She Loved Her Daughters And Her Guns

In September, 2015, a devoted mother wrote on her Facebook page:

“Happy Daughter’s Day to my two amazing, sweet, kind, beautiful, intelligent girls. I love and treasure you both more than you could ever possibly know.”

In March, 2016, the same woman wrote:

“It would be horribly tragic if my ability to protect myself or my family were to be taken away, but that’s exactly what Democrats are determined to do by banning semi-automatic handguns.” 

http://nypost.com/2016/06/25/mom-kills-two-daughters

In June, 2016, she decided to annoy her husband and figured the best way to do so would be to kill their two daughters! She called the family into the lounge room and then started shooting. Her husband and daughters ran to escape but she hunted them down and the girls were left dying in the gutter outside their home while her husband watched from a nearby house where he had taken refuge. "This is about punishing you," she yelled at her husband as she continued firing bullets into her daughters' bodies whenever they twitched. Then the police arrived and blew her brains out!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/

Just another day in North America.

The Meaning Of Life (Christian Style)

Christians often presume to tell us that they understand the reason for our existence. We are here (they say) to worship god and to glorify his name:

The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God.
(William Lane Craig)

Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

(Westminster Shorter Catechism)

Let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.
(from the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:16)

Our purpose is to praise God, worship him, to proclaim his greatness, and to accomplish his will. This is what glorifies him.

(Matt Slick, CARM)

There is no calling greater than praising God ... the greatest thing we can do (our purpose, you might say) is to glory him.

(John Piper, Desiring God)

But do you know what happens if you fail to glorify god? 

If ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name ... Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces. 
(Malachi 2:2-3 KJV)

Christians never mention that particular text. I wonder why?

Seriously though, why don't the Christians mention that if someone fails to glorify god then god will personally come down to earth and rub shit on their face?

Maybe they find it too embarrassing to mention - but no. They quite happily say that non-believers will be tortured for eternity in the fires of hell and there is no hint of embarrassment when they deliver that vile message.

The fact is, Christians don't mention Malachi 2:3 because they have never read the bible and they have no idea that such a text exists. They cannot have read it because it is such a spectacularly memorable text that they would never forget it if they had read it: Disobey god and he will rub shit on your face! Spectacularly memorable. Once heard never forgotten.

So if you ever hear a Christian talk about glorifying god and he fails to mention that verse about god rubbing shit on your face, then you know that he hasn't read the bible.

When you tell Christians about Malachi 2:3 they immediately declare that you have taken the words out of context. That's an automatic response that Christians apply to any and all controversial bible texts. It gives them thinking time; a chance to conjure up a more 'believable' explanation later. However, if they do say the story has been taken out of context, simply ask them to explain the true context. It doesn't matter how convoluted their explanation may be, when it comes down to the bottom line, god rubs shit on the faces of those who do not glorify him!

During their search for context the Christians will eventually get back to Malachi 2:1 and discover that God is speaking directly to his priests and not to the general population. "Ah ha," says the Christian, "You are wrong to say that god will rub shit on the faces of everyone who fails to glorify him. That punishment probably applies only to priests, not to ordinary people." Or they will say the text is not meant to be taken literally and the punishment is merely symbolic - although they usually can't say exactly what is being symbolised when god rubs shit on your face!


But here's the thing: I'm not looking for explanations. I am not complaining about what the text is saying. I am not offended by it and neither does it disgust me. I actually find it rather amusing. No, my complaint is about Christians who have never read the bible yet still have the audacity to preach their religion to unbelievers.

In all of the quotations at the top of this post, the Christians have told only half the story. "Glorify god," they say, but not one word of warning about the punishment that will be inflicted if glorification is not forthcoming. And, as we have already established, it is not embarrassment that prevents the Christians from mentioning this particular punishment; it is their ignorance. Malachi 2:3 is one of the most memorable verses in the whole bible but the vast majority of true believers have never heard of it: Never read it for themselves; never had it taught to them in Sunday school; never had it mentioned at the church youth club; never discussed it during bible studies, and almost certainly never heard it preached from the pulpit during a sermon.

The preacher tells them they are required to give glory to god and that's as far as the congregation is prepared to go. You'd think they would at least have the gumption to haul out a Concordance and look up the word "glory", just to see what else the bible has to say on the subject, but they are totally lacking in curiosity and it never occurs to them that maybe there are things they have yet to learn about their religion. All they've got is half the story from some conniving preacher - and now they think they have the right to go out and convert others.

The Dumbest Kid In The World

Jerman Neveaux, 19, was resisting a body search when he fatally shot deputy David Michel on Wednesday afternoon. Neveaux, was on probation after recently pleading guilty to possession of stolen property.

He told authorities he didn't want to go to jail for having a gun. "So he killed a deputy," said the sheriff. "What do you say about that?"
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2016/06/

He didn't want to go to jail so he shot a policeman in the  back, in broad daylight, in front of five witnesses!

Like I said - the dumbest kid in the world.

Brendan Behan Was A Piss-Pot

Irish author and playwright, Brendan Behan, drank himself to death in the early 1960s. On one occasion, in America, he collapsed into an alchoholic coma and was transported to a nearby Catholic hospital.

Because he was such a famous patient the hospital board made sure that he was given around-the-clock care and so there was always a nun at his bedside, fussing around and attempting to keep him comfortable.

Behan remained in a coma for three days and when he finally regained consciousness he saw the nun at his bed-side. "Bless you sister," he said. "May all your sons be bishops."

For God's Sake - Kill Someone You Love

I've just started reading Dan Barker's new book titled, God: The most unpleasant character in all fiction. In the Introduction to his book, Dan Barker reminds us that,

The first time the word “love” appears in the bible is when God told Abraham to burn the son that he loved:

He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering.” (Genesis 22:2)

---

If I told you to take your son into the back bedroom and burn his skin with a cigarette you wouldn't do it. And you'd probably report me to the police for inciting you to commit a felony.

But what if god told you to do it?

If you answer "No," then your faith is weak and your trust in god is non-existent.

If you answer "Yes," then you're an arsehole who shouldn't be allowed to have custody of children.

If you answer, "God wouldn't ask me to do such a thing," then deep down you know your religion is a load of crap but you just don't have the courage to come right out and say it.

Christian, Muslim, or Atheist?

Fifty people murdered and fifty-three wounded by a lone gunman. 

Before you read the news story, see if you can guess which group the killer identifies with: Hindus, Christians, Muslims, or Atheists? You already know the answer don't you?

The gunman who opened fire inside a crowded nightclub here early Sunday morning, launching a rampage that killed 50 people and injured 53 others in the deadliest shooting spree in the country’s history, had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State before the attack, according to U.S. law enforcement officials.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/06

---

When Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick woke up this morning he heard that fifty American citizens had been murdered by a Muslim gunman and he was outraged. Then he heard that many of the victims were homosexuals and his attitude suddenly changed. He decided to add his Christian perspective to the story with this unsympathetic tweet:

Eventually his advisors saw it and implored him to delete it. They explained to the devout politician that people would see that tweet and decide (correctly as it happens) that their Lt. Governor is an intolerant homophobe. The gutless wonder obeyed orders and the tweet was removed from public sight - although he is probably still sharing it privately with his Christian friends and relations.

His advisors are trying to explain the situation this way:

Regarding this morning's scripture posting on social media, be assured that the post was not done in response to last night's tragedy. The post was designed and scheduled last Thursday.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/315502915/PR-16-06-12

I don't believe it.

Logical Argument - Christian Style

Life Teen is a Catholic website for Christian teenagers - and back in 2014 Mark Hart wrote an article titled, 15 Logical Reasons to Believe in the Resurrection. I especially like #4: The tomb had a stone in front of it. What more logical reason could there be?

But I want to concentrate on the preamble to the article, where the author dumbs down his readers to the point where they will eventually be prepared to accept things like "The tomb had a stone in front of it" as a logical reason for believing that a dead man came back to life 2,000 years ago. 

(My comments in red)

15 Logical Reasons to Believe in the Resurrection

by Mark Hart (April 20, 2014)

Many people will tell you that “based on human logic” the Resurrection makes no sense. The first thing we need to remember is that “human logic” is not omnipotence. God makes it very clear that “(His) ways are not our ways, nor are His thoughts our thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9).

The author puts two words (human logic) inside shock-quotes because he is preparing the reader to accept the idea that logic can go only so far and then it is useless. The author also implies that if human logic reaches a conclusion that disagrees with the bible, then human logic is wrong and the bible wins by default. (His ways are not our ways).

What is illogical is to think that “man” is the center of the universe. The truth is that Christianity is far more logical than many people give it credit for, certainly more logical than atheism or agnosticism.

The author changes the subject in the very first sentence of this second paragraph. The real subject for discussion is the resurrection of Jesus, but the author is now talking about people who regard themselves as the center of the universe. He is attempting to plant the seeds of doubt in the mind of his reader. He is implying that what may seem logical at first glance will later turn out to be illogical. 

With the seeds of doubt planted in the reader's mind, the author now provides a solution to the problem by declaring that "Christianity is far more logical" than merely human logic.  In fact the author is repeating the message he gave in the first paragraph: If human logic disagrees with the bible then human logic is wrong and the bible wins by default. (His ways are not our ways).

In the last sentence the author also casts doubt on the logic of atheism but he is way out of line when he does that. Atheism is not a philosophy and it is not a world view. There is no atheist Constitution, no atheist dogma, no atheist leaders. Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief. It is not illogical to say, "I do not believe that god exists." It should be no more surprising than to hear a Christian say, "I do not believe the Tooth Fairy exists."

The second thing we should remind people is that any conversation about God is going to necessitate a degree of faith. If people are not willing to humbly admit that they don’t have all the answers then the conversation will go nowhere. God’s truth and human pride do not co-exist in the same space; that is the nature of sin. Humility and grace go hand-in-hand, as do pride and sin. So, let’s remember that any conversation about the existence of God or the truth about Christ’s resurrection necessitates a humble admission that “it is possible that God exists” and that “we are not God.”

Now the author brings faith into play. He implies that when human logic fails, we can always rely on faith to lead us to the truth. Well faith has led hundreds of millions of Hindus to believe that Ganesha (the human god with an elephant's head) actually exists. Somehow, I doubt that any Catholic will accept that as a reasonable faith.

This whole paragraph is nothing more than a guilt trip for the reader. The author implies that anyone who disagrees with the idea that Jesus was resurrected, is nothing more than a faithless, graceless, proud and arrogant, sinner.

Notice, by the way, that it is all implication. The author doesn't come right out and say that 'proud' atheists are liars. Instead he implies that they are liars when he declares that "God's truth and human pride do not co-exist in the same space." This gives him plenty of wiggle-room so that when I accuse him of calling atheist liars, he will condescendingly point out that never once has he ever used the word "liar" to describe an atheist. And neither has he - the cunning little bugger!

And the last sentence in this paragraph is a real doozy. The author is telling his readers that if they want to be truly sure that an all-powerful God raised Jesus from the dead then all they have to do is simply agree that the all-powerful God really does exist and he really did raise Jesus from the dead! Now that's logic, Christian-style.

Source:
http://lifeteen.com/blog/15-logical-reasons-to-believe-in-the-resurrection/

A Christian Cherry-Picker

Senator David Purdue of Georgia, USA, was recorded making a joke about President Obama. He said,  

I think we should pray for Barack Obama, but I think we need to be very specific about how we pray. We should pray like Psalm 109:8 says. It says, “Let his days be few. And let another have his office.”

Do you know why he was so keen to be "very specific" when it came to quoting the bible? Because he knew what was coming next - and he knew it wasn't very nice. Here is the part of the prayer that Senator Purdue didn't want you to hear:

Let his days be few. And let another have his office. May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. May his children be wandering beggars; may they be driven from their ruined homes.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+109

What Senator Purdue tried to pass off as a joke about the President Obama's retirement was actually a prayer calling for the death of the president and the ruination of his wife and children!

Is it any wonder that Christians are famous for the way in which they "cherry-pick" the good bits from their bible, completely ignore all the bad bits - and then have the cheek to declare that they hold the high moral ground.

Original video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q317_pPhVPw

Marijuana

My dope smoking neigbours tell me that marijuana is not addictive - so why are they up at seven-o-clock on Sunday morning; driving to the other side of town looking for a deal?

Long Tall Texan

It happened eighteen months ago, but I heard the news only yesterday: Henry Strzelecki died on December 30th, 2014, at the age of seventy-five. He was hit by a car on December 22nd, went into a coma and never recovered.

I remember him as the man who wrote the novelty song "Long Tall Texan". It was first recorded in 1959 by Henry's group, The Four Flickers. A second version was recorded by Jerry Woodward in 1960, but Murray Kellum  gave us the very best version in 1963.

Original video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwL2X_MdQl0

God Shoots Woman In The Head She Still Fails To Get The Message

Pastor Yolande Herron-Palmore was shot in the head while getting her hair done in a beauty salon. The bullet grazed the back of her head, nicked an artery, and knocked her onto the floor.

Her son told reporters it was a miracle from God. "This is the Lord's doing," he said. "They can't explain why the bullet decided to veer or curve off."
http://abc13.com/news/houston-pastor-shot 

Funny sort of miracle where the bullet is heading for a clean miss until the Lord causes it to "veer or curve off" and hit the victim in the back of the head.

The victim's sister said, "It was nothing short of a miracle. You know, we’re all trying to figure out what’s the message in this.”
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/06/03/salon-shooting/

The message should be clear to all Christians. The victim is a female Methodist Pastor who preaches from the pulpit even though God has made it painfully obvious that women are required to sit down, shut up, and leave all preachifyin' to the menfolk. As God inspired Saint Paul to tell us: 

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." (1 Timothy 2:12)

Pastor Yoalande Herron-Palmore disobeyed that command and God sent her a wake-up call. He caused a bullet to veer off course and hit her in the back of the head.

Verballing

Until about 25 years ago the Australian police had an easy way to get evidence against any person for any crime. They would simply declare that the suspect had made a verbal confession and that was the end of that. Details of the "verbal" would be transcribed by the policeman but it did not have to be signed because the "verbal" itself was the indisputable confession; the transcript was merely an aid to the policeman's memory. In court the "verbal" was always accepted by the judge - because why would a policeman tell lies !?

I always remember a case when a famous criminal had been captured by police in New South Wales and was being extradited back to the state of Victoria. He was well aware of the verballing routine and expected the police to use it against him during the plane trip back to Victoria.

As the defendant was led across the tarmac at the airport, he tried to counter the possible use of a verbal by shouting out to the reporters who were following the case. At the top of his voice he told them he had no intention of making any confessions during the plane trip. He said he would not say a single word to anyone at any time; not to the stewards; not to the other passengers; not to the police; not to anyone. Not one word.

One hour later the plane landed at the airport in Victoria and the arresting officer appeared at the top of the gangplank with a huge smile on his face. He told reporters that the defendant had been overcome by remorse during the one hour plane trip and had made a full confession to all crimes and was eager to pay his debt to society. Only thirteen people in Australia believed that story - twelve jurors and one judge. The policeman laughed and laughed and laughed.

Larry Taunton (Liar For Jesus)

Atheist Christopher Hitchens often warned that after he was dead there would be many Christians (Liars for Jesus) who would declare that he had denounced atheism and was contemplating the idea that Christianity was the way to go.

Sure enough, in 2016, Larry Taunton wrote a whole book on the subject (The Faith of Christopher Hitchens). He claimed that Hitchens was a good friend who, at the time of his death, was re-evaluating his religious options and considering the idea that maybe god existed.

Brian Dalton has made a video on the subject:

Original video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4Nl7FoH9YI

Larry Taunton's behaviour is even more pathetic than it seems when you first hear this story because he isn't really trying to make a point about Christopher Hitchens at all. Instead he is doing nothing more than to pompously boost his own ego. He is actually saying, 

"Look at me everybody. Look at me and marvel at my stupendous brilliance. I found the most famous atheist on the planet; befriended him; spoke with him; reasoned with him; and finally, in those last few days, convinced him that I was right and he was wrong. That's how great I am. I practically converted the world's most famous atheist all on my own because I am that good. Look at me again. Can you not see that I am truly wonderful and a joy to behold."