The Beatles In Australia (50 years ago)

The Beatles arrived in Australia on June 11 in 1964.

They came to Adelaide and played four concerts on June 12, and June 13 (3,000 people at each concert)

The compère was Alan Field (I don't remember him at all) and the support acts were

Sounds Incorporated (Britain)

Johnny Devlin (Australia)

Johnny Chester (Australia)

The Phantoms (Australia)

The Beatles performed the same 10 songs at all their Adelaide shows:

I Saw Her Standing There

I Want To Hold Your Hand

All My Loving

She Loves You

Till There Was You

Roll Over Beethoven

Can’t Buy Me Love

This Boy

Twist And Shout

Long Tall Sally.

Ringo had tonsillitis at the time so Jimmy Nicol played drums at the Adelaide concerts and went back to England when Ringo arrived a few days later.

At the time Adelaide had a population of 600,000 and 300,000 people lined the roads to greet them as they drove from the airport to the Town Hall. It was the biggest turn-out for the Beatles anywhere in the world. (video below)

I queued up for three days to buy tickets to the concert. No food, no blankets, no water, no organisation of any kind! Every few hours one of our group would leave the queue and buy some hot dogs and soft drinks and bring them back for the rest of us. We slept when exhaustion overtook us - but the concrete pavement was bloody hard and we would be awake again within an hour or two.

The funny thing is that there were four of us in our group and I was the only one who went to the concert! The other guys sold their tickets for huge profits to other fans. I'll bet they've been kicking themselves ever since.

The sad thing (for me) is that I have never been able to convince anyone that I actually went to the concert. There were only 12,000 tickets sold but there are about 100,000 people in Adelaide who say they were there! If I tell anyone I went to the concert they just assume I'm a bullshit artist like all the others.

The following videos will give you an idea of the music I heard from the backup bands on that fantastic day fifty years ago.

Sounds Incorporated

Johnny Devlin & The Phantoms

Johnny Chester

Famous Historical Site

Imagine you were living 5,000 years ago and you were out hunting when you came across this scene:

How would you react?

Very probably you wouldn't react at all.

But what if you came upon the site from a different angle and you saw this:

How long would it take before you noticed that the rocks seemed to make up the shape of a boat? How long before you were telling your kids stories about it? The biggest boat in the world! Big enough to carry all the people and all the animals from here to the top of the mountain and back again.

How many of your kids would remember that story and pass it on (with extra details added) to their own children?

How long would it take before some of the really dumb hillbillies stopped thinking of it as a children's bedtime story and started thinking that it was a true story about something that really happened? Probably not very long because those primitive hunter-gatherers were blissfully ignorant about nearly everything except hunting and gathering, so they had the potential to believe whatever nonsense popped into their heads at the time.

But what about our modern times? Is it possible that a well educated, adult human being, living in the 21st century, could be as blissfully ignorant as a hillbilly living 5,000 years ago? Of course it's possible. Such people are everywhere. We call them Christians.

Yes, there are millions of Christians around the world who truly believe that these rocks are the remains of Noah's Ark, and over the years they have raised (and continue to raise) millions of dollars which they pay to con men who travel to the site and verify whatever nonsense their backers want to believe.

This is the story that started it all, way back in 1960:

He Knows The Number Of Stars And All Of Their Names

He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name. (Psalm 147:4)

It has been estimated there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe.

And approximately 460,000,000,000,000,000 seconds since the first stars appeared (about 100 million years after the big bang).

If god has been naming the stars at the rate of one per second since that time, well that means 99.999954% of them are still unnamed.

No wonder god doesn't answer prayers. He's so far behind in his work that he hasn't got time for stuff like that.

On the other hand, if he managed to finish naming the stars yesterday afternoon, then he has done so at the rate of more than two million names per second for the last 14.6 billion years! Nobody would have understood a word he said.

-----

A few thousand years ago the shepherds watching their flocks by night could easily believe that god knew the number of stars and all of their names. After all, the shepherds had already counted nearly three thousand stars themselves - and even named some of them - so no big deal to find that god had done the same. In other words, back in those days, Psalm 147:4 was regarded as literally true. God really did count the stars and he really did call them by their names.

What about today?

Today Psalm 147:4 is regarded by all Christians as a bit of poetic hyperbole, and only a fool would be tempted to take it literally!

And that's why religion will never die. Whenever a particular bible teaching is shown to be wrong it is simply tossed aside and the text automatically changes from "literally true" to "merely a metaphor".

Right up to the 19th century Christians were using the bible to show that god permitted his followers to own slaves. Then, when slavery was outlawed, Christians reinterpreted the texts until god was saying that his followers were not permitted to own slaves.

When I was a child the churches were still teaching that hell was a literal place like a big cave full of red hot larva where naughty boys and girls would be tortured for ever and ever and ever. These days such nightmare inducing stories are no longer preached from the pulpit and the churches have invented a completely new type of hell. Sure, the New Testament is full of texts saying that sinners are doomed to writhe and squirm in the "fire of hell" but modern-day Christians completely ignore those texts and declare, instead, that hell is nothing more than "a separation from god". Good Christians will go to heaven when they die, but sinners will miss out on all the fun because they are destined to remain in the grave with no rewards at all.

Isn't that cute?

Christians always look cute when they are telling lies for Jesus. Like the child with chocolate smeared lips vehemently denying that he has eaten any of the chocolate.

Slavery In The Bible

In the previous post (The Bible Condones Slavery) I pointed out that Christians usually fail to mention Leviticus 25:44-46 because it absolutely negates their claim that the bible does not condone slavery.

In this post I'll give you an example of the twisted logic employed by Christians who have been confronted with that text and are forced to respond to it:

The example comes from Come Reason Ministries. I'll just give you a list of the main points made by the author under the heading "The Concept of Slavery" where he attempts to define "slavery" as just another word for "employee". Click on the link if you want to see the whole article. [My comments in red]

-----

The concept of slavery in ancient Israel and many ancient near eastern cultures is quite different than the type of slavery practiced in the Southern United States during the early 1800's.

Leviticus 25:44-46 makes it clear that humans could be bought and sold as slaves by the people of ancient Israel. Americans in the early 1800s could do exactly the same. There is no discernible difference.

-----

The term slavery was much broader then, since a king's subjects may be referred to as his slaves.

This is just playing with words. In This Side of Paradise, F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote, "I am a slave to my emotions." My grandmother said she was a slave to her arthritis. A friend of mine says she is a slave to her cat. A wealthy subject of the king might say, "I am a slave to the king" and he might say so as he stands in the auction house and purchases human beings who are being sold as slaves to other wealthy subjects of the king! Like I said - playing with words.

-----

Slaves were understood to be human beings instead of mere chattel.

Yet the bible says that slaves could be beaten to the point of death (Exodus 21:20-21) and their owner can bequeath them in his will to his next of kin! (Leviticus 25:46)

-----

Slaves could own land and property - something that was illegal in the modern western version. 

The 'Come Reason Ministries' author provides no references for this claim. Perhaps he is telling the truth, but I have a feeling he is telling lies for Jesus.

-----

In effect, in this first part of his response to Leviticus 25:44-46, the author has simply ignored everything said in the text and implied that it has nothing to do with slavery. He actually tries to convince his readers that the text is nothing more than short discussion about the life and times of ordinary people living ordinary lives in ancient Israel. Sadly, I feel that many of his Christian readers will blindly follow him down that path to ignorance.

Down at the bottom of the article the author concludes that:

-----

...although the Bible gives certain guidelines for treating slaves, that doesn't necessarily mean the Bible condones slavery

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. Leviticus 25:44 (English Standard Version)

-----

We are reminded that slaves were to be viewed as human beings 

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. Exodus 21:20-21 (English Standard Version)

-----

and Hebrew slaves were to be released after seven years. 

But as for the non-Hebrew slaves: You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. Leviticus 25:46 (English Standard Version)

 -----

So here is a Christian author who has been asked to confront the issues contained in Leviticus 25:44-46 and he does so so by simply ignoring the text; then taking a sideways step, and finally declaring that every statement made in the text means exactly the opposite of what it actually says!!!

If it was just one lone author telling such lies, it would be hardly worth a mention, but this author is not alone. There are thousands (maybe even hundreds of thousands) of apologetic Christians preaching these falsehood to their flock every day.

Even worse, the flock accepts those lies without question!

Link to the article at Come Reason Ministries

The Bible Condones Slavery

Whenever a Christian says that it is impossible to be moral without God I like to remind them that the god of the bible condones slavery - and that is immoral.

The Christians invariably disagree. Most of them have never read the bible and wouldn't have a clue what it says about the subject, but they know slavery is immoral and simply assume that God would also be against it.

Other Christians have already been embarrassed by the "bible condones slavery" argument and they have taken steps to recover the high moral ground by discovering what the bible actually has to say on the subject. They are quick to point out that the 25th chapter of Leviticus makes a clear distinction between servants and slaves and then goes on to warn against treating a fellow Hebrew as a slave.

If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: he shall be with you as a hired servant. Leviticus 25:39-40 (English Standard version)

In other words, it seems that rather than condoning slavery as its detractors maintain, the bible actually has laws against slavery. And that point is clarified in the 21st chapter of Exodus:

When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. Exodus 21:2 (English Standard Version)

This enables the Christian to suggest that while the bible unfortunately uses the word "slave" it is clear that something different is being spoken about in those texts. The bible seems to be talking about a negotiated contract between employer and employee. The contract lasts six years and then the worker (who is NOT a slave) can negotiate another contract with another employer. Also, despite the unfortunate wording in the bible, the employer is not actually buying a slave, but merely paying wages to his employee.

Furthermore (says the Christian apologist) it is completely wrong to say the bible condones slavery because, in Exodus 21:16, it specifically warns against the practice and orders the death penalty for that particular crime:

Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death. Exodus 21:16 (English Standard Version)

Here's how Bryan Fischer made the point on his Focal Point radio program on May 28th, 2014:

Original video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDCpVD6BQRY

What Fischer fails to tell his listeners, however, is that the texts mentioned above are referring to Hebrews only. Hebrews must be treated as servants and not as slaves. Hebrews must not be kidnapped and sold into slavery. But anyone else is fair game! Here it is in Leviticus chapter 25, the bible condoning slavery:

You may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly. Leviticus 25:44-46 (English Standard version)

No employment contract there. No freedom after seven years. These people are slaves for life and if their owner dies they are still his property and can be bequeathed to others in his will. And also in verse 46: a clear distinction between Hebrew servants and foreign slaves.

Verse 46 also states that Hebrews should not be treated as ruthlessly as the slaves - so how ruthlessly were the slaves treated? Check out Exodus 21:20-21.

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. Exodus 21:20-21

Does that sound like a healthy relationship between employer and employee, or is it a biblical law condoning slavery?

-----

So here's a little test that will indicate the level of dishonesty employed by the believers as they desperately try to protect their god from ridicule:

Just look for a reference to Leviticus 25:44-46 anywhere in the article they have produced (blog, video, book, speech, or whatever).

You will never find that text anywhere in their apologetics because they cannot defend it - so they just ignore it. They know it's there, but they dare not mention it, because it clearly shows that the bible does condone slavery. They are lying by omission; telling lies for Jesus!

-----

I have more to say on the subject here:

http://gawdstruth.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/slavery-in-bible_4.html

Catholic Beliefs - Rough As Guts

Chris Naples was still a child when the Catholic priest, Terence McAlinden started abusing him sexually.

Now, in 2014, Chris Naples is suing the Catholic Church because it knew about the abuse but failed to report it or to stop it.

In court this year lawyers argued that the church could not be held accountable. They said the church was accountable when priests were on duty  and acting on behalf of the church, but this was not the case when McAlinden was abusing his victim.

“How do we determine when a priest is and is not on duty?” one of the justices asked.

“Well,” replied the diocese lawyer, “you can determine a priest is not on duty when he is molesting a child, for example.”

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/06/

Do you think the church really believes this to be true, or is it making the ridiculous claim in the hope that it will be enough to stop the court ordering the church to pay compensation to the victim?

When Christians Attack

Here is an example of the ratbaggery in which Christians must involve themselves when they are desperate to demonize their opponents.

Bryan Fischer is a right wing Christian spruiker who spreads his particular brand of hatred via the American Family Association.

In this edition of Focal Point, broadcast on his American Family Radio network he complains about school lunches served to school children. He's talking about food, but makes it sound like the kids are being forced to eat poison!

And he does so, not because he seriously believes that food is harmful to children (how could it be?). He does so because he regards Michelle Obama as an opponent and, if she is encouraging children to eat healthy food, then he, on principle, will disagree with her.

Truth is of no consequence when Christians attack.

Original video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDCpVD6BQRY

May 28 2014
Focal Point
American Family Radio Network
Bryan Fischer