Did You Ever Consider The Possibility That Maybe God Is A Parasitic Worm?

There’s a little kid, infested with a parasitic worm
His extremities are swollen and in pain
But this doesn’t pose a problem, or disprove a loving God
As philosopher Plantinga will explain:

See, God created Eden, which his favorite—Man—beheld,
But of course, the fruit of knowledge, He forbids
It was absolutely perfect, but humanity rebelled
As a consequence, there’s parasites in kids

You can treat the kid for parasites, and have the worms removed
And observe their squirming bodies, tightly curled…
Rejoicing in the agony that must be God-approved,
Knowing this is His created perfect world

From the horrible interview at the NY Times Opinionator Blog:

A.P.: I suppose your thinking is that it is suffering and sin that make this world less than perfect. But then your question makes sense only if the best possible worlds contain no sin or suffering. And is that true? Maybe the best worlds contain free creatures some of whom sometimes do what is wrong. Indeed, maybe the best worlds contain a scenario very like the Christian story.

Think about it: The first being of the universe, perfect in goodness, power and knowledge, creates free creatures. These free creatures turn their backs on him, rebel against him and get involved in sin and evil. Rather than treat them as some ancient potentate might — e.g., having them boiled in oil — God responds by sending his son into the world to suffer and die so that human beings might once more be in a right relationship to God. God himself undergoes the enormous suffering involved in seeing his son mocked, ridiculed, beaten and crucified. And all this for the sake of these sinful creatures.

I’d say a world in which this story is true would be a truly magnificent possible world. It would be so good that no world could be appreciably better. But then the best worlds contain sin and suffering.

I would *not* say that such a world would be truly magnificent. Far more people are suffering than in a world I would create if I could. But then, I care about people; I am a person, myself, when I’m not a cuttlefish.

Maybe it is a perfect world, for parasitic worms.

Thank You, Ken Ham

Thank you, Ken Ham—

“What would change your mind?” was the question… and Ken told viewers that the bible would stand up to critical examination. Thank you, Ken Ham.

My own pastor, back all those decades ago, was a true believer, one who believed that the most skeptical investigation will support the truth of the bible. It is, in part, because of the encouragement of my pastor, that I continued to question the things I had learned in the church. My pastor encouraged me not to believe the bible simply because he did, and because he said it was true; if the bible is true, you will be able to look at all the evidence—not just a cherry-picked subsample—and the story laid down in the geological record, the story laid down in the fossil record, the story laid down in the astronomical record, the story laid down in Genesis, will all, must all, agree.

It was in part because of my pastor that I am an atheist today. I thank Ken Ham for his earnest answer, because it will lead to more atheists.

All Gods Are Versions Of The One True God (Mine, Of Course)

There are thousands of gods, so the atheists claim
And they note that they all disagree;
But I’ve figured the source of their silly confusion—
And so, you can take it from me:

Some people once worshipped a handful of gods,
Like Athena, Poseidon, and Zeus
All manifestations of one, greater, God,
A reasonable mind might deduce.

When mortal perceptions, inherently flawed,
Attempt to perceive the divine
The gods that they see are distortions, of course,
Of the true God (and that one is mine).

How sad that the fact of our fallible minds
Is the cause of dissension and wars:
All gods are versions of my God, of course,
But no gods are versions of yours.

I remember my sister once (decades ago) saying “it doesn’t really matter what you believe, just that you believe. I didn’t get it then, but I do now. All gods are manifestations of the right one, which is my one. Of course, my one couldn’t possibly be a distortion of a different god, because reasons. Oh, yeah, because that’s how my god is actually defined. The sophisticated theology version of “because I said so.”

“We Assert That Images Of The Spiritual Leaders Of All Religions Should Be Deemed To Be Respectful”

So… if, by law, religious figures
Are deserving of respect
From the meditating Buddha
To the Manson, spittle-flecked,
From the image of Mohammed
To the memory of Jim Jones,
From Joseph Smith to Jesus Christ
To dusty relics’ bones
From the ancients on Olympus
To the modern Kanye West,
I’m required to respect them
Shall we put this to the test?
Say “there is no god but Allah”;
Aren’t you disrespecting Thor?
And if “Jesus is the only way”
That’s disrespect, once more—
If we see such disagreement
On what is—or not—divine
Can you force me to respect your views
Without respecting mine?
I won’t ask for your approval
Of the way I choose to live
(Which is fine, cos we both know it’s not
A thing that you would give)
I won’t ask you bow to other gods
I know you’ve got your own…
And in exchange, the thing I want,
Is left the fuck alone.
Your holy rules apply to you;
Their holy rules are theirs
You break each other’s holy rules
And no one really cares.
I have no god I worship, so
It’s really plain to see
Your holy rules apply to you…
They don’t apply to me.

(We all are bound by civic law,
And that is quite enough;
You want me to respect your god?
My one-word answer: tough.)

Context, and Cuttlecap tip to Ophelia.

It should be against the law to offend me

We don’t, normally, see swooning
Over atheist cartooning
But the problem is ballooning
Or, that’s what they’d have us know

One cartoon, they think, might seize us
(They assume it cannot please us)
Cos it shows the face of Jesus
And his little buddy, Mo.

There’s an Author whose creation
Shows a cruel imagination
And whose acts deserve damnation
Or, again, that’s what they say

But the audience intended
Finds the humour simply splendid
It comes highly recommended
By the atheists today!

You all, I am sure, know Jesus and Mo, and the manufactroversy surrounding the cartoon.

Jesus and Mo is offensive. To some people. In very nearly the exact same sense as the bible and the qur’an are offensive, to other people. (and in very nearly the exact same sense as the failure to capitalize the words “bible” and “qur’an” is to still more people.)

I like being offended every once in a while–keeps me from boring myself to death, and surprises me every once in a while with something I thought would offend me, but does not (I’m looking at you, brussels sprouts). I think I’d rather have a variable world that sometimes colors outside the lines of my preferences, than one that always stays safely within the realms of any and all offense. The price I pay to discover new favorites, is the occasional discovery of something offensive. This happens with art, with literature, with food…

I am reminded (true story) of a friend who claimed that “anyone who only ever does it in one position…. that’s a fetish.” She would be (indeed, was) offended by the very conservatism in sex that took offense at her views.

Hmmm… I guess we can’t aim at “no offense” without dooming ourselves to extinction, then.

Maybe we can settle for the government not taking sides.

Giving Up Rhyming For A Year

I think, for the year, I will write in prose only; no rhyme and no meter, no scansion, no verse. Iambic pentameter? Perish the notion! We’ll see if my writing gets better… or worse.

A year without sonnets, or ballads, or limericks; a year without couplets or bad villanelles; a year when my thoughts must be written, unfiltered by badly-forced rhymes jammed in metrical shells.

I’ve posted in quatrains; I’ve posted in couplets; I’ve posted a few in a form of my own. I’ve written more verse than I care to remember, in forms more diverse than most people have known! But now, for one year, I will change up my thinking; I’ll curb my obsession with meter and rhyme.

Or maybe I won’t, cos this “try it a year” bit is silly, and simply a waste of my time.

Ken Ham Clearly Doesn’t Believe (I Hope)

So I was just out walking the cuttledogs, and it occurred to me that the whole notion of a Noah’s Ark Theme Park showed either an incredible lack of belief on the part of the planners, or a psychopathic lack of empathy.

I mean, it’s a theme park. Think Disney. But it’s built around the greatest (by percentage, at least, if not in real numbers) genocide in history (assuming, for the time being, that the planners actually believe the Noah story). Men, women, children, toddlers, babies… dogs, cats, horses, cows… bunnies, slow lorises, baby hedgehogs… all of them, bloated, stinking corpses. Family fun for everyone! (seriously, click the link–this is what the flood ride would be, were it true to the bible)

One simply cannot have a realistic picture of what the flood allegedly entailed, and believe it appropriate for a family theme park. Ham either does not believe, or lacks any shred of empathy whatsoever.

It gets worse. Remember, the ark was the centerpiece of the park, but was by no means the whole thing. There would be rides. Remember, one of the rides (I shit you not) was (again, think Disney, but on acid) a “Ten Plagues Of Egypt” theme ride! Family fun, with blisters and boils, locusts and lice, blood and death! (Again, click the link for one of my favorites–no one who believed the story would ever suggest it as a theme park ride!)

Imagine a much smaller genocide, with a much smaller fraction of the world’s population put to slaughter. Can you imagine a family-friendly Holocaust theme park? Hop on the trains, kiddies? It sickened me to write that last sentence, and yet I wrote the verses at the two links above–what’s the difference?

The difference is, I believe (I was going to write “I know”, but I’ll settle for the weaker “I believe”) that the bible’s account is false. It’s fiction. It didn’t happen. There were no real victims (well… belief in “the curse of Ham” was not victimless), so I can write about bloated bodies and plagues of locusts. It’s simple–I don’t believe. The only ones who could treat such a genocide lightly are those who don’t believe. Those for whom the flood, and the ten plagues, are nothing more than a chance to fleece those who do believe.

.

.

.

I do wonder, though, who would invest, and who would want such a thing built. Is everyone so mercenary? Are there any true believers who think the Ark Park is appropriate? And why?

Satanist, Atheist; Tomayto, Tomahto

The folks at Fox News have been hatin’ on Satan;
The thought of him sickens their good Christian hearts
A statue? in public? And Gretchen was retchin’,
While all of her guests played their usual parts:
“That statue’s offensive! It’s hateful! A state full
Of Christians would never have voted it in!
Majority rules—you don’t like it? Then hike it
To some other state that might tolerate sin!”

Conservative pundits are trying, by lying,
To claim the majority writes all the laws
Their cry “it’s Commandments we follow!” rings hollow:
They always forget the establishment clause
Not wanting to, yet, let them all in, they’re stallin’—
They’ll wait, while this case makes its way through the courts
In the meantime, the Decalogue only, so lonely,
Cries out to be joined by some goat-headed sorts.

Yeah, well, ok, I’m not really happy with this verse, so I’ll post it quick before I just throw it away. It started out as a comment on Gretchen Carlson’s innocent gaffe, then took a detour into the shouting match her guests launched (have you ever noticed how few guests actually answer the questions they’ve been asked? They answer completely different questions instead, loudly and independently of whether anyone else is talking), then into a vague commentary on the whole satanic statue thing. So it needs a good editing… which would kill the meter and rhyme. What ya gonna do?

There is much fodder for hair-pulling at that link, though. Misrepresentation of the Satanists who are proposing to donate the monument (satanists, rather, are the stuff of pulp novels, B movies, and Chick Tracts), “majority rules” being demanded by the Jewish talking-head (who asks “what did goats ever do? I don’t know why they are having to suffer.”… forgetting that his own religion gave us the “scapegoat”), a member of a smaller minority than atheists; Gretchen’s “the rabbi has a good point” after the rabbi’s alleged point disappeared in a haze of shouting…

100 Percent Chance Of Genocide

They were happy, oh so happy,
Gran and Grandpa’s letter read—
Cos their grandson was their shining star
(Though that was left unsaid)
When they saw him in a play, this year,
Although I thought, instead,
That the subject matter seemed a little grim

See, their church put on a musical—
It featured all the kids—
Which, of course, meant all the older folks
Would really flip their lids,
As they told, in Noah’s tale, what
God allows, and God forbids:
With the bottom line, obedience to Him. [Read more…]

What Would Peter Do? Denying Jesus For Political Gain

I hear the baby Jesus cried
To hear His name so oft denied—

The cross (for which we all give thanks)
Is merely “intersecting planks”;
The sacred scene, nativity?
“A plastic Jewish family”
That baby, in the manger’s hay?
Without a nametag, who could say?
La Jolla’s cross, so bright and tall?
It’s not religious—not at all!
“In God We Trust”? The phrase is phony,
Ruled to be mere ceremony!
Each mention of our mighty Lord
Is no big deal, and best ignored…

Denying Jesus, through and through—
I wonder, What Would Peter Do?

Looking through the mental and legal contortions intended to preserve Christian privilege, I’ve noticed a trend: The nominally Christian arguers are the ones denying Christ. The latest (on Fox, in Palin’s book, and in comment sections everywhere) is the “plastic Jewish family” that atheists are so unreasonably offended by. It’s not at all that this scene actually means anything–this family (let’s call them the Goldbergs) are just plastic people, so we can put them up in the town square. And now, Ed reports on the even more shocking twist that, without an actual name tag, how can anyone be expected to know that this babe, wrapped in swaddling clothes and laying in a manger, is anything other than little Max Goldberg? Wait, what? Jesus? Nah, Jesus would have a name tag saying so.

The “intersecting planks” is nice, too–in Palin’s book she describes a cross as “a horizontal plank intersecting a vertical plank”. It’s just two pieces of wood–why on earth would anyone object to that on public property? Sacred? Nope, nothing religious about it at all.

It’s funny, really–the people who claim to love Jesus the most are the very ones trivializing their sacred symbols.

There’s precedent… but Peter only denied Jesus three times. Lightweight.