Bible Shockers!

Prayer

2008-07-06T11:30:00.001-07:00

Does anyone know if and how other deities of ancient times accepted
petitions? I think it would be useful to know.
It appears from the Torah that at first you needed someone with access to
God to bring your petition to God.
Nu 11:2 And the people cried unto Moses; and when Moses prayed unto the
LORD, the fire was quenched.
Solomon's temple became a prayer collection point. One could pray toward
that house and the prayers would then find their way to God who treated it
as an "outpost" from his main station in the sky.
1Ki 8:29 That thine eyes may be open toward this house night and day, even
toward the place of which thou hast said, My name shall be there: that thou
mayest hearken unto the prayer which thy servant shall make toward this
place.
Matthew/Jesus speaks of the messengers bringing prayers to God's throne in
the sky:
Mt 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say
unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father
which is in heaven ["the messengers of these babes have immediate access to
the Father in the sky's attention"].
Prayers ascend on the wings of the incense of the temple:
Re 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty
elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden
vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
Re 8:3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden
censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it
with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the
throne.
Re 8:4 And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the
saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.
Note the universal behavior of believers represents the errant cosmology of
the Bible. Believers either bow before a deity that they perceive as being
above, or they look up toward a deity that they believe is above them - in
the sky - though they then deny that they think he is finite and locative -
IN THE SKY. But Christian art through the ages testifies that believers have
always considered God to be in the sky.
So prayer tradition has this notion that God is in the sky and somehow the
prayers need to get there. Either someone who routinely gets face time (like
a prophet, such as Abraham) or a post office (Solomon's temple) or a medium
(such as smoke, which, if you notice, always zooms off toward the deity,
just like Jesus did in Acts).
In other words, God is not perceived as being imminent and ubiquitous. He
stays "our Father which art in the sky" while it is the prayer that must be
delivered to him by means.
Hence, "I'll pray for you" says: "I will get word to God."
In addition, MUCH praying is both derided and celebrated as the means for
maximum influence of the deity. Matthew says it is ineffectual:
Mt 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for
they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Luke says that is just the ticket:
Luke 18:
1 ¶ And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to
pray, and not to faint;
2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither
regarded man:
3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge
me of mine adversary.
4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself,
Though I fear not God, nor regard man;
5 Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her
continual coming she weary me.
6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.
7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him,
though he bear long with them?
8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son
of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
What I ask believers to acknowledge is that prayer is transporting
information to God:
Php 4:6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and
supplication with thanksgiving let your requests **be made known unto God**.
Because if you don't get the word out, God doesn't know.
Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Community Times

2008-06-29T09:17:00.001-07:00

Double Standard Regarding Obama's Preacher

Is Wright uniquely fanatical? Or is it just a feature of preachers in general? The son of Francis Schaeffer thinks Wright is standard lunacy for preachers - like his own dad.

But he takes this as an example of persecution "because Obama is black" - a media assessment. He is at least 50% **white** and most likely only a small percentage "black" (since most of his ancestry on his father's side are actually apparently Arabic).

Here's something to try. Hold up a sheet of black paper next to an allegedly "black" person, such as Obama. Do you see the contrast? Now hold up a sheet of white paper next to an allegedly "white" person. Again, do you see the contrast? There are, with few exceptions, any white or black people. All humans are all various shades of coloring. Saying "Obama is black" is a major stretch by every indicator. Except one. His own choice to be so identified.

But I digress. The issue here is the way preachers routinely demonstrate that they have the Wright stuff by damning the US for abortion, coddling gays, etc...

Read the story..

Gentle Wisdom » Who are the real Lesbians?

2008-05-03T03:23:00.001-07:00

The ladies of the isle of Lesbos are suing the gay and lesbian community for using a term that means "one from Lesbos" as a moniker for women who dip their fingers into other honey pots.

The ones who should really be up in arms are the men of the nearby island of Crete. The Catholics canonized Paul's "example of sound speech" and "gentle wisdom" regarding them so that now it is an article of Christian faith that the men of Crete are at all times debauched and dishonest:

Titus 1:
12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

Note the word in verse 12 translated "alway":

***
104 aei aei ah-eye’
from an obsolete primary noun (apparently meaning continued duration); ; adv
AV-alway 4, always 3, ever 1; 8
1) perpetually, incessantly
2) invariably, at any and every time: when according to the circumstances something is or ought to be done again
***

So that means now as then, with no variation.

But God doesn't care about oxen, does he? We should see in this a principle, that colloquial stereotypes about people in particular geography can and should be taken very seriously and perhaps elevated into abiding, reliable characterizations.

Perhaps we can apply this passage by affirming that Jews are always stiffnecked and tight fisted? Or that the people of New Jersey are "alway" rude? The French, arrogant?

If I have misunderstood the passage and am in fact myself a cretin, please show me how this might properly be preached in an Anglican assembly.

Thanks,

Bill Ross

Gentle Wisdom » Who are the real Lesbians?

PASSOVER, THE INSIDE STORY

2008-03-29T15:43:00.001-07:00

Some seriously good insight into the "passover lamb." Click the link below:

PASSOVER, THE INSIDE STORY

Re: Radical Islam With Daniel Pipes

2008-03-12T16:13:00.001-07:00

Pipes: Israel is at war and does not acknowledge it....

Romans 8:7

2008-03-06T07:14:00.001-08:00

I am producing a response of mine to a gentleman named "Herc" from another list on the matter of Free Willy as discussed in Romans 8:7:

Hi Herc. Thanks for the reply.

"the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 8:7

To understand the passage that you quote, it is necessary to understand a few things about the ancient world. First of all, "carnal" refers to the mind that is part and parcel with the fleshly members of a man. Paul (and Matthew and Mark) believed that sin lived in the fleshy body parts of a man:

Ro 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Hence, you could and should remove your eye, for example, if it was making you sin:

Mt 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

The ancients believed that thought was a function of the heart (which we now know to just be a blood pump):

Pr 23:7 For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.

Ro 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

They also thought that man's motives were hidden in his kidneys:

Jer 11:20 But, O LORD of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I revealed my cause.
Jer 17:10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
Jer 20:12 But, O LORD of hosts, that triest the righteous, and seest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I opened my cause.
Re 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

And they thought the breath was intelligent, because by it the deity had imparted life and intelligence to the clay statue of himself:

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Ro 8:2 For the law of the Spirit [breath] of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Whereas sin resided in the members, righteousness was produced by the breath:

Ga 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit [breath] is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Eph 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit [breath] is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)

Now Paul's nemesis is ever the Jews. Socrates taught that it was constitutionally impossible for man to act otherwise than on that which he believed to be the highest good. Hence, the philosopher must determine what is the highest good which would make him a better person. The Jews likewise understood the Torah to act this way. Hence, in the wisdom literature, one is told that if one meditates on the Torah (Instruction) then one would gain understanding and become good, just as surely as a tree would flourish if planted beside good streams. We see much of this "production of righteousness by understanding" idea in the OT and NT. See Proverbs 8, and Jesus on "if my words abide in you..." stuff in the NT.

So Paul is arguing against the Jews and against the Socratic philosopy of his day and saying that the law (the LXX translation of "Torah") could not produce righteousness because the mind is in and composed of the sinful fleshy members of the "body of sin." Hence, despite what the philosophers and Jews said, even if the mind understood and agreed with the law, the end would NOT be the production of righteousness because the principle of sin that lived in the members would overpower the mind and still produce sinful actions:

Ro 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

His remedy is the breath based gospel:

Ro 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned [gave a death sentence to] sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled [accomplished, realized] in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit [breath].

What this is NOT saying, though, is that a person in this condition cannot, by his natural falculties, hear, understand and believe the gospel, because Paul argues that the gospel is the very thing that is designed (unlike the law) to be believed and to produce righteousness.

Ro 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
2Co 6:7 By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,

This is why Paul insisted that the gospel be preached by a preacher rather than be etched into stone like the Torah. It was the breath of the deity that had to enter into the hearer along with the words:

2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament [covenant]; not of the letter, but of the spirit [breath]: for the letter killeth, but the spirit [breath] giveth life.

Shalom,

Bill Ross"

Technorati Tags: free will,bible,theology

American Congress For Truth | Brigitte Gabriel

2008-01-06T09:51:00.001-08:00

Brigitte Gabriel is a Christian woman from Lebanon turned both journalist and outspoken witness to the savagery of Islamic jihad. Here are several free videos of her:

American Congress For Truth | Brigitte Gabriel

I did want to relate this to the Bible, though...

It is interesting to me that Brigitte was raised fearing and hating the
"Satanic Jews" by her Bible studies and she unabashedly testifies to their
kindness to her. I think she should therefore acknowledge that her NT is
malicious, not a divinely inspired book - the idea that "Jews are Satan" is
an NT teaching:

Re 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich)
and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but
are the synagogue of Satan.
Re 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they
are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and
worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye
will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his
own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Php 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
1 Thess 2:
13 ¶ For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye
received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the
word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually
worketh also in you that believe.
14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in
Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your
own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have
persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill
up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

Bill Ross

http://billrosspolitics.blogspot.com

Technorati Tags: Brigitte Gabriel,American Congress for Truth,Islam,Bible,jihad

Jimmy Carter's War Against Israel

2008-01-03T12:02:00.001-08:00

Jimmy Carter... the former President of the US, disgraces himself by aligning with the Islamo-Fascists:

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/jimmy-carters-war/

There are other videos on the site as well which I have not watched yet.

Choose your next President wisely... there are many who have no moral clarity on the issue of our support of Israel, a free society, from the Islamic fascist agenda of world domination through terrorist jihad.

Islam is the problem.

Bill Ross

You Don't Recover From a Thing Like This...

2007-12-31T18:48:00.001-08:00

Check out this video: Why Ill never preach about Sodom and Gomorrah

Add to My Profile | More Videos

Universal Compulsory Education - now more than ever.

2007-12-30T19:41:00.001-08:00

With 4% support, it seems clear that Ron Paul is not going to even qualify as a "spoiler" - (a candidate that raises issues that other candidates then feel the need to address). However, he did say that his position as a Libertine is that we don't need a Department of Education, and that he would veto any funds to support it. I beg to differ.

To date, Americans are used to thinking in terms of "religion" equaling "Catholic-Protestant" and being 75% "Christian," government provisions for religious exemption from compulsory education via alternate schools (even funding the religious schools via vouchers) has been a palatable - nay desirous situation for many. But what about in the light of our growing Islamic community? Islam will increasingly be using the latitude that is given religious schools to be permitted or funded to operate "religious" madrasahs that allow them 24x7 brainwashing of children within their community with threats of hell, anti-social dogmas and misogynist indoctrination. Jihadists are trained in muslim schools - not scientists. They do not receive education in American ideals, are not prepared for the job market and are not inculcated with an understanding and appreciation the US pluralistic ideal. They are not melted into the melting pot.

And I dare say that there is no shortage of testimony to the cruelty and abusiveness in Catholic schools.
Public schools are one of our best vehicles for creating a melting pot, a qualified citizenry and a prepared workforce.

Non anti-social, non-monopolist (of children's minds and socialization) religious education can be done at times other than that set aside for all children to receive public education. Religious schools can operate on Saturday and Sunday, just like Wiccan religions, Homeopathists and fascists do. The government should not give them special license to deny their children public education and access to the society.
Children need protection from unbroken (24x7) religious brainwashing, whether the Hell of Catholics/Protestants or that of the Muslims.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali - On Losing Faith In Islam

2007-12-30T06:46:00.001-08:00

One of the most important voices today.

Name Change

2007-12-26T12:44:00.001-08:00

In the Hebrew scriptures, there were local gods for a while - "El-Shaddai" and other "El"s (El means "god").

The one that became the primary god was Yehovah (there is no "J" in Hebrew). He said "You shall have no other gods you hold more important than me." Remeber that a "god" was a supernatural national champion - a powerful man who lived in the sky.

Eventually, this gave way to a stricter monotheism - not only was Yehovah the most important deity, he was their only - and then, THE only. Progress, I guess.

But Hebrew people were scattered. A large percentage came to live in Alexandria, Egypt - a city that the Greek Alexander founded in North Africa. The Hebrew people concocted a myth about a supernatural intervention that made the Greek translation authoritative. In Jesus' day, the Greek scriptures were the Hebrew Bible, not the Hebrew scrolls.

In the Greek text, the name "Yehovah" does not appear. God is referred to instead as "the lord."

But, when the NT was written, Jesus was made "the lord" and the one true god was made "the father."

So, to be biblical as a Christian one should refer to the one true god as "the father" and to Jesus as "the lord."

1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Phil 2:
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Please visit my music site:

http://woundedego.com

Bill Ross

A Biblical Christmas...

2007-12-23T19:02:00.000-08:00

People get offended when "Christmas" is abreviated as "x-mas." Sounds sinister, no?

But I propose the name "Christ-X" - because it is the second part that is so horrific.

What is a "mass?" In the "mass," the "priests" take bread and wine and claim that they turn it into the ACTUAL BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS THE CARPENTER TURNED PROPHET!

I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP!!!!

Mass? Christ-mass? I should think that any self-respecting Protestant should find the word offensive! But these days, Christians no longer kill eachother over issues of "transubstantiation versus consubstantiation" - those days are apparently behind us....

AS LONG AS YOU BELIEVE THE DOGMA OF THE TRINITY... (an unbiblical idea) then you are IN THE CLUB!

Never mind that the Magi are said to have read the stars to find Jesus... never mind that a star allegedly parked over a crib without so much as singing the baby therein...

Christmas is the celebration of the long reach of an emperor named Constantine... all else is irrelvant.

Christians partake of pagan rituals (lighting up trees, etc) and talk about the "real meaning of Christmas.." - hah!

While atheists enjoy the festivities of a Christian celebration with wild abandonment...

Ah, it is a strange time...

http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

WHERE is sin?

2007-12-20T10:04:00.001-08:00

Like many pastors, the "apostle Paul" believed that all of his sin problems
are not to be found in himself but rather are located in his "members":

Ro 7:
14 For we know that the law is spiritual [breathly]: but I am carnal
[muscular], sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but
what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is
good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh [muscles],) dwelleth no good
thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good
I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that
I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that
dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind,
and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this
death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I
myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh [muscles] the law of sin.

Paul is clearly saying that sin is not in the mind but rather in the body
parts, such as his hands. He even goes so far in verses 17 and 20 as to
divorce himself from the actions of "them" - his body parts, where sin
lives. He is saying that one can have a mind that serves God but a body that
serves sin. "I didn't do it, my hand did it!"

I mentioned this on another list and someone scoffed saying "Then if I cut
off my hand, will I be less sinful?!"

I responded that this is EXACTLY what the red ink says:

Mt 6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness.
If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that
darkness!
Mt 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee:
it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having
two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Now I hope that some things are clear to all:

* body parts other than the brain do not exercise moral powers. They do not
house sin, and do not sin;
* what your hand does, you have done
* sexual drive is located in the brain and is not an evil lust
* cutting off one's penis will not end sexual desire (the only thing more
pitiful than scratching an itch on a phantom arm is a guy trying to stroke a
phantom dick);

So folks, Paul is not the guy you should go to for advice about your sexual
frustration, but whatever you do, don't go to Jesus - he will likely advice
castration!

To see how perverted religious notions of purity can be you just need to
look at the Islamic practice of putting women in body bags and the Catholic
practice of putting pretty girls into concentration camps lest they fall
into the sin of having sex (see the shocking true story in the movie
"Magdalene Sisters."

Another aspect of the "where is sin" question is "how can someone be born
sinful" ala the dogma of "Original Sin?" Does this not suggest a "sin gene"
that we might excise in a few years?

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.com
Bible Shockers! A collection of disturbing observations of and about the
Bible.
"I sing about love and such... maybe it's because I want it so much.." -
Brandon Heath

Do You Believe Every Word of the Bible?....

2007-12-17T11:53:00.001-08:00

There is a fundamental fallacy in the notion of the Bible being "inerrant." It presumes that communication can be effected by one side of the conversation. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Only mathematics involves "perfection." 1+1=2 - this is a perfect fact. But, to the degree that it is perfect, as Einstein opined, it does not reflect the real world. One can only speak of accuracy and efficacy in the real world, where nothing is exact.

Consider the words I have written. Let us presume for the moment that they are inerrant. They are completely, divinely factual, and divinely stated. What will they communicate to a non-English speaker? A three year old child? A person from the Elizabethan period (English, but different)?
Communication is an INTRINSICALLY and UNCORRECTIBLY IMPERFECT affair. What I say and what you hear are never identical and are usually extremely different.

Consider a passage being read in Asia, as compared to being read in Israel. Consider the same passage read to the young, the old, the rich, the poor, the black, the fourth generation Pentecostal...

What about the poetic versus the literalist types of minds?

Consider this verse:
Jer 23:29 Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?

What is the meaning of "word?" Does it mean a particular word, like for example, "pisseth?"

Does it refer to Jesus?
To the Bible?
To a spoken or written word?
A saying?
All sayings?

Even if that is a "perfect" verse from the Bible, "inerrant" - what is to stop it from being misunderstood?
So the whole notion of inerrancy is like that of "perfect music" - it is ignorant of the subjective nature of communication.

Technorati Tags: Bible,inerrancy

Do You Believe Every Word of the Bible?....

2007-12-17T09:20:00.001-08:00

As a quadraplegic dyslexic agnostic, I often find myself lying on my back, wondering if there is a dog!

There was a really fun fight between the members of a church regarding whether the church should recite "Forgive us our debts" or, "Forgive us our trespasses." Obviously, the word was important. These are the kinds of entertainment you will find in the book "Great Church Fights!"

Note that one of the greatest battles in Christianity involves a single letter!:

HOMOOUSIOS VS. HOMOIOUSIOS - "Same substance" versus "Similar substance" (Greek).

Constantine, the Roman Emperor, wanted HOMO, while Arius insisted on HOMOI... Not wanting to contradict the Emperor, the bishops signed on and the first Roman dogma was born! This was Nicea, the Emperor's summer home... and the Creed became the birth certificate of the Roman Catholic debacle.

So, watch your jots and titties, folks....

Also, there is Martin Luther's strong support of transubstantiation during the mass... the idea that the bread and wine of communion actually become the body and blood of Christ and are sacrificed anew by the priests because he said "This IS my body..."
Other reformers saw it as silly to make so much of one little word, but he said "Yes, but it is GOD's word!"

So, much hangs on the words and even the letters - and even the punctuation!

So, in this fundamentalist tradition of controversy, I think I should object to a word, and for me, that word is "pisseth."
"I don't believe God inspired the word PISSETH" - that is my platform. Yesss sireee.

http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Technorati Tags: Bible,controversy,word

Twas the Night Before Christmas

2007-12-05T15:59:00.000-08:00

TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS,
HE LIVED ALL ALONE,
IN A ONE BEDROOM HOUSE MADE OF
PLASTER AND STONE.

I HAD COME DOWN THE CHIMNEY
WITH PRESENTS TO GIVE,
AND TO SEE JUST WHO
IN THIS HOME DID LIVE.

I LOOKED ALL ABOUT,
A STRANGE SIGHT I DID SEE,
NO TINSEL, NO PRESENTS,
NOT EVEN A TREE.

NO STOCKING BY MANTLE,
JUST BOOTS FILLED WITH SAND,
ON THE WALL HUNG PICTURES
OF FAR DISTANT LANDS.

WITH MEDALS AND BADGES,
AWARDS OF ALL KINDS, A SOBER THOUGHT
CAME THROUGH MY MIND.

FOR THIS HOUSE WAS DIFFERENT,
IT WAS DARK AND DREARY,
I FOUND THE HOME OF A SOLDIER,
ONCE I COULD SEE CLEARLY.

THE SOLDIER LAY SLEEPING,
SILENT, ALONE,
CURLED UP ON THE FLOOR
IN THIS ONE BEDROOM HOME.

THE FACE WAS SO GENTLE,
THE ROOM IN SUCH DISORDER,
NOT HOW I PICTURED
A UNITED STATES SOLDIER.

WAS THIS THE HERO
OF WHOM I 'D JUST READ?
CURLED UP ON A PONCHO,
THE FLOOR FOR A BED?

I REALIZED THE FAMILIES
THAT I SAW THIS NIGHT,
OWED THEIR LIVES TO THESE SOLDIERS
WHO WERE WILLING TO FIGHT.

SOON ROUND THE WORLD,
THE CHILDREN WOULD PLAY,
AND GROWNUPS WOULD CELEBRATE
A BRIGHT CHRISTMAS DAY.

THEY ALL ENJOYED FREEDOM
EACH MONTH OF THE YEAR,
BECAUSE OF THE SOLDIERS,
LIKE THE ONE LYING HERE.

I COULDN'T HELP WONDER
HOW MANY LAY ALONE,
ON A COLD CHRISTMAS EVE
IN A LAND FAR FROM HOME.

THE VERY THOUGHT
BROUGHT A TEAR TO MY EYE,
I DROPPED TO MY KNEES
AND STARTED TO CRY.

THE SOLDIER AWAKENED
AND I HEARD A ROUGH VOICE,
"SANTA DON'T CRY,
THIS LIFE IS MY CHOICE";

I FIGHT FOR FREEDOM,
I DON'T ASK FOR MORE,
MY LIFE IS MY GOD,
MY COUNTRY, MY CORPS."

THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER
AND DRIFTED TO SLEEP,
I COULDN'T CONTROL IT,
I CONTINUED TO WEEP.

I KEPT WATCH FOR HOURS,
SO SILENT AND STILL
AND WE BOTH SHIVERED
FROM THE COLD NIGHT'S CHILL.

I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE
ON THAT COLD, DARK, NIGHT,
THIS GUARDIAN OF HONOR
SO WILLING TO FIGHT.

THEN THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER,
WITH A VOICE SOFT AND PURE,
WHISPERED, "CARRY ON SANTA,
IT'S CHRISTMAS DAY, ALL IS SECURE."

ONE LOOK AT MY WATCH,
AND I KNEW HE WAS RIGHT.
"MERRY CHRISTMAS MY FRIEND,
AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT."

This poem was written by a Marine. The following is his
request. I think it is reasonable.....

PLEASE. Would you do me the kind favor of sending this to
as many people as you can? Christmas will be coming soon
and some credit is due to our U.S. service men and women
for our being able to celebrate these festivities. Let's
try in this small way to pay a tiny bit of what we owe.
Make people stop and think of our heroes, living and dead,
who sacrificed themselves for us. Please, do your small
part to plant this small present from afar so far ahead.
merry Christmas to all in the Air Force-Army-USMC-Navy-may
god be with you and god speed!

Giving Cheer - Getting Cheered

2007-11-22T03:43:00.000-08:00

Special needs cheerleaders

Re: Dualism in modern religion

2007-11-15T07:38:00.001-08:00

Originally religion was very concrete. Moses espoused that God was a manlike deity who lived in the sky, just out of sight behind the clouds. If the sky opened you could see him, his celestial city and all of his sons. There might be all kinds of goings on in the sky - unseen, but allegedly very real. They were men that breathed air and sat in chairs etc.

Somewhere along the line - after the telescope revealed that there WAS no such sky civilization - a new dualism emerged that is perfectly embodied in McGrath.

Some time prior to the 17th century there was invented the original dualism in the idea of "spirit." This fantasy involved two kinds of matter:

* matter
* spirit

Simply put, matter is subject to the laws of science. "Spirit" was not. God was still in the sky, but they put a big H in "Heaven" and it became a new DIMENSION. So, you could have an immediate knowledge of God without seeing, hearing, tasting or touching anything. These "realms" were irrelevant to one another. One would know God on the principle of "faith." God, because he was spirit, should not be expected to be seeable or in any way perceptible with our telescopes, stethoscopes, probes or what have you.

Still, the NT and early Church history are filled with argument because despite the fact that discussions of God are based on dogma, they were expected to be consistent, congruent and reasonable. The concept of a truth - albeit measured against unproven dogmas - was assumed to be something reasonable.

The NEW dualism takes this one step further. It says that "truth" is a "spiritual affair." It is not ultimately rooted in dogmas but in the "spiritual realm." Therefore, truth itself is not beholden to the rules of logic. Truth, we are told, is a matter of personal faith in a personal God. We are all entitled to "believe" as we are inclined.

McGrath is so very typical in this regard. As a trained scientist he subjects this world's data to every rigorous scientific cross examination. He expects the government and technology to be beholden to physical and societal laws.

But when he thinks about God, he suspends all such reasonable inquiry and indulges himself in any and every leap, and encourages others to do the same. It is like a child playing with Bionicle toys, inventing a world where men and robots operate with only the rules that the child imposes. There is lots of mimicry of reality but no adherence to its harsh dictates.

One could certainly make a case for the value of play and of fantasy, but to argue that such a realm EXISTS (so to speak) and to speak of it as a "true" thing is the height of folly.

Fantasy has turned deadly on many occasions. We have heard of unstable young people play role playing games and then acting out some deadly role, and people trusting faith healers, denying their symptoms, refusing medicine or treatment, and then dying. And what of those who believe that Allah would have them explode themselves and their countrymen in hopes of half a gross of virgins?

People who do not indulge in, or abandon, the notion of "spirit" and "faith" and such are called "skeptics" by adherents to religion, but the view from THIS side is that we are just REASONABLE people who think religion is reckless, irresponsible and ultimately wicked self-delusion. There IS no "spirit realm" and no virtue in believing that there is.

Others have echoed my own frustration - that when discussing religion, appeals to the real world are unpersuasive. The brain is in neutral. This is PARTICULARLY true of those who ADMIT that their dogmas are demonstrably contrary to science, etc.

Fundamentalists, while the most invested in dogmas, are actually the most salvageable, because they at least PROFESS to be beholden to evidence and reason. Of course, in practice, this is rarely the case. I recently had a discussion with a fundie who demonstrated yet again that he preferred his religion to truth.

This is not even a problem unique to religionists. Consider homeopathy, astrology and the like.

"A man cannot be reasoned out of that which they were not reasoned into." - Jonathon Swift

Have a great day. Keep you expectations of human mental integrity low or you will be greatly disappointed.

Bill Ross

Honor our soldiers

2007-11-13T11:52:00.000-08:00

A revealing image

2007-11-10T11:43:00.000-08:00

In "Bible Shockers!" I show that God is a manlike deity who lives in the sky. The sky is, in Biblical cosmology, a solid structure suspending waters above it. I recently came across an image that captures some of this idea beautifully. As I point out in my book, the "door" that John says he saw opened in the sky was not a "door" but rather a hatch, as in the image:

http://ronlowery.com/gallerypages/L0119.html

Here's what John reports:

Re 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door [a hatch] was opened in heaven [the sky]: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

I think the image gives you a good beginning on understanding what John meant us to understand.

One of the main reasons I don't believe the Bible anymore is that on practically every page, we are to understand God as living just above this solid structure called "the sky" - and that ain't the way it is.

I recommend his galleries highly!:

http://ronlowery.com/gallery1.html

Bill Ross

Story

2007-10-26T20:34:00.000-07:00

Judaism is not a philosophy, but rather a story. So is Christianity. And Islam.

The evidence is clear that these stories are not true. They are fiction.

But it is a gross under estimation to say that they are *just* stories. Stories are the stuff our lives are made of.

http://www.interactivestory.net/mckee.html

The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is another fiction that is far from "just a story."

In fact, we are all the repository of either a true accounting of things or a false story.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.com

Hitchens-McGrath Debate

2007-10-19T11:58:00.000-07:00

If you have not seen this debate, you can do so here:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/10/religion-is-totalitarianism.html

McGrath's position could be characterized like this:"The wonderful thing about this imaginary microscope (faith) is that it allows us to explore this imaginary organism (God) through this imaginary lens (Christ)."

What I found to be Hitchens' best point was that if you legitimize this epistemology you don't do so "a al carte" but, like Pandora's box, you legitimize all that religion brings. You open the door for the good feelings, the wish fulfillment, but you also lose your grip on reality, common sense and true morality. Suddenly your living room is full of Hell, genocide, suicide bombings, slavery, subjugation of women, etc... while you are chatting idly about "the meaning of Christ."

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.com

Avoiding Hypocrrisy

2007-10-16T06:21:00.001-07:00

The word "hypocrite" originally meant "an actor." I once aspired to be an actor, but I completely abandoned the idea when someone told me that so many of the men were gay -- and that ALL of the women were thespians!

Dawkins is obviously a hypocrite. One day the investigative reporters and the papparazzi will catch him in the act of acting MORAL! How will he explain that?

So, if we are serious about avoiding being hypocrites, I think we would all do well, Christian or not, to take in a "sermon" or two by one of God's "mouthpieces":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6rSjrBhUIA

And talking about being God's "mouthpiece"... In this case, which is more defiling? The cock and pills he put INTO his mouth? Or the hypocrisy that came OUT?

Bill Ross

http://bibleshockers.com

A good argument against the veracity of the Bible.

2007-10-13T19:22:00.001-07:00

>>>...I could see your point if there were really good arguments against the Bible's veracity...

Hi, Jim. I agree that *bad* arguments against the Bible's veracity abound. I am probably a disappointment to some on this very blog because I am quick to point out a weak argument, and quick to side with a good one, even if it is not in keeping with the declared purpose of this list (http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com).

Obviously, there are so many assertions made in the Bible, such as the alleged resurrection of Jesus, which it is difficult to prove one way or another because of the inaccessibility of the alleged witnesses and the resurrected Jesus.

Also, many of the arguments made against the Bible are very petty, and many are just wrong!

But for me, the one discovery that more than anything else laid bare the very human and primitive nature of the Bible was its complete ignorance in the matter of cosmology. Its story is played out in a world that is completely different from the real world. We have the Biblical description, we have the telescopes and there is no match.

I'm referring to the following Biblical view of the world:

* the sky ceiling

Gen 1:
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament [rigid structure] in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from

the waters.
7 And God made the firmament [rigid structure], and divided the waters which were under the firmament [rigid structure] from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

I understand why "Moses" might imagine that there was a ceiling holding waters above the dry land. I understand why pre-scientific people might accept this view. Why not? The sky is blue, so it certainly looks like water. It rains, snows and hails, so obviously there is water up there. And to support water, you need a solid structure. You just need "windows" (they didn't have glass - windows were just portals). It really seemed to fit the data that they had back then.

Further, Moses thought that God was a manlike deity who lived in a similar civilization to the one he was familiar with, just above the sky ceiling. This is why repeatedly the prophets would see the heavens open and see God in his throne room, accompanied by messengers who regularly came down to the land to gather intel and report to the great king. Or, they would be dispatched to come to the land to bring messages from the great king. These messengers were God's sons, and they, like God, were men as well. In fact, some abandoned their sky home to come to the land and live the American dream.

Is this just a shortcoming in the Genesis account? No, it is a false view of the world that persists on every page of the Bible. Here is an obvious example from Revelation:

Re 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door [a hatch] was opened in heaven [the rigid sky ceiling]: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

Re 11:12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

Note that "heaven" just means "sky." If you look at Christian art through the centuries you will see that this was clearly how it was understood. But with the invention of the telescope, it has been redescribed as a place that exists in the "spirit dimension." This appeal to dualism is clearly a dodge. The obvious fact is that the telescope revealed that the cosmology of the Church was wrong.

Note that one does not "switch dimensions" to get to "a spiritual heaven" but rather one travels, rocket like, to the sky:

Acts 1:
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

So, to my mind, this is "a good argument against the veracity of the Bible." It is clearly not written by a God who had any inkling about the immensity of space, or that we are on the side of a spinning ball. It was written by pre-scientific men who were ignorant of things we now know by direct observation. They believed and spoke of matters in the Bible **which we do not need to go back in time to confidently falsify**.

I can produce reams of scriptures that echo this error if you need them.

I cover this and other "Shockers" in my book, "Bible Shockers!" http://bibleshockers.com

Bill Ross