preach' - that has infused him with the God-given ability to avoid the spiritual pitfalls, and to righteously fill-in the gaps!!!" Now people - let us take a minute to recover from this bullshit...

Did you get that beer yet? OK...

NOTE THIS: Some "Deadseamen" are also the exact types of people that tend to overtly distance themselves from the Bible and formally organized Christianity for various reasons (Maybe because the Bible and Christianity are maybe too embarrassing to be actively associated with? Who knows?). They will state that they are "spiritual, not religious." Which to me, is the same as somebody saying: "I'm a person, not a human being." That sounds like the type of vaporous non-statement that would release from the mouth of a politician. Where - on the surface, the statement "sounds" good - but on examination, both ends of the statement actually cancel each other out... Nothing but a wave of organized sounds so astoundingly meaningless - that anyone allowing such an expulsion to issue from their lips, once done, cannot seriously be taken seriously. "Spiritual, but not religious," is one of those fucking "enlightenment is like the sound of one hand clapping" type statements. You know - pure nonsense, but that particular zero is usually expended so sincerely and beautifully, that in response, it deserves the best you can give in mocking and ridicule... But - I do get it: I mean - if you are going to talk nonsense, you might as well say the shit convincingly, with class, with eloquence, and at an intelligent but profound level.

Now...

Preachers do what I call "spotlighting" - highlighting Bible passages that will promote what the pastor wants you to walk away with, and minimizing or skipping-over those passages that are problematic, or are too difficult to "interpret" convincingly, or may cause one to think (NO!). In my experience over the many years of listening to sermons - I have found consistently that a maximum of only twelve percent of a sermon is expounded directly from the Bible. That's it. Verse-hopping does not count ("Turn to the book of... And read verse... And now turn..."), verse-hopping is a diversionary and time-consuming exercise in page-turning that only gets the pastor closer to the part of the service in which he asks for the money.

The rest (the other 88 percent) of the sermon actually comes from seven main extra-biblical sources. And the seven are: (Envelope please...)

1. Mailed-out bullshit from that denomination's central office.

2. Stock prepared passages purchased from a sermon supply house.

3. Concepts and passages lifted from non-Christian self-help books.

4. Off-track shit supporting that pastor's personal agenda.

5. Political agendas that a legislator or party want asserted.

6. Strategically-timed musical interludes for emotional effect.

And -

7. Assorted nonsense that the pastor pulled out of his ass.

There you go...

The Christianity that today's Christians practice, is not a reflection of the literal word of the Bible. It is a scripture-abbreviated, strategically-directed and politically-accreted dis-construction. Created by a slick combination of the doctrinal peculiarities of the denomination you may belong to, the biblical passages your church decides to highlight, the biblical passages your church decides to ignore or mis-state, its biblical re-interpretational latitude, the political agendas that church wants to support and promote, and your pastor's personal agenda and personality. A Christian from the first century would not in any way - recognize today's "Christian" practices at all, he would actually be more scripturally literal and devotionally direct.

If he is able to read...

I would seriously say to all Christians - take the responsibility for your own understanding. The things that Atheists say about the Bible in particular and Christianity in general is not smoke, nor intentional ungodliness, nor disrespect, nor an excuse to fuck, nor anger at God. It is part of a sincere quest for truth. But in seeking truth, we must have the courage to point out what is not true, or moral, or civilized. Discernment starts with being honest, and admitting in a straightforward manner what is literally there.

The Bible is internally inconsistent, externally incongruent, a-historical. non-scientific, vague in a lot of areas, stupid in a WHOLE LOT of areas. And in the areas that are the most explicit and fully intended to be taken literally, these cannot be put into practice, because anyone that does, will end-up insane, or incarcerated, or dead. That is what I have found.

In order to see for yourself - all you have to do CHRISTIAN - is read it...

POSTSCRIPT: It may sound strange to the average Christian - but the great, international Christian Marketing Machine is designed and hard set to discourage direct and critical reading of the Bible by laymen. Actually knowing the Bible, and the history of its compilation - works against the marketing. That is why there is an international group of expert marketers (clergymen), to tell you exactly what they want you to focus on (like faith, making donations, and tithing), and what to ignore (like slavery) - the way they want you to. At some points and places in Christian medieval Europe - it was actually illegal for a Christian layman to own a Bible in his own language (yes - that's true). Students of the Bible, not long after the "First Council of Nicaea (325 AD)" - began to see historical, constructive, and philosophical problems within the Biblical canon - even at that time. The ecclesiastical powers in place at the time, began to put together and solidify the basic marketing and indoctrinational infrastructure, that is still mostly in practice (but with some aggregated denominational distinctions, and added-in things that must be complied with as far as state laws, local secular ordinances, and the U.S. Constitution).

The Bible itself was not discussed at the Council, but - how Christ, and the Trinity were to be marketed were two of the primary discussions. And that discussion is ongoing - "Jesus is THE PRODUCT" says mega-pastor T.D. Jakes. And the Bishop is correct - Jesus IS the product... So the question in your mind should be: "Who is selling THE PRODUCT, and whom is the target market for THE PRODUCT? Is THE PRODUCT a good PRODUCT, and if I were to purchase THE PRODUCT, what positive and demonstrable BENEFIT would I get from utilizing THE PRODUCT, and would THE PRODUCT benefit me (the buyer) to the same obvious and generous degree as THE SELLERS?" Fuck yeah... I would want to know how much of THE PRODUCT do I need to use, and for what duration do I have to use it, before THE PRODUCT enables me to fly around in private jets, get extra pussy, and live in multiple mansions too...

That's a "consumer information" request folks... OK?

Notice how Bishop Jakes calmly describes Jesus Christ in commercial - not religious terms, like he is marketing a can of soup (Check the link below). That should tell all motherfuckers SOMETHING right there...

"Salvation?" That's a joke passed around in the clerical locker room.

No church will ever make a serious entreaty for parishioners to: "Read Your Bibles." The great, Christian Marketing Machine knows that literally - the Bible is a drag (it is really hard to read - and boring). They know that most people won't do it - and that is perfectly fine with them. That is why it is such an accomplishment for those that actually do it. But the potential downside for the great, Christian Marketing Machine, is that out of those folks that finally (or will) do it - there is a certain significant percentage that will appropriately start asking questions - good questions, for a change. And the main thing your good pastor does not want you to do is to ask good questions, or to think for yourself, or to attempt any independent research, or to do anything that may possibly increase your non-sectarian, "non-clergyfied" knowledge of the Bible, without that pastor "overseeing" you in some kind of way. Your pastor prefers to be the one to provide the proper "interpretational guidance" - thereby keeping you from developing any "devilish notions" that may prompt you to ask the "good questions." "And, why are the 'good questions' a problem, Sir?" Well - because, good questions destroy bullshit. Destroyed bullshit causes doubt.

And doubt fucks with church revenues...

Black people hand over hard-earned cash at the rate of $300,000,000 per week to churches. That is 15.6 billion dollars per year, just from us. Not counting the untold billions we spend on "inspirational" literature, gospel music, movies, shows, retreats, and special events.

Serious business... Imagine what the Black community would be like if we were actually self-funding Black-owned businesses, think-tanks, black political interests, housing, culture, and community college pools for the education of our children at that same rate. But HEY... Fuck that - paying for the pastor's Bentley and private jet is more important than economic self-sufficiency and advanced education for our children. At the same time - all other ethnic groups are "taking hold" of every present and potential market in the Black community that can be made profitable - while our preachers are exhorting US to "keep our heads to the sky", and - HOLD ON TO JESUS!!!

Now...

The "good question" problem is mostly nullified by all of the extra-biblical literature that is available. But the average Christian does not understand that all of this stuff is diversional. It is really slick the way the Christian Marketing Machine does this. This literature is one of the many ways available to keep your eyes off the (entire) text, and to keep you (the layman) focused on those passages that serve the purposes of the church. These texts are usually much more readable, much more interesting, and much more entertaining than the Bible (that's the intent). But - you must understand that all of those extra-biblical texts are nothing but interpretational bullshit, only produced for marketing and indoctrination purposes (your salvation is not on the menu). If you read this bullshit, and really take it to heart - you are actually allowing apologetic hustlers - those "Called By The Lord" con-men (and con-women) to do your thinking for you. Those fucking people have no more insight into the "Mind Of God," or "what God wants you to know" - or do, than you do.

"Oh..! Buy my new book - Butt Sex God's Way!" - Please...

Any time that those texts deal with any questionable or clearly immoral biblical passages - they will take you for a long-assed walk around the block, and then drop you off - intoxicated and confused, somewhere in the middle of a Chinese desert. Most of the guys that write these texts would make excellent criminal defense lawyers. And the Christian Marketing Machine knows - that if large numbers of people actually started reading the entire Bible critically - that will be the death of Christianity. They don't want you to read it... At least, not critically.

Have you ever noticed that in all the areas of the world that are primarily Christian, the strongest enclaves where "The Faith" is concerned - are always located in the poorest, and least literate areas? You know - where motherfuckers ain't gonna read shit. Where education is for "the nerds" - or those who "act white." The low-literacy faithful are just fucking, watching sports, having a bunch of brat babies out of wedlock, stealing Jordans, and shooting each other, you know - the typical Christian neighborhood. In order for Christianity to continue to prosper, low-literacy in a layman is far more desirable to the church than having a layman that is well-educated.

Understand folks - that Christianity does not prosper in high-literacy, high-income areas (Notice how hard it is to find churches in the neighborhoods where mega-pastors live - or in any really nice neighborhood. Conversely, the worse the neighborhood - the more fucking churches you will find). You do not find a lot of high-income, high-literacy, scientifically aware, and business savvy white people spending a lot of time IN CHURCH. In the Black community, you'll find that 65% of all storefronts or other kinds of facilities that were formally used for commercial purposes are habitually turned into churches. Building churches is a kind of "fetish" that we Black people possess and nurture, I have no idea where it comes from, and that "fetish" is both chronic and ubiquitous: A real, but unavoidable insanity.

It is understandable though why clergy are excited and motivated when it comes to building churches. Churches are excellent cash generators for clergy. They provide an extremely high return on investment - for instance: The congregation does not only function as the primary revenue source, but they also serve as a built-in, no-cost, word-of-mouth marketing force. You also have amateur, semi-professional, and professional musicians, duped into providing wonderful "inspirational music" for free - under the persuasive flimflammery that they are a, or doing, "a ministry" - and that they are expending their good time and talents "To Serve God." The actual material benefits (in the here and now) that are produced from all this time, effort, and talent being expended, go straight into the pockets of the preacher. The people that do the work are paid in "salvation." Maybe that's a good deal? Who knows? In the Black community, not only is the church a great way to make money, but for the pastor - the church also serves as an inexhaustible source of fresh pussy - ask Jesse Jackson - he knows!

Hey man... That's that PRODUCT - OK?

What about learning The Bible? Well - the last Wednesday night "Bible Study" I attended was, in reality, a dirty joke played by the pastor on his congregation... That "study" was run by a fat bitch with a bad attitude, an extreme stuttering problem, and a blond weave that looked like it needed some attention. She also could have used a good recommendation for a stronger brand of deodorant. Not only did she stutter mightily through the class (I wanted to choke her ass), but SHE did not know what the fuck she was talking about - and our actual "study" was reduced to reading some bullshit "class" materials generated by the head office of that church's denomination. No actual biblical discussion was allowed - and all hard questions were brushed-off, or wiped-away with: "You need more faith!"

Is that so..?

Now - for Black folks - mainly, the presentation, the impressiveness of the church venue, the quality of the music, the preaching STYLE, and the attractiveness of the pastor (charisma) - is much more important than the actual veracity and content of what is preached, or that whether what is being preached is moving us forward in the here and now. You don't have to understand shit - FAITH is the most important thing. And as far as faith-reinforcing literature produced by the church or denomination they may belong to - niggers never bother (or are afraid) to ask; "How did the writers of this literature get their information?" Zero inquiry from us. And, quite incredibly, niggers wonder why we are so behind on everything.

Well - this is the shit that we are running on.

One day we'll get it...

If you do decide to do independent research - be sure to use scholarly materials that are produced by universities and Biblical experts that have no denominational bent or sponsorship. And use the Bible itself as the core reference - but ignore any footnotes within (the footnotes are usually sectarian). Use only secular-sourced reference books. The stuff that is produced by mega-pastors, evangelists, denominations (like Jehovah's Witnesses), individual spiritual hustlers, and "wizards," is nothing but good marketing. You will not learn anything - and you will waste a lot of money.

When you buy a book "written" by a mega-church pastor, you are not purchasing anything that will help you spiritually, or in any other way - all you are doing is paying for jet fuel. That's it. Think about it - the only book that a mega-pastor could possibly write, that could help you to the same degree that "God" is helping him - is for him to write an honest book on how to become a mega-church pastor. Shit - I'll read that book... Have you seen it? No? And you won't. Critically reading your Bible, and doing your own thinking is the first step you can take to stop being a bitch for your pastor, taking it up the ass for the Christian Marketing Machine - and finally becoming your own, solid, and independently thinking person.

Happy Reading!!!

Check out the link: http://youtu.be/aBD91WidFis (Hector Avalos)
Check out the link: http://youtu.be/ziGcxB4mSeQ (Steve Harvey)
Check out the link: http://youtu.be/-odjtzZy0rI (Bishop TD Jakes)

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Thank Me - Not Jesus



Don't you hate it when a pious Christian imbecile intentionally mis-deploys to Jesus the proper appreciation, acknowledgement, praise, and credit due when you do something for them? You know - the same way your lousy chiseler of a manager (just speaking hypothetically of course) would take credit (and bonus money) for some good shit you came-up with... 

Right? 

That's the same way I felt when a relative called ME because she was in a temporary financial pinch - and when I came through - on time, with the help-out, the first thing she did was completely turn her back to me - look up at the ceiling, and then exhale at the top of her lungs: "THANK YOU JESUS!!!!" Well of course - me being who I am, took immediate offense to this shit. When she came to her senses, her thanks to me was damn near under her breath, like somebody was forcing her to do it. I told her ignorant ass: "Jesus did not have anything to do with this transaction." 

Why? Because:

1. She called ME to borrow the money - if she had Jesus' number, she should have called HIM.

2. I did not hear anything about Jesus going into his pockets to materially assist the situation - nor did I see his ass at the location.

3. Jesus did not bother driving my ass over there at 11pm, or offer to drive my tired ass back home at 2am, nor did he extend to put gas in my car.

4. If Jesus did offer to materially assist, she did not inform me. Does "The Lord" have to "move in mysterious ways" with everything?

5. And if he did have something to do with this, why were the degrees of aggregated gratitude expended so passionately and disgracefully uneven? I want to know why the thanks to him was as powerful and effusive as a multiple orgasm popping-off in her mouth and pussy at the same time - but to thank me - it sounded like she was squeezing-out a tight turd that had been plugging her ass for a week.

Bitch...

She then tried to smooth it over by telling me that: "Jesus guided her to me." What? Well - if that is what he did - that in itself shows what a cheap motherfucker he is... Instead of acting fully as the all-powerful "King Of Kings" that many Christians tell me that he is, and therefore, we may reasonably assume - be fully capable of reaching into his universally flush pockets, and actually giving her the money his goddamned self - he, in this instance, functioned at about the same level as a concierge or a valet. She could have gotten more help from directory assistance. Jesus said: "Call Arthur," and the son-of-a-virgin kept HIS money in his pockets. That was it. (I was supposed to tip him too? Ok.) Maybe, in his infinite wisdom he knew that my relative did not always pay motherfuckers back on time...

Christ or Chiseler? - Who the fuck knows?

Atheists like myself have to deal with this kind of "faith-based" arrogance all the time. It is all so stupid and selective. Jesus gets all the praise when good shit is happening - but when things fuck-up, somehow, the Devil or some demon is usually blamed, or the bullshit is quickly passed-off as "God's Will" - so as to promptly shut-down inquiry or examination. Can Christian Motherfuckers really tell the difference between what situations are due to "God's Will," or not, and can they clearly identify what situations are actually the handiwork of "The Devil?" They say they can... Really?

Please...

Makes about as much sense as that "I'll pray for you" bullshit. You know - that all-purpose bromidic irritant Christians piss at you when they are inwardly overjoyed that you are going through some shit, but at the same time, trying to out-front you and the rest of the world into believing that they are actually and actively "concerned" about what you are going through.

But...

On a larger level - "I'll pray for you" is a kind of insistent marketing to the world-wide gullible. Like prayer actually has some kind of utility or value. If prayer truly worked - that would be all you had to do. No phone calls to me or anyone else would have to be made... That would be all anyone had to do. Ok? It would be just you and Jesus - doing what needed to be done.

When someone tells you this bullshit - have you seen them actually pray - for anybody? Come on now - have you ever seen this being done? You know what I mean - the hands clasped, the knees down, Amen - that shit - being done with deliberation and specificity for a particular individual? No?

Ok...

Another thing - have you ever noticed that when somebody says that they are going to "pray for you" - that so-called "prayer" is never backed-up with any time, any hands, or any resources? Right? Notice how fast Christian Motherfuckers walk away from you after they tell you they'll "pray for you?"

"Yeahhhh man - I'll pray for you!!!" - Slam!!! - Gone...

Come to think of it - the next time she needs money from me, I am going to tell her that I won't loan the money. No... Instead of doing something materially - I am going to properly assist her on a "spiritual" level... I am going to "pray for" her instead. Right? Let Jesus handle it. With her being a Christian, she should not have a problem with this. Really man - if Jesus is going to get "all the glory" - when that bitch needs to borrow again, she should rightly allow Jesus to lend her "all the money."

It is that simple...

Monday, October 28, 2013

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

The Cross


One of the most irritating ubiquities to me - solid, inescapable across the "separated church and state" American landscape is the Christian cross. They are everywhere. At the same time - Christians think there are not enough of them to be seen, so people tattoo them onto their bodies, wear cross earrings, wear cross t-shirts, use cross coffee mugs, etc. Maybe God needs to know whom to strike down, and whom not to ("Got a cross man? You straight dude!"). It is also a sign that you might be dealing with a disordered mind when you see a cross hanging around an individual’s neck or otherwise attached to their person(s) in some sort of way. A nut?! Maybe - be on a careful and discerning guard until you get to know them.

At the very least - you have fair warning.

Through my readings and observations of history – I look at the Christian cross as the number one symbol of white supremacy, even more so than the Nazi swastika. When I see any white person wearing a cross, I see that as an open, but unspoken agreement that supports the system of white supremacy. When I see any person of color wearing a cross, I see that as an open, but unspoken agreement that supports the system of white supremacy. Sometimes that agreement is a quite conscious one (white folks), and sometimes not quite (Black folks). Sometimes...

"See my cross - Ahmm witcha BOSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

It is interesting that during the first two centuries of Christianity that many Christians were reluctant to use the cross at all, because it reflected a particularly heinous method of public execution (maybe they had more sense then). I think those ancient Christians would be horrified at seeing today's gratuitous use of the cross if there were a way to resurrect and bring them into the modern here and now. After all - it was the "electric chair" of its day. Christians of the early church primarily used "the sign of the fish" ("ichthys") to mark meeting places and tombs. The extensive use of the cross itself as Christian iconography did not start until the fourth century (overtaking the usage of "the fish")*. I am not exactly clear on when they started making crosses with depictions of the executed Christ nailed to it ("crucifix") – but I have always looked at those kinds of crosses as particularly sick and perverted constructions.

From an aesthetic standpoint – they are just plain ugly.

Have you ever noticed that wherever there are crosses – there is always some kind of “death activities” going on near them, under them, around them. In neighborhoods (ghettos) where there are lots of churches, and lots of crosses - there is also lots of death, poverty, and pathology. Inversely, if you notice - the more affluent the neighborhood - the harder it is to find churches, crosses, and pathology. And if you notice further - mega-church pastors do not live in neighborhoods where there are lots of churches, crosses, or pathology. Maybe they know something we don't.

And so - WE have the cross...

Those poisonous perpendiculars, standing firm and tall, there-in and un-moved, sweet, in all of their depraved magnificence - atop the roofs of, and around, and fixtured-in throughout all of those wonderful churches, where ultimately; the death of the mind occurs, and the death of critical thinking happens, where the death of self-esteem is a certainty, where the death of actual learning is beautifully accomplished, and through your tithing - the death of your fucking bank account – gone - kaput!

Didn't "The Savior" die on one of those things?

Cemeteries - headstones, crosses on the lids and interiors of caskets and burial vaults. Death. Tattoos of crosses; mainly on the right arms of gang bangers – the usual shooting arm, solidly attached to a right hand, ready to pull the trigger. A bullet, blessed and waiting in the chamber to assist you and your four-year old to that “better place.” Then, he aims and fires; and when someone impiously makes light of his sacred and "God-willed" deed: “See this CROSS motherfucker??? Only GOD can judge me."

There it is... Mortuary Science - in action!!!

Whites-only "Christian Identity" organizations: Now - let's make this quick - crosses all over the place, on their motorcycles, on their guns, on their boots, tattooed on their bald heads, embroidered on their underwear. "Kill all the Jews, kill all the niggers, kill all the gays, kill all the liberals, kill the Mexicans, kill all the pinkos - in the name of Jesus!!!" An America-based Armageddon (They say - "Bring it on motherfuckers!") - they want a "racial holy war" of sorts. Why? - to "purify the fucking country," as they loudly say. "Purify the country of what?" you may ask - "Of Niggers!" is the reply, every time, homicidally consistent, even in their fucking sleep. Amen.

Most racist organizations in America (99.7%) are Christian.

Then - we have the "bling-bling" gangsta-rap cross-bearers. The lowest, filthiest propagators of fratricidal self-hate propaganda on the planet. Every time the power-structure deems a particular rap lyric to be more self-murderous than the last self-murderous lyric - the propagating "artist" is patted on the head with a Grammy. At the show; his name - "G-Murder" or some such is announced: Then, the asshole saunters onto the stage with the top of his pants at his knees, some fucked-up "grills" on his teeth; a sequined jacket fitted five sizes too big, and in dire need of instruction as to why sunglasses are not needed indoors. And - in front of all this: he has a big, gold, diamond-encrusted cross hanging around his motherfucking neck. He accepts the award - and THANKS GOD for the "inspiration" to write the "best rap single" entitled: "Blow Dat Bitchez Brainz Out!!!"

But, you know what? - A cross - in this case - is entirely appropriate.

The Crusades (meaning “taking up the cross”) – lasting from the 11th till the 13th centuries. A bloody religious conflict of ass-kicking conquest and holy pillage conducted by Catholic Europe against anybody that was not Christian (and not in submission to the Pope), along with those that were excommunicated or considered to be "a heretic." The adopted emblem was the Christian cross. I am sure that when motherfuckers saw these "crusading" sons-of-bitches marching their way over the hill with their cross-emblazoned standards, cannons, swords, knives, and crossbows, they knew they were not coming to provide charity, anointing, or salvation.

Knife at my throat? "OK - whatever you say!!! His name is what? Jesus?"

And let us not forget the use of the cross in the hands of the white-assed “Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.” Their use of the cross is really not that much different than that of the Black gang banger. I mean – they have both missioned themselves to kill Black people (not much difference). It is just that the Klan is much more dramatic in their usage of the cross than most other groups. Black folks knew that when the Klan came onto your property – and burned a cross, it probably did not have the same meaning that was applied to the crosses that Black folks wore around their necks.

Everybody knew that when that cross was lit-up – somebody was about to be deprived of something – of their rights, of their property, of their dignity, of their life. "A cross Sir?" No - and you don't get a fucking thank you for the offer bitch. Too much negativity - too much baggage - too much death.

And you want that filthy thing around your neck? Please...

*Wikipedia