Book Review #29

Constantly curious about what Theists believe, but more importantly, WHY, I recently took advantage of the offer of three free books of explanation.  One was an actual printed paperback, while the other two were pdf downloads.

The books:
What Time Is Purple?
Answering Atheism
Proof of God

The Authors:
Tom Hammond
A blogger who only identifies as A Bit Of Orange

The reviews:
Nothing new – Same-old, same-old!  They disappointed equally, and to the same degree as all previous similar publications.

The purple book was a tiny, but expensive artifact – thick, glossy cover, only 46 thick, glossy pages, illustrations.  A copy was mailed to me from Maryland, by a blogger who calls himself HillFaith (Good News for Congressional staff).

The author began by inviting us on a journey to discover Truth.  A little reading quickly showed that all he really wanted to do was to find, or fabricate, evidence that somehow made his beliefs and presuppositions appear to be true.  That is not the same thing!

Even his title shows his prejudice.  The very fact that someone could question his unsupported claims was so alien to his vigorously-held, religious worldview, that he found it as strange as asking, “What Time Is Purple?”  Again and again, he would make unfounded statements and claims, and be bewildered that others would not simply accept them.

Bitter Mr. Orange Rind was no different.  His biggest, and constant, complaint/claim was that those rascally Atheists, Agnostics and Dictionaries – would not go along with his definitions and descriptions, so that he could blow those strawmen away.  He wanted to know what the number 5 smelled like.  They must all read from the same script/prayer book.  From his own, homemade, definitions, he fabricates claims about Atheists like, “Also, most of them manage to confuse Islam with Catholicism and attack the one with descriptions of the other.”

Like a short row of dominoes, he set up six, sequential premises to prove God.  Premise 1: God must exist by necessity – therefore premise 2 – therefore premise 3 – therefore premise 4 – therefore premise 5 – therefore God exists.  If you begin your circular argument with an unfounded claim that God exists, of course you’ll end up with that as an unsupported conclusion.

If you start with the assumption that Hillary Clinton is running a child sex-trafficking ring out of the basement of a cheap pizza joint, of course you’ll prove that it’s tr….  Oh, wait.  That one could be investigated, and was proved false.  When I ran into Nietzsche, Adolph Hitler, Hillary Clinton, Democrats, and Atheists, all in the same sentence, I was sure of who and what he was.  He apparently named his Bible-thumping blog-site after his favorite superhero.

He wanted Atheists to admit that they couldn’t be absolutely, positively, 100% sure that no God exists, so that he could stick the thin edge of his Christian arguments in.  I find the likelihood of God/gods to be slightly less than the existence of a square circle, owned by a polygamous bachelor.  If he can produce one of those, I will help him locate and present his God.

He kept making blanket claims that, (All) Atheists say this, Atheists believe that, Atheists claim….  While some – a few confused, uneducated Atheists make unsupported statements, I have never, personally, encountered any Atheist who said what he implies that ALL Atheists do.  He writes that, By necessity, Atheists must be Nihilists, but when observed reality clearly contradicts his view, he merely inverts his claim, and insists that Atheists do not really exist.

My Dad told me the tale of the Ginchee Bird, which flies around in ever-decreasing circles, until it disappears up its own ass.  I wish some of these Apologists would disappear up their own asses.  They pull out enough shit.  There should be room.  Ah well, it was cheap entertainment.  All I learned was that they were both charter members of the Lying For Jesus Movement.

If they worked half as hard at proving their claims to be true, as they do to try to prove others wrong, they might not be quite so desperate, but my past history has shown that that result seems to be impossible. I think they know that, and don’t want to admit it – but that’s the same argument they use against Atheists.  Damn the counter-arguments!  Full assumption ahead.  😳

Keeping My Hand In

Keeping my hand in – one middle finger at a time.

Anti-Christian slant illogical, prejudiced

Re; Politicians should leave religious beliefs at home

Letter writer Larry Lootsteen’s arguments are somewhat illogical and prejudiced by his own beliefs about religion. To suggest that politicians should leave any of their beliefs, principals (sic), values, and education or life experiences at home is equivalent to arguing they should leave their gender at home, or part of their brain at home.

And why center out only people who believe in the God of the Bible? Why be intolerant and non-inclusive of only one particular religious view?  Everyone has some religious belief; an agnostic claims not to know if there is a God, and atheist denies that there is a God.  Would Mr. Lootsteen be as keen to force those individuals to deny or suspend their particular religious beliefs on being elected?

Would he impose the same restrictions on other faiths; Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and devil worshippers, etc., as well as screen all new immigrants to Canada and insist that they promise to deny their faith and convert to his particular religious beliefs before they become Canadian citizens or run for elected office? Of course not.  Mr Lootsteen appears to have a narrowly focused resentment and prejudice of Christian believers who run for office because he does not think they will vote the way he wants them to vote.

Finally, to label everyone of faith as “right-wing” and not sensitive to the democratic and civil rights of Canadians is to ignore the Judeo-Christian foundations of all Western civilization.  It was our Jewish and Christian values and principals (sic) that precipitated our democratic institutions, hospitals and schools, freed the slaves and were the first to recognize the rights of women.  Has Mr. Lootsteen forgotten that?

Ed Jacob – from the Mennonite stronghold village of Wellesley

Pro-Christian Paranoia

He who takes offense when none is offered, is a fool.

In his letter, Anti-Christian slant illogical, prejudiced, Ed Jacob not only takes offense, but he takes considerable licence to do so.

It would, indeed, be foolish to expect a politician to leave all their principles, values, education or life experience at home.  All Ed Lootsteen suggested was that a local politician leave some of his specific, unproven moral opinions at home or church, while he is serving his constituents, which a majority of whom, including many good Christians, do not agree with.  His government job is administration, not Evangelization.

It would be arrogant to expect anyone, including immigrants, to be forced to accept anyone else’s religious practices, though many of them are forced to convert to Christianity if they want to be sponsored and supported by various Christian Churches. But neither should newcomers be allowed to demand that the rest of us wear yarmulkes, turbans or hijabs, bow to Mecca or mutilate our females’ genitals.  Not all religious morals and practices are acceptable.

(No wonder I’m) Grumpy Old Archon

Forgive me (insert name of your higher power here), for I have ranted. My tolerance cup has runneth over and I must empty it in order to move on. It has been too long since my last ranting (if that’s even a word).

Gad (not God), this guy is so verbose that he makes Archon look concise, and what he passes off as logic, and his straw-man arguments, could do a seven minute set at Yuk Yuk’s.  Once one of these Bible-thumpers gets up a good head of steam, you never know where the train’s going to end up.

The reason that the original letter attacked ‘The God of The Bible’, is that the local Federal politician is a ‘good Catholic’; at least his NINE kids think so.  There’s no sense complaining about the Sikh 75 miles away, because he intentionally, politely, leaves his religion at home.  BTW; Mr Lootsteen IS a ‘Christian believer.’

His Good News/Bad News list of “Christian” accomplishments is more a ‘Laugh?/Cry?’ list. Most of them were not ‘because of’ Christianity, but ‘in spite of’ it.  Democracy was given to us by the heathen Greeks, and Christian Europe refused to institute it for over two millennia, until we held a party at Madame Guillotine’s place in Paris.

Good Christians owned slaves for centuries. They only recently let women own property, sign legal documents, be ‘a person’ under law, allowed women to vote less than 100 years ago, and they still want to control and restrict their reproductive rights.  Mr. Lootsteen, and many of the rest of us, have not forgotten that.  😯

***

BTW; sic, sic, sic.  For the non-linguistic nit-pickers – He’s talking about ‘principles’, not the head of his kids’ school.

 

 

Rylah Reblog

This is not precisely a ‘reblog.’ I have decided to republish a Second Opinion newspaper column, submitted about 15 years ago, by my daughter, who now presents her opinions on her own Ryl’s Rostrum website.

Lady Ryl of Kitchener is a single mother learning about New and Old Age spiritual practices.

New Age religions also teach love and honor!

I found it disconcerting that, in her Second Opinion, Erika Kubassek could be so biased in her opinion concerning the New Age movement.

I am an apprentice of the Old Ways, and see more good in them than she would have people believe.

I know people who follow the new Earth-based beliefs and ideals, and see nothing destructive about their way of life. I have friends who are pagan in their belief, yet have raised their children to be kind and loving.  In fact, they have been a model to change abusive parenting habits, which my maternal relatives’ Christian family passed on, as “the way children should be raised.”

By whose standard does Kubassek feel that New Age ideas are counterfeit? Could it be that my maternal relatives’ negative and abusive past should be the ways to build my family’s future, just because they were “Good Christians?”

She says that the New Age quest is to replace Christianity, and asks what spirits we are replacing it with. We are not replacing Christianity, but are endeavoring to find our own self or ‘spirit’, not some preformed and unbending mould that we must fit into.

For those who follow a different path, conceivably it is because we have failed to find fulfilment in sturdy Christian values.

I accept that some will twist this to their own advantage, but haven’t some “Good Christians” taken over lives in the name of God? Paganism is not the slaughter of life to evil gods, nor the mass suicide of some cults.  For the people of the Heaven’s Gate, and Solar Temple cults, taking their own lives was a choice made of their own beliefs, sadly, taking their children along with them.

If Kubassek wishes to lay blame on New Age, and state that we are diametrically opposed, then perhaps she would like to meet a woman who would have given up on life, if it were not for the love of life that her ‘pagan’ enlightenment gave her.

We also teach to love and honor others, ourselves, and all life. All we seek is to find self-realization and fulfilment, and allow other people their own choice, without judgement or harassment.  The Romans, Greeks, Canaanites, Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Gaels, French, German, Dutch, Swedes, Finns, Native-Americans, Africans, Mexican, Japanese, and other nations in the world that originally started out with life-oriented ‘pagan’ beliefs, also gave birth to the ‘new’ religions.

The pagan creed has only one rule, but it is important. “Do what you will, only harm no-one!”  Perhaps Kubassek might be a little more ‘Christian’, and “Do unto others as she would have them do unto her.”  Now, doesn’t that sound familiar?