MY LIFE

Okay, this is a follow-up to the comments posted a few days ago, which linked to a list of the number of people God killed, according to the Bible. Steve said each one was justified. Obviously, I disagreed. Like this story of Onan;  Steve said he was killed for “disobedience.” I call bullshit. So let’s look at it.

Genesis 38.1-10

1 And it came about at that time, that Judah departed from his brothers and visited a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah.

2 Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua; and he took her and went in to her.

3 So she conceived and bore a son and he named him Er.

4 Then she conceived again and bore a son and named him Onan.

5 She bore still another son and named him Shelah; and it was at Chezib that she bore him.

6 Now Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.

7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was evil in the sight of the LORD, so the LORD took his life.

8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.”

9 Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother.

10 But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.

11 Then Judah said to his daughter-in-law Tamar, “Remain a widow in your father’s house until my son Shelah grows up”; for he thought, “I am afraid that he too may die like his brothers.” So Tamar went and lived in her father’s house.

12 Now after a considerable time Shua’s daughter, the wife of Judah, died; and when the time of mourning was ended, Judah went up to his sheepshearers at Timnah, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite.

13 It was told to Tamar, “Behold, your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep.”

14 So she removed her widow’s garments and covered herself with a veil, and wrapped herself, and sat in the gateway of Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah had grown up, and she had not been given to him as a wife.

15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a harlot, for she had covered her face.

16 So he turned aside to her by the road, and said, “Here now, let me come in to you”; for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. And she said, “What will you give me, that you may come in to me?”

17 He said, therefore, “I will send you a young goat from the flock.” She said, moreover, “Will you give a pledge until you send it?”

18 He said, “What pledge shall I give you?” And she said, “Your seal and your cord, and your staff that is in your hand.” So he gave them to her and went in to her, and she conceived by him.

19 Then she arose and departed, and removed her veil and put on her widow’s garments.

20 When Judah sent the young goat by his friend the Adullamite, to receive the pledge from the woman’s hand, he did not find her.

21 He asked the men of her place, saying, “Where is the temple prostitute who was by the road at Enaim?” But they said, “There has been no temple prostitute here.”

22 So he returned to Judah, and said, “I did not find her; and furthermore, the men of the place said, ‘There has been no temple prostitute here.’”

23 Then Judah said, “Let her keep them, otherwise we will become a laughingstock. After all, I sent this young goat, but you did not find her.”

24 Now it was about three months later that Judah was informed, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the harlot, and behold, she is also with child by harlotry.” Then Judah said, “Bring her out and let her be burned!”

25 It was while she was being brought out that she sent to her father-in-law, saying, “I am with child by the man to whom these things belong.” And she said, “Please examine and see, whose signet ring and cords and staff are these?”

26 Judah recognized them, and said, “She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not have relations with her again.

27 It came about at the time she was giving birth, that behold, there were twins in her womb.

28 Moreover, it took place while she was giving birth, one put out a hand, and the midwife took and tied a scarlet thread on his hand, saying, “This one came out first.”

29 But it came about as he drew back his hand, that behold, his brother came out. Then she said, “What a breach you have made for yourself!” So he was named Perez.

30 Afterward his brother came out who had the scarlet thread on his hand; and he was named Zerah.

So Judah went and took the daughter of a Canaanite named Shua (how tacky, the daughter isn’t considered worthy enough to be named, she’s just the daughter of some Canaanite dude and becomes the mother of Judah’s kids), and had two boys, Er and Onan, and then later also had Shelah.

Judah picked Tamar to be his first-born son’s wife.

Now, first off, “Er … was evil in the sight of the LORD, so the LORD took his life.” WTF? This is pure conjecture and superstition. There is NO information provided to indicate how or why Er was considered evil in the sigh of the LORD, so there’s nothing useful to learn there, other than “you better watch out, because God might strike you dead without warning, without reason, without recourse, but that’s how God is.” Remember, these were nomadic and unsophisticated people, very superstitious. They didn’t know why some people die young, apparently without illness. If someone fell over from a heart attack, they would just shrug their shoulders and assume he’d done something to piss God off and so God struck him dead.

But anyway, apparently this wasn’t long after his father made him marry Tamar, and they hadn’t had a son yet (no mention if they’d had daughters), so Judah decided it was up to Onan to go in and have sex with his now-widowed sister-in-law to make her pregnant, thus giving a child to the widow of the first born (Er). Presumably this would ensure inheritance rights or some such thing, for the first-born of the first-born.

Side note: notice that women back then were just chattel (property). It isn’t indicated whether Tamar wanted to marry Er in the first place, OR whether she liked the idea of sleeping with her brother-in-law. Misogyny runs rampant through the Old Testament, so it’s okay to dismiss the O.T. as a guide for modern relationships. And, just so you know, I looked it up. This is a genuine Old Testament law (Deuteronomy 25.5-10).

5 “When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.

6 “It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

7 “But if the man does not desire to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’

8 “Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he persists and says, ‘I do not desire to take her,’

9 then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall declare, ‘Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’

10 “In Israel his name shall be called, ‘The house of him whose sandal is removed.’

Well, that’s seriously fucked up all on it’s own, huh? So much for all that “Biblical sanctity of marriage” bullshit. It just ain’t so! But the rule back then was that if you and your brother lived together, and the brother dies before having a son, the other brother is supposed to get the widow pregnant and the child would be consider the son of the dead guy. WOW!

Well, Onan apparently didn’t like the idea, but went in to do the deed, but then pulled out before ejaculating so that his semen “spilled to the ground”. Now, this could have been that he didn’t care for Tamar. Or maybe he wasn’t all that fond of his brother. Or maybe he didn’t like the idea that a child of his own production would be credited to his dead brother’s lineage for inheritance rights. I mean, just because it was considered the custom or law at the time doesn’t mean you have to like the idea. (see Mills’ quote in the right-hand column!!) But who knows exactly what he was thinking? NOBODY knows, that’s who. It just says he didn’t want to give offspring to his brother, but for what reason?

All that is said is that what Onan did was “displeasing” to the LORD, and so the LORD took his life. Again… where’s the justification? What *exactly* was displeasing? Was it the simple lone fact that he pulled out before he shot his load? Was it because of what he was thinking (which is NOT made clear)?

Did he fall dead from a heart attack right then and there? Did Tamar report his actions to Judah, who then took matters into his own hands and slayed Onan? (look at all the other killings in the Bible — PEOPLE did it and then blamed God; who’s to say that’s not what happened here?) How many times was Onan sent in to Tamar? Was it a one-time shot (pardon the pun) or after a year of trying someone figured out he was shooting short and not doing what he was told? Or maybe Tamar seemed unable to bear children but they blamed it on Onan? (she wasn’t barren — Judah got her pregnant later on, but they didn’t have fertility clinics back then, so they made up stuff.) These things need to be made clear in order to understand why God supposedly killed him. (no, no, I know… we’re talking about fictional characters all the way around, but in order to take the story even remotely seriously, or expect to find any valid “lesson”, we need a whole lot more information.)

The problem with all of this killing is that there is nothing there for a rational person to grasp. There must be a rational reason why the God of the Old Testament is credited with being such a killing fool. There’s no indication of HOW Onan died, just another superstitious report that “God didn’t like it, so God killed him,” same as with his brother. Maybe they both had congenital heart problems and simply died having sex, or immediately thereafter from the stress of having sex? It isn’t stated, and so we cannot learn anything from this story. It has no value, other than to paint God as a wicked fickle monster.

Steve claims God killed Onan for “disobedience”. That’s not good enough for the 21st Century. We aren’t a superstitious nomadic people making up fantasies about the deities any more. We are a civilized, and mostly rational, society and we expect clear explanations for what happens and why.

In the story, we are given a cop-out message about Er and Onan making God angry, and God kills them. But then immediately after that, we see that Judah makes and breaks a promise to Tamar that she could marry Shelah. Surprise, surprise, he didn’t keep his promise, so Tamar gets dressed like a prostitute and tricks Judah into sleeping with her. He willingly sleeps with her because he thinks this woman is a prostitute. (Uhhh… hello??? Does he not recognize his own daughter-in-law’s VOICE???) He pledges to pay her with a goat, and gives her his ring, his rod and cord as a pledge. But when the time comes to deliver the goat, the “prostitute” cannot be found, and so his rod and cord cannot be retrieved. He says, ‘Well, fuck it, let her keep them, and I’ll keep the goat.”

A while later, it is reported that his daughter-in-law has acted like a harlot and become pregnant, and Judah determines that she should be burned to death. (Wow, that’s a bit harsh, huh?) She shows up and declares that she was made pregnant by the owner of the signet ring, the staff, and the cord that she presents. Well, whattaya know…. those things belong to Judah! My, my — what a fix he’s in!

She delivers twins this time, and that’s the end of the story. The next time we hear about Judah (Numbers 26.19-22), this whole mess is glossed over.

19 The sons of Judah were Er and Onan, but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan.

20 The sons of Judah according to their families were: of Shelah, the family of the Shelanites; of Perez, the family of the Perezites; of Zerah, the family of the Zerahites.

21 The sons of Perez were: of Hezron, the family of the Hezronites; of Hamul, the family of the Hamulites.

22 These are the families of Judah according to those who were numbered of them, 76,500.

Gosh, if it were really such a big deal that Er and Onan pissed off God so much, if there were really some important lesson involved, don’t you supposed it would get more mention than just “Er and Onan died inthe land fo Canaan.”

Okay, so let’s take a tally…

Er pissed God off for some unnamed offense(s). God takes his life.

Onan doesn’t want to give Tamar a child to raise as Er’s. That pisses God off. God takes his life.

Judah, on the other hand, has some kids from a woman who isn’t even named! Disgusting.

So Judah promises Tamar she can marry Shelah when he grows up, but then he breaks that promise.

Then, never mind the woman who bore his children (his wife???), Judah figures it’s okay to sleep with a prostitute as well (hey, he’s a guy… he has needs, y’know?), and ends up fathering his own grandchildren!

He wants to have his daughter-in-law burned to death for getting pregnant, until he realizes she is the “prostitute” he slept with. Oh but look how generous he is: “And he did not have relations with her again.” Makes it sound like he visited this “prostitute” more than once, huh?

Judah is a liar, a cheat, a misogynist, and a wicked person willing to burn his daughter-in-law. Yet he gets off scot-free and his progeny eventually numbers 76,500. So whatever Er and Onan did, it must have been WAAY worse, if God just instantly zapped them, huh? But again, WHAT did they do that was sooooo horrible, compared to what their father did?

To believe the story literally, as if it actually happened, is to accept that God is a reckless monster without any sense of justice whatsoever.

Rationally, Er and Onan died through natural causes. That’s the only way natural people die — illness, accident, whatever. Attributing it to God is pure superstition, because there is nothing in the story to support that it was actually God, other than “well, that’s what it says, so it must be true.” No, it isn’t true. It didn’t happen, and anyone who thinks it DID happen that way, and believes there is a God, and that God really does just kill off people for supposed disobedience, are just messed up in the head.

And there are thousands more that God supposed killed (or ordered to be killed), and it will be awfully difficult for anyone to go through that list and come up with rational justifications for any of it.  But I will wait to see the rationale for each and every one of them.  Until then, I’ll stick with what Richard Dawkins has said:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Fortunately, the God of the Old Testament is a piece of fiction.  Further, if any real person commited even a fraction of the heinous acts attributed to God (or any of the “heroes” of the Bible), he or she would be immediately tried and found guilty on multiple counts deserving the death penalty.

The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission is produced a set of videos to “prove” that P.E. Barack Obama is not a Christian.  The videos are available, but you can read the transcripts just as easily.   Their “reasons” are absurd, but the bigger question remains:

Who gives a fiddler’s flying fuck what religion Obama is?    He claims to be and self-identifies as a Christian.  That’s the start and end of all consideration.   He says he’s a Christian.  End of story.

The premise of the CADC’s little piece of ignorance is that they get to define what Christianity is for everybody, and anyone who claims to be a Christian, but doesn’t line up with their definition, isn’t “really” a Christian.  How amazingly arrogant!

It seems to be a common trait among certain breeds of Christian to say “he’s not a real Christian’, or (in the case of those who leave the faith) “he wasn’t really a Christian to begin with.”   What’s up with that?   Doesn’t the Bible say, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”?   and “Do you have faith? Keep it to yourself before God.”  and “Judge not” and on and on.   If you’re going to be a Christian (which I don’t recommend, of course, but IF you must be), then ALL of the details are between you and the God you invent in your head.

People who say such disparaging things about another are themselves risking a critical eye from outsiders.  If you don’t want people to critique your own religion (or the way you practice your faith or implement your values), it is best to NOT question someone else’s religion.

NOBODY else can dictate the parameters of your Christianity, but you cannot dictate the parameters of someone else’s, either.

NOBODY can say “You aren’t a Christian,” and you cannot say he isn’t a Christian.

There are hundreds (thousands?) of registered Christian denominations, each with their own flavors and interpretations.  They all believe themselves to be following what the Bible says to them.  And that is totally appropriate, as far as it goes.   They take the book, interpret and apply it in their own way.  That is their right.  There are strict literalists (who aren’t really), as well as uber-liberal Christians, from one extreme to the other.   They are all Christians, if that’s what they say they are, and nobody can rightfully say they aren’t.  Granted, they’d all be better off to just put the book away, but that’s another discussion.

And what is really astounding to me is that this list of “7 Reasons why Barack Obama is not a Christian’, actually defaming Obama, is published by the Christian ANTI-DEFAMATION Commission.  (By the way, who commissioned this bunch, anyway?)  They are directly defaming Obama, and calling him a liar in public.    Oh, the irony, the arrogance, and sheer stupidity of it!

But even worse… NOBODY ACTUALLY CARES, and it does not matter.    He doesn’t even need to be ANY kind of Christian in order to fill the office of the President.  He can be a Buddhist, or Muslim, or Hindu, or even completely atheist, and still qualify to be President.    There is no religious test for public office.   A candidate doesn’t even have to profess a belief in any Supreme Being at all.

So why is this “anti-defamation” group going out of their way to defame Obama?

This was posted many months ago, but it’s worth another look.

Pedro brings up a really good point in his post “Literal Bible Interpretations and Made-up Gods“

Basically, either your God is the wicked character found in a literal reading of the Bible, OR you are worshipping a God of your own creation.   Very good point, indeed.  On the one hand, some people claim that God never changes, always the same from all eternity to all eternity.  And then you point out some of the unconscionable nasty things God does in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, and those “God Always the Same” people turn around and try to dismiss it with “But that was under the Law and now we are under Grace, so God isn’t like that any  more.”    Nonsense!   Either God is literally always an asshole like the Bible says, or God is never more than a figment of your own imagination.

Neither option offers incentive toward allegiance, obedience, or worship.

Yeah, yeah, there are some places even colder.   But yesterday my granddaughters were wearing shorts as we made Pecan Sticky Buns, and it was nearly 80 degrees.   Today we aren’t expected to get out of the 40s.  This is SOOOO disgusting, and unfair.   I am not supposed to be in cold weather, I have to be where it is warm, and nice, and pleasant all the time.  Isn’t that what life is about?  Isn’t it all about making ME happy and comfortable?   I mean, isn’t it?

hehehehehe.  Just kidding.   I know life isn’t fair.   But because it isn’t fair I reserve the right to complain now and then, just like everyone else.

OH, and speaking of which…  wanna know what is really totally unbelieveably STOOOPID????   Putting the thermostat almost right on top of the clothes dryer!   And yes, by the way, it seems to be working again this week — go figure — but because it is drizzly and cold today I have no intention of hanging laundry on the line outside!

Anyway, I have the thermostat set modestly low (low 60s), just enough to take the edge off a chill.   And I was comfortable this morning, even though I had to actually get dressed to get warm.   Whatever.   But since I’d run out of clean white T-shirts I had to do a load of whites.  (By the way, it’s time for another bundle soon, size Large …. and I want this bundle of denim shirts, too, please, also size Large)     So I do the laundry, put it in the dryer, and I notice it is getting noticeably chilly in here.   And then I realize the dryer is running, make it nicely warm in that little niche between the kitchen and the bedroom.   And THAT is where the thermostat is.  How STOOOPID!    Why not put it on top of the oven?   Sheesh!

And, you might say, “But, Ray, isn’t it boring wearing the same thing all the time?”    well, yes and no.  It saves me having to think about what to wear.   And having a dedicated set of denim shirts for cooler weather means I don’t have to wear my other shirts when I am dyeing.  And everyone knows that most people wear just 20% of their clothes 80% of the time — you wear the same favorite pieces over and over, and after a while what you wear isn’t even noticed much, UNLESS you wear something different from your normal stuff that everybody sees all the time.  And, too, if you don’t get it dirty, you can wear the same shirt 2-3 times before it needs washing!   Jeans always get worn several days in a row, of course.  Speaking of which, I need 3-4 more jeans too, plus 4-5 pairs of shorts for the warmer seasons to come.

Anyway, it’s a busy day here for me, lots to do, so I’d better get to it.   See ya!

PZ just got an amazingly ignorant email from yet another ignorant fool (and a liar at that!), and PZ has a field day with it (of course).   Check it out.   I am amazed that creationists continue their deliberate lies and perverting the truth in order to hold onto their false religions.

Which reminds me…  (h/t Positive Atheism)

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.

– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816, denouncing the doctrine of the Trinity and suggesting it to be so riddled in falsehood that only an authoritarian figure could decipher its meaning and, with a firm grip on people’s spiritual and mental freedoms, thus convince the people of its truthfulness

Yes, indeed.  It is GOOD to ridicule the tenets of religion. And because scientists are open-minded and clear thinking, it is fun to observe them ridiculing the close-minded foggy-headed Creationists stumbling about in the dark.

i’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.   Even if I wanted to, I could not (again) be a Christian because the character of the God of the Bible is far too evil, wicked, malevolant and just plain bad.  I mean, seriously, how could anyone read the Bible, examine the character of the God of the Bible, and come away believing that the God of the Bible was anything worthy of worship?    The God of the Bible is an unjustified murderer, plain and simple, and as others have said before, the God of the Bible is ONLY a depiction of the little tribal deity of a nomadic tribe (the people of Abraham’s seed, specifically), as they waged war against other tribes and their tribal deities.  All the nomadic tribes had their own deities.  And whichever tribe won the victory, they wrote the history, same as always.  And the wrote it as if their deity was some great and wonderful thing.

Sorry, but it just ain’t so.  Enlightened and reasonable people in a modern society have to reject the God of the Bible, just the same as they would reject Manson, Dahmer, Hitler, and all the other wacko mass murderers, whether real humans or fictional characters.

It is inconceivable anybody could actually justify all the murders attributed to the God of the Bible.   And, thankfully, Steve Wells has actually tallied it up.  How cool.   The God of the Bible is responsible for tens of millions of INNOCENT people killed for no acceptable reason OTHER than to steal the land and property of some other tribe.     And MOST of these unconscionable murders were committed AFTER God supposedly told Moses, “thou shalt not steal… thou shalt not murder”.   Hmmmm….  Maybe they weren’t commandments after all, but provisional guidelines readily superceded whenever the God of the Bible got a wild hair up his ass to go kill some other group and steal their land and goods.   (Like, when God supposedly told Moses to take Israel to the Promised Land — it was already occupied by some other tribe, so basically God stole it from the inhabitants before promising it to His people…?   How fucked up is that?)

I’m not saying all the other warring tribes were any more civilized.  They were probably just as nasty and vulgar as Abraham’s progeny.  But when God supposedly tells Israel to kill the women and children (or to take the virgins for their own use!), that says a lot about the character of the God of the Bible.   Of course, we now know that the God of the Bible is not a real entity at all, but the fictional product of the people who created their God, in an environment of superstition and mythology.   As always, God is created in the image of Man, whether the God of the Israelites or some other group.

I would challenge anyone who believes the God of the Bible is loving and kind and merciful to go through Steve Well’s list, one by one, and read the details and come up with some reasonable justification for what was done.   Every item.  If, in even just ONE incident, God comes up as the violent wicked murderer he seems to be, his character is flawed and he is not really God.   At all.  Ever.

Hey, I just found another fun blog, with yesterday’s post “20 Reasons I am godless”.   Good stuff there, if you review previous posts.

I especially like #2:

I’m curious and inquisitive. I am intelligent. I think for myself. I value logic, critical thinking and common sense. If I don’t understand something, I research it. I look for experts to help me figure things out. In other words, if I don’t understand something, I don’t just say, well, some invisible man in the sky did it and consider it case closed.

(gosh… that’s sounds familiar, huh?)

#4 is also good:

I’m actually HAPPY thinking for myself and living for today. I am not afraid of the wrath of a supreme being who is fickle, has barbaric human emotions and reacts violently to the exertion of free will, which must have been instilled by said supreme being in the first place, if he existed, which he doesn’t.

And most of the rest are good as well.     I wouldn’t particular use #5 or #6, as those have more to do with fickle humanity rather than the insanity of their arguments for God.  That is, it is an exercise in futility to point at failed Christians.  They’re just human, like all Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc.  And with all of their man-made religions, they all interpret them differently, and feel no guilt in using their holy books to justify behaviors the rest of us would reject.    For the same reason, you also can’t point to a few saintly people and say “I wish to follow the same path that person follows, and I shall join her religion because she is such a good person.”    I say this because some people use the false “appeal to masses” argument; i.e., “2 billion Christians can’t be wrong.”    Uhhh.. yeah, they can!

Anyway…. go enjoy her blog.

Grands are here… time for Grampa Time!!!!

Yes, YOU TOO can have The Sand of Christ

Oh.

My.

GAWD!

Every single hand-made Sand of Christ vial has been blessed and made holy by a specially trained ordained minister.

People will fall for ANYthing!

So just how exactly can a trinket be made “holy”, anyway?  NOTHING is more sacred than anything else.  There’s no holy water.   There’s no Holy Land.   There’s no “Holy Shi…”  well, wait, sometimes there is a holy shit, but that’s only with a diet rich in fiber, which is something totally different.    And what sort of special training does a minister need in order to do this?

The sand itself is not the important part.  The sand carries and represents the hours of work, love, blessing, tradition, and emotion that have gone into each piece, much like your church or place of worship.  And, just like the feeling you get when you go to worship, carrying Sand of Christ with you will extend that feeling of faith and closeness.

Bollocks!

For just $29.99 (and $4.99 S/H, of course) you can have one of these most valuable trinkets, and rest in the comfort of knowing that a portion of their net proceeds goes directly to the Y.M.C.A.   How COOL!  <*koff*>    But you’ll notice in their FAQ that they haven’t yet actually made any profit.  So hurry now and help them out.   Plus, you’ll get a copy of that damnable offensive “Footprints in the Sand” poem, just to remind you how utterly helpless you are as a human.   Somehow I suspect the calibre of Christian willing to part with $35.00 likely already have that damned poem pasted on their wall … and pinned to their office cubicle at work, too.  And, as The Friendly Atheist already suggested, maybe this whole shyster scheme is run by an atheist who smells money.  Certainly, if it is being run by someone claiming to be a Christian, he is either incredibly duped himself, or is deliberately ripping off his ‘brothers in Christ.’

I’m sorry, but what kind of shallow Christian would fall for this?   Seriously, this is worse than those awful WWJD trinkets.    “What would Jesus do?”    He’d rip you a new one for wasting your money on cheap trinkets in his name.   Sheesh!

Y’member the other day I shared a link to 12 Evolutionary Gems?

Well, the full article of 15 Evolution Gems has been published, with more footnotes and materials for further study.   (H/T PZ complete with comments from other smart folks.)

Good stuff!

I guess I needed the down time yesterday, along with the frustration of not getting any of the packages I wanted or needed.   But I DO feel much better today, and the sun is shining, and the temperature is such that I can have the doors open to let the breeze blow through.   We’re supposed to get a smattering of rain later, but that’s okay.

I’m supposed to have some Grampa Time tomorrow so today I’m finishing up projects and doing some cleaning and dusting.  That’ll be nice.

I’m thinking that I need to also get one of those air filter thingies, maybe like the Oreck model to clean the air because I have the doors open so much and the dust piles up quickly.  I’d like one for the living room and one for the bedroom, to take care of both ends of the house.

I washed the living room drapes the other day and instantly (well, almost) noticed a difference.  I’m thinking with less dust in the air I’ll have an even better smelling house, eh?

As long as we’re still in the first week of the year, I’m wondering where to take the blog.   Rattling around on idle stuff isn’t useful, although I’ll still write about generic everyday stuff.   But I also want to opine on some issues of larger significance:  religion vs. science, separation of church and state, encouraging national science curriculum, civil rights and total marriage equality at the national level, other political issues of importance.

I did say earlier I want to go through the Affirmations of Humanism, the first of which reads:

We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

That a good starting point, and it joins to the second statement:

We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

Together, reason and science are the best possible ways to explore the natural world, while dependence on the supernatural is an insult to intelligent thinking, in my opinion.  Obviously, I don’t know everything there is to know about every possible subject,  but I know that there are experts in nearly every field.  It is a waste of good expertise for me to ignore the experts and instead pretend there are gods and angels manipulating things in the natural world.  I would much rather ask someone who knows what s/he is talking about than listen to people make up stuff in their heads and pretend it is real.

Solving human problems requires facing the fact that human problems start and end with humans.   There are no gods involved, and none need be sought.  I have to laugh at the assumptions and projections of ignorant people pretending to see God at every turn.    A good example is a comment made by Sarah Palin (referenced simply because I read it just today, and she sets herself up to be made a spectacle of) — regarding her daughter’s pregnancy:

Gov. Palin said she at first greeted the news of her daughter’s pregnancy with “fear and a bit of despair.”

“Isn’t it just like God to turn those circumstances into such an amazing, joyful blessing when you ask Him to help you through?” she said in the statement.

Ummm…. WHAT?    That’s an irrational comment.  There is no God in evidence there.  The kids played around and made a baby, the baby was born, and everyone is dealing with it.    Obviously some are dealing with it by invoking their favorite superstition.   But really, there is no God in evidence and she’s lying about it.   Natural events (pregnancies, earthquakes, hurricanes, job layoffs, etc.) are all controlled by natural phenomena, and sometimes by humans functioning in a natural environment.   The only way to explain it is by examining the natural evidence without superimposing a layer of superstition on top of it.

wow… I just found this notice:   The final draft of a proposed science curriculum offers an acceptable new set of standards for the teaching of science.  It’s about fucking time!   Woo-hoooo!  Whether the State Board of education ultimately implements it is yet to be seen, but at least the proposal has been cleaned up to eliminate the possibility of teaching creationism as science.

Part of this final draft includes a new definition of “science”.

The old definition — which included phrases like “a way of learning about nature” and “may not answer all questions” — has been replaced with a definition from the National Academy of Sciences. It states that science involves using evidence to form explanations and make predictions that can be measured and tested. It also warns that questions on subjects that cannot be scientifically tested do not belong in science.

This is important.    Creationism cannot be scientifically tested because it is a religious doctrine and doesn’t belong in a science class.  NO STUDENT should ever be taught that “God created the earth” in a science class.

Clearly the state board’s chairman still doesn’t quite get it:

Don McLeroy, the state board’s chairman, has said that science should admit the possibly of the supernatural when natural explanations fail. But he has also said that he is not trying to put creationism in public schools.

NO, Don, that is NOT acceptable.   Science should not, and by definition cannot, admit the possibility of the supernatural.  Why should science do that?  It makes no sense because science has nothing to do with the supernatural.   If current natural explanations fail, they go digging for more information.   With luck, McLeroy will be replaced by someone with a science background who knows what science actually is and how it works.

In the meantime, we can still be glad that they at least achieved a reasonable proposal.   Small steps are better than backward steps, which is where Creationists want to go.  They don’t understand evolution, so they lie about it.  That’s the Christian way, I guess.

Holy shit.   This is unbelievably insane and just plain wrong.   And I’m sure everyone hearing about it will agree:  the woman did not need to get to church in THAT big a hurry:

She was the bus matron, and it was 100% her responsibility to look after disabled passengers on her bus.  And she knew the young man was sitting there, strapped in his chair, unable to speak, when she LOCKED HIM IN THE BUS at the depot. because (apparently) she didn’t want to be late for church.   What. The. Fuck????   A related report says he was supposed to get off at the next-to-last stop before the bus went to the depot, and the matron, who had worked the route for a year, knew where he was to be let out.  She simply chose not to do what needed to be done.

yet a third report says:

The prosecutor said Hockaday failed to report Rivera was on the bus because she didn’t want to miss an appointment.

Sources told the Daily News Hockaday was running late for church, and assumed one of the other bus company employees would spot Rivera.

Hockaday, in a black ski jacket and jeans, stood silently at the hearing. She removed her glasses to wipe her eyes at one point as her lawyer tried to shift blame to the bus driver.

“Yes, she has responsibility for this young person,” lawyer Candace Kurtz said. “But the backup system is the driver, who did nothing.”

Lang indicated no charges were expected against anyone but Hockaday, whose neighbors defended her Friday.

“I’m shocked at this,” said Bridget Dyson, a friend of 15 years who hired Hockaday as a babysitter for her daughter. “She’s a good person.”

Ummm…  if she puts running off to church ahead of doing her job, she’s not such a good person after all.  She ASSUMED someone else would see him.   HOW?  She locked him inside the bus!  Who the hell is going to see him?   And how the hell could the driver have ANY responsibility as a “back up” system, if this woman is the one who locked the bus?   Surely she didn’t lock the driver in the bus, so the driver was likely already gone.

She was arrested and fired (YAYYY), but I sincerely hope she is never EVER allowed to work in a service-related position with vulnerable clients again.   And I certainly hope that whatever church she attends will rip her up one side and down the other.  I mean, seriously, if a church can announce one woman living with someone who is not her husband (which is nobody else’s business) , surely a church should make a public example of this woman who behaves in such a negligent manner toward one who is unable to care for himself, maybe do a sermon series on how to take responsibility and set some better priorities and work ethic — namely, work comes before church.   Duh!

This is a fun and educational little piece from Wired.com:  12 Elegant Examples of Evolution.  Simple science, backed up by experts in their fields, is usually interesting and almost always educational.   (H/T Scott Little)

What I find more interesting is how scientific explanations seem to bring the creationists crawling out of the woodwork to argue against scientific reality with their silly fantasy world of make-believe.  The comments section of that article are awash in Christian Creationist idiocy.   Thankfully there are plenty of well-educated science-based people responding to the idiots.

It is those kind of idiots who prove (yet again) that we need a NATIONAL core curriculum in the sciences (as well as math, English, and history).  We need SCIENTISTS in charge of determining what is the latest state-of-the-art in all branches of science, but especially the basics, like biology, which is the study of Life — how it works and where we came from.  It is unacceptable that there are administrators and non-academic personnel determining the curriculum.  It is unacceptable that there are uneducated parents deciding they don’t want their children to learn science and would prefer to have their children learn fairy-tales about how we got here.

Very foggy today, but I already have a load of yarns out drying on the rack, since there’s no rain threatened today.

I went to bed about 3/4 through Jay Leno (it was a repeat: with Wanda Sykes and Michael Phelps, but I didn’t stay up for his musical guest), but I had a horrible time trying to get to sleep.   It was after 1:30 or later and I was still not finding a comfortable position.  And then I woke quite suddenly at 4:30.    And now I feel like I’ve been dragged by a truck for a few miles.   Blaaahhhhhh…   yuck!

School teacher in Catholic Church plans to marry.

School teacher is also a manager of the school newspaper; her upcoming nuptials announced by a student-written article.

Church deacon reads article, asks if her fiancee’s first marriage was properly annulled in the Catholic way.  No, to her and her fiancee’s knowledge, it was not.

Deacon announces a scandal.  “We have rules about such things — we can’t have a teacher who disrespects the sanctity of holy matrimony.”   He wants her to resign or face termination.

She’s done no wrong, refuses to resign.

They go ahead and get married.   She gets fired.

THEN it comes out, that the fiancee’s exwife reveals their marriage WAS annulled.

WTF?

Not surprisingly, a large portion of the comments following the article are in praise of the Catholic Church rules, saying she should not have married the man she loved or should have quit and found a job in a public school where they don’t care about such things.

As one commenter elsewhere said, it is a genuine shame that the Catholic Church gets to have a tax-free status AND have the privilege of violating the employee protection rules that everybody else has to follow.

The female teacher gets fired for getting married to a divorced man (an unacceptable scandal!!!!OMG) yet the Catholic Church continues to harbor known child molesters.   How can this possibly be right in anyone’s mind?

I was just pointed to this man’s story.  (His name is Dan Silverman At first, some would say “That can’t happen in America …. can it?”  Yes, it can.   Others would say “well, there MUST have been a reason.”  No, there was no justification for what happened to this man.   I can’t vouch for the actual events in his story because I wasn’t there, but I can absolutely vouch for the attitudes behind it, because I’ve experience similar attitudes in my own life and dealing with my children and their mother.

Dan also has a blog, linked from his story, writing about his “adventures” after being wrongly jailed and some of the other heartache dished upon him.   Worth reading.

What I want to know is, how can ANYbody justify what happened to him simply because he left the faith?  How can any real minister do what was done to him?   It’s bullshit, all the way around, but it happens all the time — not only to men and women who walk away from Christianity, but even those who remain committed Christians but have to come out of the closet as gay or lesbian or transgender and they are given the “left foot of fellowship” for being honest.    It makes no sense.  (One example:   Kirk Talley.   Another example: Ted Haggard.)    Or even for just getting divorced (like Reba Rambo after her divorce).

Over and over again, when people are doing what humans do, the church repeatedly abuses them even further.  It happened to me, and nearly everyone else I know.   Christians aren’t allowed to be human.

Fuck that shit.   Just be human, forget about being Christian.  It isn’t worth it, and life is far too precious to waste on ignorant foolish religious bullshit.

As expected, there was plenty of noise last night.  I think nearly EVERY FRIGGING house around me had stocked up on fireworks.  I mean, seriously, there must have been a warehouse worth of shit just on my block.  Of course the kiddies started early in the afternoon, but around 9:00 or so the neighbors started in earnest and by 11:00 it was nonstop crackling, popping, exploding.    There was one cascading series that went on for a good 15 minutes.

I tried to put myself to bed and after an hour was just about asleep, I heard what sounded like three hard raps on the door, which immediately launched me out of bed and into my pants (remember I told you the other day about keeping a pair of fully loaded pants within arm’s reach?).    O’course there was nobody here, but I heard several more rapping pops and realized it was just different sounding fireworks.

The last pop I heard was about 7:30 this morning.   Yeah, can you believe it?  it was going on ALL NIGHT LONG!  Hence, the “warehouse worth” reference above.

On the other hand, even though every house around me had fireworks, and each house had their own flavor of music blaring, I did manage to get to sleep somewhat.

holy crap…. someone down the block is just this moment setting off even more fireworks.   WTF?

Anyway, 2009 has arrived.   Let us rejoice and hold forth the hope (with great audacity, I might add) that the year will bring prosperity, health, happiness for all.

I just came across the Two Smokin’ Hot Freethinkers Podcast, Episode 33, the Happy New Year edition, which features the call-in New Years wishes (and other comments) from many freethought and atheist notables, including the famous PZ Myers (and you’ll hear how to pronounce Pharyngula — I’ve been saying it wrong!).  If you aren’t at work, go take a listen.   There’s a direct link to the audio broadcast just below the list of illustrious guests on this show.

Trust me, it is worth listening to — loads of fun, and you WILL laugh several times through it.

Welllll….   I was hoping to make this my last post of the year over here.  And then I went trolling across the internet to see if there is anything worth commenting on.

There’s plenty.

But, fuck it.    It is New Year’s Eve, and I will likely be kept awake far into the night.   This is one night I probably won’t get any sympathy for noisy neighbors.   And I understand that.   Not much I can do.    Oh well.

Do you do New Year’s Resolutions?   I don’t.   They rarely last.

I don’t know if I have specific goals for the coming year, although one thing I’d like to work on is to GET OUT OF THE HOUSE more often.  The bus lines haven’t moved any closer or become more accessible, but I need to pay more attention to getting onto a bus and going into town.  Not that there’s anyplace special I need to be, or anything I need to do, other than just have a different perspective now and then.

And I expect to make more money in the coming year.  It’s not like some big company can fire me, and the kind of people who spend money on yarns are going to find a way to buy some one way or another.    Individually they might be a little less, but with the economy hurting I believe more people will find less-expensive pursuits in general, and that includes crafting instead of other things.   And, really, crafting of any sort is an economic boon because it is usually cheaper to make what you want rather than buy it.  Doesn’t matter if you are knitting, crocheting, quilting, rescuing and refinishing furniture (or building new from scratch), learning to make your own foods at home instead of eating out or buying prepackaged/processed stuff.  I think before the economy takes a significant and dependable up-turn, more people will begin to understand the value of such things.   And for my part of the market, that will generally be an overall good thing.

But basically what I would like to see for 2009 is an end to senseless wars, more food for the hungry, more care for the sick, more peace for the confuse,  more rational thought.    And sex for me.   Gotta have sex.   If you don’t have enough sex, I hope you get some too.  If you have too much, please send some my way. 

This is funny.