MY LIFE

The amazing thing is that every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way they could get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.

“A Universe From Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss,

“Why do you atheists keep coming to a Christian website, anyway? You aren’t wanted here.”

Well…   why do you Christians keep sending missionaries to places all around the world where you aren’t wanted, and where you often deliberately lie about your reasons in order to gain access?

Atheists visit Christian websites because such places are often filled with deliberate misinformation and even some accidental ignorance.  We provide alternative viewpoints, scientific data, rational reasoning for our positions, and the opportunity for others to expand their thinking a bit.  Even if the dialogue participants never change their minds, other readers are able to read the dialog and sift through the material offered.  And, as an added bonus, they can also see the reasoned and calm demeanor of non-believers compared with the hysterical rantings of their fellow Christians.

“From ignorance to wisdom; from darkness to light.”    Nice, eh?

there’s just been an awful lot going on and I’ve been too distracted to be commenting on news bits here.

things are settling down somewhat, and I will be changing the blog…. might even delete the current version entirely and start all over clean.   I get several HUNDRED spam commentings here each day, even when I don’t post anything, so I might as well re-focus and get a clean start here…..

right?

Over on a Christian forum, the gay debate continues.  And it is clear that some people don’t actually understand what sexual orientation means.   This one comment summarizes what many have tried to claim (it comes from a Christian, and is quoted verbatim, but I don’t identify individuals when addressing the topic is sufficient):

Orientation (sexual or otherwise) is another way of saying that someone is inclined to certain behaviors. The Bible defines certain behaviors as sinful, same-gender sex is one of them.

However, “being gay” is not sinful, but giving in to the urge of having sex with a person of the same gender is sinful. We all have sins that we’re inclined to, have an orientation, as it were. But if I were to have an inclination to cheat on my wife, the Bible tells me to resist those feelings. If someone has a similar inclination to engage in sex with the same gender, they are also commanded by God to resist those feelings. This is called temptation and Jesus was tempted but that isn’t sin.

Let me also be clear that same sex marriage would also be sinful. I understand that this is difficult for many gay people to accept. If I could not express myself In any way my heterosexual desires, that would be a difficult life to live. If I could never express my feelings for a woman that I was attracted to, it would be painful to me.

Yet God always offers a way out for us. He has promised us that. And just because a verse in the Bible is difficult doesn’t negate our responsibility to be obedient to it. God also promises His blessings to those who are obedient.

There is a HUGE difference between sexual orientation and a propensity toward various “behaviors”.  Sexual orientation is NOT a behavior.  It is part of one’s very being, who they are attracted to for companionship, romance, and all the rest of what intimate relationships are made of.

Even in his example, talking about an “inclination” to cheat on his wife — his sexual orientation remains heterosexual.  Whether gay or straight, the ability to remain faithful or the tendency to wander, that has to do with conduct and behaviors and this IS a matter of choice and character.   But the attraction to one or another gender remains fairly constant.  It is an innate trait within a person.

Promoting fidelity and responsible sexual behaviors is a good thing, in my opinion. Expecting a gay person to never express his sexuality is unreasonably cruel.   Until Christians get a solid grasp of what science has covered in the realm of human sexuality, they will continue to suffer this unfortunate disconnect between religion and reality.

There are all sorts of fears about what will happen when the repeal of DADT goes into place.  This article is a good example of fear.

Much of the article addresses the fears of chaplains not being allowed to speak their opinion.  All fear, no substance.  Chaplains can continue to preach their doctrines in the pulpit.   In a counseling situation, if a gay soldier comes for counseling on something, if his issue is not about a boyfriend/lover, the chaplain doesn’t need to go off on a tirade about “the sin of homosexuality’.  Just knowing that a soldier is gay is NOT an excuse to preach about it, unless the soldier comes in for that issue.

But further down in the article we find this:

Even though chaplains are free to exercise their religious beliefs in the pulpit, there are no guidelines for the trenches. And there are also no guidelines for soldiers who may be uncomfortable sharing close living and sleeping quarters with a gay or lesbian soldier. Crews asks “If a private first class is a assigned a homosexual bunk mate, will he be able to share his personal story about what his view on what sin is?”

Unless the gay or lesbian starts making advances on the straight bunkmate, why would he or she feel the need to spout off on  their version of “sin”?    If a guy comes in and talks about his date or whatever, the straight one can say “I really don’t want to hear about it.”   Beyond that, it doesn’t matter if the straight person is uncomfortable or not with the simple fact that a bunkmate is gay or lesbian.   They have to deal with it, just the same as if a bunkmate is a drinker, smoker, or whatever.     Straight bunkmates can freely talk about going out on a date, seeing a movie or whatever, so it is appropriate for a gay or lesbian soldier to talk about going on a date.   There’s no need to be explicitly detailed or sexual about it (gay or straight), but there is nothing wrong with being as open as any other person about their personal lives.   If the religious person has no problem with another person going on a straight date, he cannot logically have a problem with a gay or lesbian person going on a date.  It makes no sense to get upset just hearing that we exist and have personal lives that are just as valid as any straight person.

And, of course, these chaplains are worried about their straight soldiers being uncomfortable about having gay or lesbian bunkmates.   But what about the gay or lesbian soldier being made uncomfortable with someone else preaching at them about things that aren’t anyone’s business?   Why should gay and lesbian people be made to feel like we have to make everyone comfortable with our existence?

This has been rolling around in my head for a while, so I might as well just put it out there.

There are LOTS of gay and lesbian people in the media:  news media, TV/movies, music, sports, etc.  And there are gobs and gobs of people who do not subscribe to the majority religious position, and in fact, many well known names are atheist.

A few times in the last year or so I have heard/read comments that “so and so needs to come out of the closet” — to publicly declare their sexual orientation and/or religious position.

In a very real way, if all the queer and/or atheist people in the public eye were to come out, it would absolutely make a difference in our society.  And, I believe that in many cases it would do a world of good for people to realize some of their idols are gay/lesbian or don’t believe in god.

But I have come to accept that just because someone is in the public eye, they do NOT owe it to the rest of us  to leverage their celebrity to advance a “cause” in a way that would politicize sexuality or religion.   Many celebrities leverage their celebrity for charitable causes, helping people in real need.    Would the beneficiaries of their largesse be harmed by putting their private lives on public display?   Would their careers (and resulting celebrity) be cut short by coming out?

I believe everyone needs to be honest with who they are in their personal lives, but I don’t believe anybody automatically owes us the leveraging of their celebrity to advance our own public acceptance.   People will be bigots no matter who comes out.

I would LOVE  to hear about all the queer or atheist celebrities, but it is not my “right” to know the details of their private lives.  I don’t care about who is sleeping with whom, and I don’t normally follow celebrity news fluff anyway.

I am quite open and honest:  I am an openly gay man who no longer believes a god exists.  I do not need some “famous person” to come out before I can take my own place in society.  I think if everyone would come out, it would be a far less weighty problem, and we would not have to depend on celebrities to make it okay for us to be ourselves.

In my morning newsfeeds I was sent to this article:

Dean G. Stroud: Faith colors the world for those who believe

which is Dean Stroud’s analysis or review of Alasdair MacIntyre’s book, which apparently didn’t have a catchy-enough title for Stroud to mention it.    Whatever.  

For atheists, then, intelligent conversation with believers is
possible — up to a point. But faith in God is the proverbial straw
on the camel’s back. Here the theist goes one step too far

and steps out of reality into fantasy. For the atheist, this is
akin to thinking someone

intelligent until you learn that the person believes in the
Easter bunny.

MacIntyre explains that theists view the disagreement
differently. It is not about one additional thing along with other
things, but it is “a disagreement about everything, about what it
is to find anything whatsoever intelligible rather than
unintelligible.”

An example may be taken from the early days of television. When
I was growing up, we had to turn on the color or else watch the
show in black and white. Once we turned the right knob, everything
on the screen was flooded with color. Instantly the world changed
from colorless to one with reds, blues and greens. Faith is like
turning the color on. It is not one more thing more among the many
— it colors everything.

How does one go from seeing faith as one (unnecessary) addition
to the inventory of facts to experiencing a faith-filled world?
Such change seldom comes from rational arguments, although
apologetics can help.

A couple of things struck me.  First, the implication that atheism creates a world in shades of gray, while faith in an invisible, impossible being suddenly turns on a world of brilliant and amazing color.

As one man said who turned from atheism to Catholicism, “I
started meeting people who were not just ‘good’, they were holy. A
sort of transcendence that was striking to me marked their lives
and personalities. I could see their prayerful closeness to God in
the way they did everything.”

We have to ask what kind of atheist is being referred to here.  That is, because atheism is the default position for most of us, until indoctrinated one way or another, the native-born atheist simply has no thought whatsoever toward the supernatural or to this or that deity.   And then there is the conscious atheist who actually has thought it through and come to the rational conclusion that there is no god to believe in.  

As I see it, the native-born atheist, without a thought one way or another, may very well be presented with a religious concept and may find some sort of fulfillment and added meaning and depth to his or her life. And this may come from organized religion, generic “spirituality”, or some other perspective.  But I find it difficult (though not impossible) to imagine that someone who has actually thought it through and realized there is no god to be swayed by a some apologetic into believing otherwise.   The article admits such changes seldom come from rational arguments. 

I, too, remember the early days of color television.  It didn’t always work right.  You might get green skies and blue grass and orange people.  At one point they even had cling-on filters to lay over the screen to simulate color. One of the biggest comlaints of the early days of color television was that the colors were not true to reality.   My mother often said she would not buy a color television until the colors were true. 

The article puts up a false dichotomy:  atheism is shades of gray; theism/faith turns on full color.  

But there is no guarantee that the world colored by faith is accurate and true to reality. 

The author goes on to illustrate this “color” by holding up examples of people who were thought to be “holy”, as if recognizing the supposed goodness in others as a measure of faith is part of this “coloring the world”.    But, sadly, he holds up Mother Teresa, who is known to have been neither holy nor particularly good in the final analysis.  She hurt thousands upon thousands of people with her regimented, cold, calculating application of religion, forcing those in her care to suffer needlessly when she had access to food and medicine to actually help them.  To her, suffering was a good thing, and she apparently had no problem making sure others suffered as much as possible. 

And I recognize there is a time for “making do with what’s available”, and life can be harsh and cold.  But what Mother Teresa did was unconscionably cruel — while begging for money and raking in millions of dollars, it was withheld from those for whom it was intended to help.  I have no idea if she ever gave a full accounting of where all the money, drugs, food, and other resources actually went.  Viewing her as “good” or “holy” requires viewing her through a faulty cling-on filter that does not offer accurate color of reality.

I have a problem with the notion that irrational faith and theism are the ways to “color” the world, or to recognize and appreciate the goodness of others.  There truly are many genuinely good people in the world; in fact, I believe most people pretty much want to be good to themselves and to others, and there are also some exceptionally good people.    We do not need to believe in a god in order to open our eyes and have our world filled with the brilliant colors of human endeavor and charity.  

Many times, both in my own life and in the lives of other non-theists, people have said, “You are such a good Christian.”  This is an example of inaccurate color.   People are not good because they are Christian (or Jew or Buddhist or whatever).  People are good because they are good, and we need to be able to separate the fact that they are good from the fantasy that there is some deity involved in the process. 

My world is filled with the brilliant colors and nuances of humanity — just pure plain humans being human.  I don’t have to slap on a cling-on filter and pretend some supernatural force is behind their goodness.  Without filters, without special tuning knobs, without superstition, my world is far from shades of gray. 

What say you? 

Certainly my life is not as bad as other people experience.

But I am tired of doing all of this.    I’ve been dyeing yarn for five years, and for a while it was working well.  Then last year the mill couldn’t provide what I needed when I needed it, and by the time they did deliver, I had been forced to spend what money I had toward keeping the lights on and the water running.  And orders dried up so I wasn’t making any more money and wasn’t able to make payments to the mill so I lost that supplier.   It seems shitty that their inability to deliver put me into the hole in the first place, but my inability to pay wasn’t worth working out a payment plan as I suggested.

For the last year or so I’ve not be able to pay all my rent, and currently owe my landlady several thousand dollars.   Every time I turn around another utility bill comes due, and various services have been shut off several times throughout this past year while I scrambled to get the services back on.

I have packages that need to be sent to customers requiring several hundred dollars in postage, which I don’t currently have because what was paid to me for postage got sucked out of the bank account to keep the lights on.  It’s a vicious cycle and I do not know how to get out of it.  Customers are right to be angry with me — they’ve paid for goods and paid for shipping.

But sales during the last year have been barely a fraction of what they’d been in previous years when I was just breaking even.

It is difficult for me to feel creative, energetic, and positive, when I feel like such a shit.  I want to deliver to my customers.  I want to build a much bigger fan base so more eyes will see what is available and more customers will start buying again. I want to do right by all the people who have been supremely patient with me.

But I cannot do this by selling 10 or 12 skeins a week.   I need to sell 30-40 a week in order to break even, and 40-50 to get a little bit ahead of things.

I need to put several thousand into the bank right now just to get back to zero; and that’s just toward making right by my customers and my landlady and my utilities.   I have no idea how to do that because every penny coming in just gets my checking account out of the overdraft status; then another required bill comes in, and I have to write another questionable check to cover it.  The credit union covers it but charges me for each one, and then it takes even longer to get enough money back in there to get it straight again.  It’s a never-ending struggle, and I am tired of it.

The national economy is picking up, and I have every reason to believe that if I could just make right by everyone and start from zero, there would be enough business I could keep going.  The daunting task is just getting back to zero. I have no credit any more, no money in the banik, and nobody I know who is able to offer a bailout, nor would I feel right in asking.

I feel like shit.   I don’t know why I should continue trying.

It also doesn’t help me feel any better that other artists are able to build large fan bases while I plod along with just a few hundred.  I don’t understand it.   I don’t begrudge any artist their due, of course, and hold no resentment toward them.   I try to congratulate them for each success.  I just don’t know how to replicate that experience and translate it into having more eyeballs rolling over MY yarns.  It’s just frustrating as hell and I can’t put my finger on what I am doing wrong or what I need to change that will attract a broader audience.

What I do know is that if things do not change, and change quickly, I am going to pack it all up and be done with it.   I cannot survive another year of this type of stress and disappointment and struggling.  I’m not sure I can survive even another month of it, nor would I want to.   It was fine from 2006 through 2009.   In 2010 it all went to pot and I am tired of trying to figure it out, tired of want to do good and not being able to for lack of funds.

I am beginning to understand why people jumped out of buildings in 1929.   It wasn’t the immediate problems, but the realization there was no way out of those problems.

Bullshit.   It’s not true.

I was reading some comments from someone leaving the academic world and about to use their new skills in the working world.   The thought was expressed that this person is “nervous about looking for a job”.   This, in itself, is a normal emotion.  It’s always a challenge to test new waters, no matter how well prepared a person might be.  And, in this case, I happen to know this person is very well trained and quite capable to do the tasks of the chosen new profession.

Anyway, someone else commented “God has your back.”

Seriously?   Where was this god during the late night hours of actual studying?  Where was this god during all those hours in practice?    There was no god in sight pumping this person’s brain full of knowledge, nor guiding the hands to become familiar with the motions and tasks required.    This person was alone for that part and did the work required to pass all the courses and achieve success in the classroom.

I realize the person commenting may have just been trying to encourage my acquaintance to persevere.  But encouraging perseverance on false information is just bullshit.  My acquaintance will succeed based on solid training, good connections through the professional organization, and doing the steps involved to secure a job in the field.  Personal effort and personal contacts will prove to be a lot more effective than thinking some supernatural force is propelling the action from behind.

The humane and humanist approach is to recognize all the human effort involved to achieve this point, and to know of a certainty that it will be human effort that reaches the next step.   And the one after that.   It is inhumane to give false hope of supernatural help along the way.  None has ever existed, and none ever will.

I’ve just collected and put to PDF “The Best of Ray’s Bistro” and posted it over on the Knitterman’s blog.

I’d be most grateful and appreciative if you’d click over there and purchase a copy.  It’s not knitting, it’s not politics, it’s not religion — just my own recipes developed over the years.  Everyone needs to eat, and almost everyone likes to play with their food and try new things.   So go see if these will expand your kitchen repertoire. 

Thanks!

This Sunday is observed as Mothers Day — a day to honor mothers and those who have had a mothering role.  And I readily admit that most mothers who have done the work deserve the honor.

Quite frankly, I have no particular feeling any more for Mothers Day, or for my mother.   The mother I thought I knew “died” when I was 13; circumstances changed and she became someone I had not known and didn’t particularly like.  It is inadequate to blame it on “hard times” (which she pretty much created on her own, it didn’t “happen” to her), and it’s not even sufficient to blame it on the alcohol or prescription drugs that she was addicted to.

Yes, she carried me for nine months, and without that I wouldn’t be here at all.   But the life she created and exposed me to was far less than even moderately ideal in many respects.

I have no grudge toward those who honor their mothers and gush over their mothers on Facebook and elsewhere.   There are some truly wonderful mothers in the world, and they deserve to be honored.  Neither of my daughters is a perfect mother, but they are certainly much much better than mine was, and I am proud of the women and mothers my daughters have become.   I have no way to judge how much of that is because of any influence I or their mother had … or in spite of it.   If I were to attempt it today, I would be a far better father than I was when they were little.

I’m not going to give a litany of my mother’s shortcomings.   They are far too many, and far too irrelevant today.   Suffice it to say that I am simply not emotionally attached to Mothers Day and will not be making any special observance  in her regard.

Now you can tell it like it is… without saying a word!

click here to order yours today!

Naked!

It isn’t on a t-shirt (duuhh) but you can get it on a tote bag or mug.

Why would you want to?   Well, because it is true.

If we were meant to live under water, we would have been born with gills or a blowhole or something.

If we were meant to fly in the sky, we would have been born with wings.

If we were meant to run around naked, we would have been born that way.

This is now a T-shirt, and you know you want one.

You know you have several friends who need one.

And you know I’m not above begging you to buy one (or a dozen) to help pay my rent! 

You can get yours here

Thanks!

I saw this question over on FB, which I am paraphrasing only slightly:

If your religion teaches hate, intolerance, and violence, then where do you turn when you are looking for peace?

There is hardly a religion around that does not teach that its precepts are correct, and that others are lacking.  I’ve not heard of any religion that does not, in one way or another, teach a distinction between “us” and “them”.

Granted, some religious people (individually) sincerely and genuinely try to embody the core concept found in the Golden Rule — do unto others as you would have them do unto you — to treat humans as fairly as they know how.   But, in my opinion, they are doing so  as rogue believers, doing their own thing while rejecting the actual divisive teachings of their religion.  If there were no unique appeal to this or that religion, they’d have nothing with which to entice converts.

But I’m not concerned with divisive religion itself, but with the single question of where to people ACTUALLY turn to find peace in time of trouble, when their religion teaches division?  I would take little comfort trusting my care to a god who has no qualms about committing (or ordering) genocide on those who fail to believe in him.  How can one find peace in the care of a monstrous tyrant?

Where do I, personally, look for peace in the midst of trouble?  When it seems my world is coming apart at the seams, or I’m experiencing extra troubles or disappointment or whatever, I find strength and peace in looking at the evidence — I have survived all sorts of troubles already.  The sun will come up again, and NOTHING lasts, whether good or bad.  The Universe (generally inhospitable as it is) is not out the get me, personally, and there is no supreme being diddling around to trip me up.   Shit happens, but good times happen to.  I take comfort in knowing that I am a fairly average human and as a human I will experience good and bad.

This realistic awareness of  the human condition does not make me immune to this or that current trouble.  Nobody is going to rush in and stop the pain or anger or disappointment, and I try to avoid closing my eyes in some sort of denial of reality.   What gives me comfort is not the expectation of some supernatural force to swoop in and stop it all; rather, what gives me comfort and peace in current troubles is know that life runs in cycles for virtually EVERYbody, and I’ve survived much worse events.

I do not turn to some supernatural being for peace and comfort.   Even when reality sucks, I hold onto reality for my strength and comfort, because reality is consistent in its cycles.  Nobody’s life is consistently good or consistently bad.   But life is consistently running up and down.  I take comfort in knowing that the ride will keep going for as long as I’m willing to ride along with it.

There is no god coming to rescue me in times of trouble.   There is no god coming to rescue you, either.  Waiting for God to do something (in my opinion) increases the discomfort because it is compounded by the disappointment of realizing there’s no god coming.    I quit expecting god to help, and my life became MUCH better over all.

(A couple interesting links I’ve seen recently)

“Proofs” that god exists.

Signs you might be a fundamentalist Christian.

Yes, dicks ARE like birds.

One in the hand is worth two in the bush.

And now that I have your attention ….

Let’s talk about the male myth that women prefer their men to have a larger-than-average penis.   It is simply not true.  Men need to get over the idea that a large penis means anything other than the fact you have quirky genes.

Consider the anatomy of it all:  in most circumstances, for procreative purposes, the male penis, when erect, needs to fit in the female vagina in order to deposit sperm-rich semen at or near the opening of the cervix.  The cervix is the entrance to the uterus.  It can be digitally palpated (manually felt) by the doctor during a normal examination.   This is, in fact, what the doctor, nurse, or midwife does (repeatedly) during manual examination prior to a vaginal birth delivery of an infant; doctors are trained to fairly accurately estimate the dilation of the cervix by feel in order to determine approximate progression and timing of final stages of labor. (you can read all about that elsewhere.)

Let me rephrase:  a doctor can feel the opening of the cervix with his fingers.   So can you!  If your erect penis is longer  than your middle finger, it is more than long enough to do what it needs to do.

The average range for the adult male erect penis is about 5.75 - 6.5 inches.  That’s all!   I say average range because even one man’s penis can vary in size for his erection depending on blood pressure, alertness, and other factors.  And even during a single sexual encounter the penis can swell and contract somewhat.

There is also a silly notion that a man “needs” a larger penis to offer his female partner a better orgasm.  Again, NONSENSE!  There is, some would argue, a place inside the lining of the vagina that contributes to female orgasm, often referred to as the “G Spot”, and is roughly in the same position and orientation as the male prostate.   if you’ve had your prostate massaged properly during sex/orgasm, you know how good this feels.

And no, that is not a “gay” thing, but a “guy” thing, and simply a function of human anatomy without regard to sexual orientation.   Straight men enjoy having a prostate massage as much as gay men (note: for all you women with excessive nails, here is a very good reason to trim them down to a more decent length!).  Make sure you are well-lubricated with a water-based lubricant (oil-based lubes are not recommended), and use a glove if you feel so inclined — gently insert one or two fingers (have your gentleman ‘bear down’ to help relax the anus — and with the pads of your fingers toward the front or toward the penis, you will feel a walnut-shaped organ. Just before orgasm, the prostate becomes more firm (this is how you can tell he’s about to ejaculate, sometimes even before he himself realizes it!).

Being gay is not just about the sex, but about the romance and emotions.   Exploring and enjoying all the various parts of the male anatomy during sex does NOT mean he is gay or that he wants another male to penetrate him.  It simply means he enjoys having his prostate massaged during sexual intimacy, and if you ladies can provide that for  him, and he is man enough to enjoy it and then reciprocate in the ways that you enjoy, it’s all good.

So how does a woman achieve orgasm?   Well, there are many ways, of course, but many of the nerve endings responsible for sexual pleasure/orgasm are in/near/around the clitoris.   As the penis penetrates the vagina, it causes friction along the inner labia.  The folds of the labia also form the hood that covers the clitoris.  As the penis penetrates and retracts, the friction along the labia is transferred to the clitoris and this friction contributes greatly to the female orgasm (in much the same way the male has thousands of nerve endings just below the frenum on the underside of the corona).  If there is not enough lubrication (natural or otherwise) the friction causes pain; if there is too much lubrication, there’s simply not much useful feeling at all, but everything just feels “sloppy”.   So, gentlemen, if you want your female partner to have an orgasm, make sure you are neither too wet nor too dry.

So you see, gentlemen, it is not the SIZE of your penis at all which matters to most women’s ability to enjoy sex.   It is what you do with your penis, and how effectively you can assist your partner to achieve orgasm. If your penis to too long or enters in too deeply, it can seriously hurt your partner.  This causes PAIN not orgasm.

(And as for gay sex, the same applies — longer or thicker is not better.  If you enter and go beyond your partner’s prostate, you’re off in a “dead zone” where there are few nerve endings and you can often cause not only pain but significant and sometimes permanent damage.  Never mind how it feels for YOU — any time your penis comes in intimate contact with another person you need to make damn sure the other person is not experiencing pain or injury.)

If you’re stuck with an oversized penis, well that’s your own problem to solve.  It is not something necessarily to be desired or sought.

As for me, I’m comfortably within the average range and quite satisfied, thank you very much.  It’s all in my genes… and I look damn good in these genes!

Over on Facebook I found an interesting quote:

“To say grace, knowing that people on this globe are starving, indicates a highly selfish acquiescence in the arrogantly supposed favouritism of the almighty. A really decent god-believer, far from giving thanks for the food and good health and fortune enjoyed by himself and his family and close friends, would surely curse God for his neglect of the hungry, the sick and the tormented, throughout the world.”~Barbara Smoker

When I was a Christian it was simply the thing to do — giving thanks to God for a meal, asking God to “bless this food to the nourishment of our bodies.”

Having now left behind the superstition of Christianity, I realize that the only thanks due was to those who actually prepared the meal: the growers, harvesters, marketers, and cooks, among others.  After all, there really is no god to whom thanks is due.

And the idea of asking an invisible (i.e., absent) deity to make the food nutritious is silly — by the time any food reaches the table it has already taken on whatever nutritive qualities it might have.  And expecting a god to alter the nutritive content of junk food to make it acceptable is incredibly stupid and naive.  “I don’t LIKE fruits and vegetables, so God please make my burgers and fries just as nutritious as real food.”

But Barbara’s comment brings in another aspect:  in order to give thanks to your god for providing for you, in the face of reality in which multitudes are not provided for, you have to be either highly arrogant or supremely ignorant.  We in America, as a country, have plenty.  Even the poorest among us often has a better provision than the average person in many other parts of the world.

Fat people giving thanks to their god for a meal is doubly offensive.    “Yes, I’m fat and overstuffed and still want more, so thank you, God, for spoiling me rotten and giving me more in a day than some people eat in a week.  Thank you, God, for making it clear that I am so much more special than most of the people on earth.”  (humility doesn’t come easily to American Christians.)

Shame on that person, and shame on any god who would create such a spoiled brat.

Of course, we know there is no God, and giving thanks to an imaginary deity is silly and childish.  But assuming their god is real, and assuming their god actually did provide the meal, the god they claim to believe in is not anything admirable.  Why would anyone want to believe in a god who favors the selfish few while clearly ignoring the starving multitudes?

“We should be humble and appreciate god’s favors on us.”    Really?  Why?  What sort of humility is shown by openly gloating over (supposedly) being granted so much more than other people?  Like spoiled children with no concept of others, today’s American Christians are oblivious to the message they send when they give thanks to their god.

What would happen if, instead of merely “praying for the poor” as they give thanks for the spread on their own table, American Christians would say, “Thanks for the food, but really we have enough, so we will send it to those who need it more than we do.”  I don’t mean just “skipping a meal” but actually taking a meal to someone who does not have one, or taking the money that would have been spent for their own meal and sending that money to actually provide for others.   Don’t pray for the poor.  FEED them.  How would that go over if the preachers would quit teaching hate in their churches and started teaching genuine compassion and encouraging action in the form of genuine sacrifice?    I doubt most American Christians even know what sacrifice feels like.  I know I didn’t when I was a Christian.

(And yes, I KNOW there are many Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and even humanists and atheists, who DO regularly give out of their substance to assist the poor, so don’t write to complain about broad strokes and sweeping generalizations.)

It is rather old news now that the Apple Store has pulled a particular app from the shelves — the Exodus International app attacking LGBT, along with the earlier app for the Manhattan Declaration, another anti-gay app.

And Christians have been rather upset by this, even though it is entirely within Apple’s right to offer or not offer whatever apps it deems fitting for their customers.

Kelly Boggs, writing in the Baptist Press is among the latest round of folks who apparently just don’t get it:

In his own words, the rejected apps are described this way:

The Manhattan Declaration, according to its website, “is a 4,700-word declaration that speaks in defense of the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty.” As such, the document contains language that opposes “gay marriage.” To date, approximately 490,000 people, including many leading Christian leaders, have signed it.

Exodus International states on its website that it “is committed to encouraging, educating and equipping the Body of Christ to address the issue of homosexuality with grace and truth.” Exodus, often referred to as an “ex-gay” ministry, is dedicated to helping homosexuals who want to change and leave behind what they believe is an immoral lifestyle.

The Manhattan Declaration opposes liberty and equality for all, while the Exodus app continues to perpetuate the idea the homosexuality is not only a choice, but an immoral choice that needs to be changed. There is no threat to religious liberty by allowing others to have equal liberty, and the silly notion that being gay is a choice has been consistently refuted by experts who actually know what they are talking about.

Both apps were initially approved, but then later pulled in response to complaints.    Boggs makes an irrelevant point that

If Apple were to be completely honest, it would have to admit the two Christian apps were rejected solely because homosexual activists and those sympathetic to their cause complained about them.

Well, if some group were attacking dwarfs or red-heads, wouldn’t it make  sense that the dwarfs or red-heads (and their supporters) would be the ones complaining?

He admits there are many homosexually-oriented apps (gay dating apps, etc.) as well as many Christian-themed apps.  He then goes on to ask

Could it be that Apple has yet to pull any homosexually themed apps from its app store because not enough of the 114 million have complained to Apple asking for them to be removed?

Gosh…. could it be that there are no gay-themed apps directly attacking some other group?   The issue is NOT whether certain apps are Christian or gay or whatever; the difference is that these two apps were deliberately attacking some other group.   They were offensive because they were outright lying in their main premise (i.e., that there’s something intrinsically wrong with being gay).  Why would Christians complain about the gay-themed apps?  Even Boggs admitted he had to go looking for the gay-themed apps — Christians would have to go out of their way to find those apps in order to be offended by them.

He ends with this bit of ignorance:

However, by pulling two Christian apps from its app store while allowing sexually charged homosexually themed apps to remain, Apple has compromised its integrity with many of its customers.

Seriously?  Apple has not compromised its integrity but further strengthened it for both gays AND for Christians by showing that it will not allow apps from one demographic that directly attack another demographic.   Apple, as a private company, can do what it pleases, but it should please all sides to know they will not allow an app that denigrates any demographic.    No Christian is harmed by the gay-themed apps, and the gay community is not directly harmed by all the various Christian dating, prayer, Bible study apps that are available.  The only apps that got pulled were the ones targeting some other demographic.

And if he’s worried about “sexually charged” apps, how many apps exist for heterosexual sexual activity?  Why not complain about ALL sex-related apps, instead of just picking on the gay ones?