Archive for November 2008

ban the bible!! (religiorant)   Leave a comment

ban the bible!!

what happens when someone publishes a book and people go on some sort of rampage after reading this book?

what happens when somebody makes a speech that breeds and/or encourages hatred or some sort of bigotry?

what would happen, if say, I wrote a book and a bunch of people got the idea to go around killing, raping, invading countries, being violent in general, beating up minorities or some other terrible thing like that – because they read a book that *I* wrote?!?

would I be accountable somehow? yes? no? sort of? not sure? don’t give a rat’s?

I’m not sure of the law where you are, I’m not even sure of the law here, but I’d expect that I’d be accountable *somehow*, even if the public’s reaction was unintentionally provoked on my part.

what if this book became popular long after I was gone? what would happen then? am I still accountable, posthumously? would, or *should* someone still be responsible?

The point being, is that such a book would be removed from circulation altogether, or it would be declared an “adults only” type book, restricted to being viewed or purchased by minors or it would have a disclaimer attached to the front, something like

“This book is not supposed to cause violence towards your fellow human. The author is not responsible if you decide to kill anybody after reading this book.”

So… here’s the question…

why hasn’t the bible been banned? why doesn’t it even have a disclaimer?

The bible *should* have a disclaimer on the front and it should point out all the things that are dubious and hypocritical and morally vague or conflicting with today’s laws.

So *before* anyone goes ahead and reads the bible, they might want to consider exactly what this publication is advocating, just in case they read the bible and then go around hating gays or something lame like that not long they had finished reading the bible..

and why not?

i’ve heard stories of people hacking their own hands off … i bet you have too…. what was their excuse for hacking their hands off? because the *BIBLE* said to do it!

Matthew 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast [them] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

and I have heard of stories that claimed people have plucked their *own* eyes out

Matthew 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.

Blue Letter Bible. “Matthew 18 – King James Version.” Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 3 Apr 2009.

the bible is responsible for so much hatred, “oh the bible says gays are an abomination”

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Blue Letter Bible. “Dictionary and Word Search for ‘abomination’ in the KJV”. Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 3 Apr 2009.

“oh the bible says incest is OK” “oh the bible condones slavery” “oh the bible this” “oh the bible that” bible blah dee fucking blakkedy blah blah bah bah… sorry if i can’t be bothered to quote all the relevant verses of rubbish from the bible….

oh yes, i hear what some of you are saying, “it’s the people that read the bible and take it too seriously/literally that are the problem!!!” something like that, hey?

hello! that’s my fucking point!

oh, and perhaps the apologists would say that if it wasn’t the bible that influenced them, then they would have found some other way to justify their crappy attitude to the world.

well, I concede, sure that’s probably right, as we all know that anybody from any walk of life can flip out and go on the rampage, or go “postal” as it’s been commonly termed.

but what else is there that has really screwed up the minds of so many? what other book or film or individual has been the source of so much division in the world?

And yet the bible remains unbanned – especially in a society that often shows that it still has ultra-prudish people with their objections to seemingly innocuous things – eg. if you don’t like seeing women in skimpy bikinis, then what the fuck are you doing at the beach in the middle of the summer? if you don’t like profanity, then why are you watching comedians that are more than well known to have a potty mouth?

And to top off the hypocrisy, I seriously doubt you could find two christians that could interpret everything in the bible in the same way anyway. christians talk about “absolutes” – but it’s very likely that very few of these born again christians would interpret the whole bible even vaguely in the same way, let alone *exactly* the same way, let alone interpret it *correctly* ..

I suspect this is why Catholics still make up 51% of the global christian population, because as far as I remember or understand, Catholics are told how to interpret the bible by their priests. If they have questions, the Catholic consults their priest! So there’s a reduced amount of this making up your own minds about what the bible is supposed to mean when you are a Catholic.

And you know, I thought that was a bad thing for quite a while, but, isn’t it better that everyone get it wrong the *same* way, than everyone getting it wrong completely differently? that’s chaos commonly referred to as “born again christianity!”

but shhhssssh! don’t tell the christians, but that’s what’s killing christianity, every one making up their own interpretations of the bible when they should be talking to someone who has actually studied the bible…

So… what other thing or person espousing notions of love and togetherness and peace for all mankind, somehow also gets some people all riled up enough to be able to justify hating other religions and races and differences of opinion or whatever else bigoted shit so openly and so proudly?

i can’t think of anything else? how about, the Qu’ran? The Satanic Verses? Mien Kampf? Those Danish Mohammed cartoons? The original Stars Wars trilogy or the prequel trilogy? Picard or Kirk? Old Battlestar Galactica versus the new Battlestar Galactica? ???

I can’t think of anything, can you?

so why doesn’t one of the greatest causes of violent conflict and piss poor attitudes to people across the entire world, get taken off the shelf, permanently?

It should be illegal to try and ‘offer’ your religion to others. Spreading the word should be a crime, a hate crime at that.

At the very least, the bible should be considered an “adults only” bit of literature, it should have the book equivalent of an “R” rating. Do books even have ratings?

Seriously, what child can make sense of all the nuances of the bible?

Heaven, hell, good, bad. It’s funny but the first conceptualisation I remember about evil, came from the bible. Maybe if I wasn’t exposed to the bible at all I wouldn’t have spent ten years worrying that I would offend god and that I was being evil or bad or what the fuck ever it was I would dwell over that I can’t remember now, but being struck down where I stood by god was one of the thoughts I would often have – and I didn’t even fucking believe in it!

How about the age of consent be used in regards as to when a young person is suitably aged to be exposed to the bible, or religion in general for that matter? Maybe, voting age is a better idea?

because aren’t you screwing up the minds of children with unneeded worries when you tell them about heaven and hell?

How is creating unnecessary anxiety in a child, not abusive on *some* level? The child could go on to have anxiety problems their whole life, all thanks to some body telling this child “You need to believe in Jesus or you’re going to hell!”… I wish that was a joke, but it’s not.

If you’re a parent and you need to use biblical fear to keep your child in line, are you not deferring your ability as a parent to people of the bronze age?

People should realise that a child will not concern themselves with the positive aspects of the bible, or any religion for that matter, they will simply dwell in fear over the negative aspects.

A child might think, “Who cares if Jesus loves me? WHAT IF I do something wrong, I’m going to burn in hell for ever and ever and that’s a very long time and it’s going to really hurt, much more than a tooth ache by the sound of it!!”

Apparently taking note of the negatives in our life is written into our genes, which makes sense actually.

A cute bunny rabbit is to your left, and a snake is to your right, which one are *YOU* going to pay attention to?

In fact, I bet some of us would move toward the bunny and pick it up to protect it from the snake! Some of you might even hide behind the bunny for protection.

We take more note of the bad or dangerous things in life so that we can avoid them, we even take note of the potential of things to be dangerous.

But seeing how hell is just a aspect of something based on somebody’s faith, then you are merely creating unnecessary anxiety in the child’s life, that’s what the child will dwell over. That’s how *I* remember it.

That’s cruel isn’t it? You are telling the child to fear something that doesn’t exist in this world, this is *unnecessary*, it should be avoided, should it not?

*Some* kids become so fearful of hell, they don’t confront their fears and/or ask questions, they displace their fears with the notion that praising Jesus fiercely and often, will keep them from going to hell.

It’s almost like if those kids keep on praising Jesus all the time, they can’t ever sin because *all* they do is praise Jesus!

This is probably the sort of kid that shoots up a school yard of “sinners” all the while saying “The lord is my shepherd, I shall not want” and that “shadow of the valley of death” bit over and over again…. I’m sure I saw that in a TV show.. or was that a re-enactment of something real? it’s not funny either way

Psalm 23
(1) The LORD [is] my shepherd; I shall not want. (2) He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. (3) He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. (4) Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou [art] with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (5) Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. (6) Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.


Blue Letter Bible. “Psalm 23 – King James Version.” Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2009. 3 Apr 2009.

These children are indoctrinated into believing christianity, but christianity *created* “hell” in the first place, and then offered it’s remedy, Jesus.

Which for my mind, is a bit like getting cancer on purpose to be in a “club” and then getting a miracle cancer cure which only this “club” can provide. Which then doesn’t cure everyone anyway, and actually makes some people worse.

So, yes, burn it, ban it, erase it…

Getting your morals out of the bible is akin to teaching your kids about life by sitting them in front of commercial TV for hours on end.

Oh FUCK! I just realised something! If the bible gets banned, it may just fucking “MARTYR” it somehow and all those people who never heard of the bible and all those people who never actually *read* the bible might just be compelled to buy a copy and then they would open it up and start reading it and find out exactly what is in there and…. oh… never mind… carry on as before. burn the bible. ban it. launch it into orbit

“I don’t care what they may say, Jesus is just alright with me, Jesus is just alright oh yeah!!”
–Doobie Brothers

mostly written 22 Nov 2008… mostly… oh why fight it… all i seem to do is mock religion, yes, i have plenty of free time on my hands.. but i might as well get it out my system… so let the religio-bashing continue unabated… oh, it just might take quite a while before these “god hating” “evil” blogs dry up…


Posted 22 November, 2008 by manabrau in bible, Christianity, evil, god, jesus, morality, Religion Sux Arse

you must give your soul to Jesus to be saved? (religiorant)   Leave a comment

in Christianity, everyone is born a sinner, original sin or some such thing, right? The way out of being a sinner, is for people to give their souls to Jesus or whatever it is exactly, right? If people do not do this, they will not be saved, and if you are not saved, you go to an eternal hell, right?

now if you punch it into Google, you’ll see that approximately 146,000 people die everyday.

Two thirds of the world population aren’t Christian, so, that’s about 100,000 people that die every day that automatically go to hell for no reason other than they were born in a nation where Christianity didn’t get a foothold.

yet Christians don’t have a problem with this, they are fully aware that their faith automatically damns 36 million people to eternal hell fire and suffering a year, simply because these “heathen” people have never accepted Jesus! In fact, some Christians would seem to be PROUD of the fact that their religion automatically excludes most people, because that’s *how* they like it.

What do Christians say to this?

Why don’t they have a problem with their religion damning 100,000 people to hell everyday?

How is a person at fault when they are excluded from Christianity and therefore excluded from the grace the “loving” Jesus Christ, The Saviour, when they have never even heard the name Jesus?

How is that a fair and just and loving religion and/or god?

So, how can Christianity be *the* religion if you MUST give yourself to Jesus when two/thirds of the planet have not been exposed to the story of Jesus? To make it even more ridiculous, I bet many of those people are not even aware that other people have different religions at all.

So how can god/Jesus love everyone if two thirds of the world population go to hell by default? That’s not love, even for my worst enemies, I wouldn’t wish an eternal suffering upon them, yet Christians can do that without even blinking an eyelid.

Sorry but if even ONE person goes to hell because they haven’t heard of Jesus then Christianity is NOT *the* religion, neither can the Christian god be loving when so many people are excluded from it BY DEFAULT.

How can Christians claim that Jesus loves everyone, how can Christianity be *the* religion when it DICTATES that two thirds of the world suffer eternal torment in hell fire BY DEFAULT?

Google search: “how many people die everyday”

mostly written 16th November 2008

Posted 16 November, 2008 by manabrau in Christianity, god, jesus, Religion Sux Arse

Science is not a religion.. (religion v science)   Leave a comment

I’m seeing a few blogs around from these “religious” people claiming that people who believe in evolution – are worshiping science like it was some sort of god – which somehow makes science a religion.

and you know – in a way – they are right – but only from a certain point of view. A very twisted point of view, mind you.

Science can’t be a religion. think about it. science changes, religion does not.

Science is based on what we have experimentally shown to be “real” or by theoretically demonstrating what we think is a good explanation for what is “real” – religion is based on what is “unreal” .. ie. even if god is “real”, then that defies the definition of god, as god is supposed to be beyond explanation – so even if god is “real” it would seem to be very much “unreal” to the observer, should this god so choose to reveal its presence.

But even though science is based on what is “real” it can sometimes be totally wrong, thus possibly making previous assertions obsolete – but when things are shown to be wrong, they are demonstrated to be wrong, thus “old science” is discarded

for example: as a scientific person, if it was somehow discovered that with undeniable proof that the “theory” of evolution was completely wrong, or that the big bang story was *way* off, it would be a day of fascination, a day of enlightenment, a day of discovery, opening up more of the realities and possibilities of the universe. I would be enthralled with reading up and learning everything I could about this new explanation of how life evolved or how the universe started.

but… on the other hand…

as a religious person – if it was somehow discovered with undeniable proof that the scripture I based my faith on, was completely and utterly a fake – it would be a day of emptiness – a day of disbelief and sadness shared world wide with all those who shared my now defunct faith – it would be a day of denial – it would feel like my soul had been ripped from my body and i would walk around in a daze because I’d lost my god.

Science often changes it’s “facts” because our intelligence is continually growing, therefore our technology improves.

Religion is anachronistic and does not change its fundamental principles, at least, it is not supposed to, but I see people changing their religion all the time – Santa Claus doesn’t appear in the bible, you know, and neither do Easter bunnies.

So if people want to call atheism or science a religion and science is also somehow its god, then fine.

Science is the god of change, the god for the future and the god of today. I bet most people would be dead by the age of thirty if not for things we often take for granted today; like being able to extract teeth safely; anti-biotics to stop infections; simple knowledge of bacteria and keeping toilets clean; and many other things that have come from science, have *tripled* the average lifespan in the last two thousand years. Shit, there is even research as of 2011 that indicates that reversal of aging is even possible. How would you like it if science let you live for so long that people only ever died because of accidents and natural disasters?

Religion promises you eternal life, whether it can or not is impossible to prove.

Science doesn’t promise you anything, but it *is* solely responsible for the increased length and quality of life that we now get to live.

But you know, make science a religion if you want, that would be awesome, because if science was a religion, it’d have tax free status, that’d probably help with research funding I’m sure.

Posted 4 November, 2008 by manabrau in Religion Sux Arse, Science

godless morality is inferior? (religiorant)   Leave a comment

Far too often, I’ve seen religious people imply that the atheist or the agnostic person is somehow less endowed with morality than the religious person, some of these religious fundamentalists will even contend that the A/A crowd have no morals at all.

God abiding morality is the only morality?

Ignoring the actual morals themselves for the moment, but how can a such a close minded staunch religious person accuse the A/A crowd of having lesser morals or even no morals at all, in the first place?

Especially hypocritical is how this type of religious person doesn’t even *know* the people they are accusing of being immoral! This attitude says to me that they think god abiding morality is the only morality, because morals can only be possessed by those who believe in god.

Which is exactly what many christians will even outright say themselves.

But anybody summarily dismissing the morals of another person out of hand without even knowing that person, simply because they don’t believe in the same god as them, has little to no reason to refer to themselves as being morally superior.

Religious Morals are Superior?

Morals are not things that are black and white, how can they be?

Sure it’s wrong to kill, but what if in defending yourself you accidentally kill a person attacking you? is it moral that you be punished for defending your life or even your family’s lives?

Another issue that deals with a morally vague area that’s being kicking around a lot lately, the delicate issue of abortion, or rather how the religious have grasped onto that issue in the election in the USA because Obama is “pro-abortion” or whatever it is and this issue was being used as a way to make Obama “evil” or some shite.

From their ramblings I gathered that a lot of the religious crowd would have no abortions performed anywhere *ever* for any reason, because to take a life, is an immoral thing to do and well, it is, in most cases.

But the issue of abortion is not as black and white as the staunch religious person would have you believe, because in this day and age when morally legitimate circumstances arise, an abortion *can* be safely performed.

i am not trying to be insensitive here and i apologise if anything like this actually applies to you, but think about these few examples:

  • is it a moral thing to let a young girl, impregnated by rape, carry that child to full term when she has only just barely started puberty herself?
  • is it a moral thing to do to bare a child if it is known that the unborn child has been exposed to high levels of radiation or dangerous chemicals that are known to cause deformities and congenital conditions?
  • is it a moral thing to do to let a pregnancy go to full term when it is highly likely that the mother could very well die in child birth or even mid-term, killing both mother and unborn child?

again, apologies if it hits a nerve with these examples, but some of the religious crowd would mandate that all those three examples go to full term with no discussion at all from the people *actually* involved, and in those cases above:

  • hasn’t that little girl been traumatised enough?

    sure the new born child could be adopted but a little girl not even a teenager, raped and then carrying that child? is it really worth putting that little girl through the pregnancy as well?

  • would *you* really want to be that child that was affected in the womb by something that would permanently cripple you or have you live a life of constant pain?

    i know it’s insensitive and not that very likely to happen anyway, but to just appease someone who has nothing to do with the raising of that child, not to mention living that life when it’s *known* that the foetus has developed or has a high chance of developing debilitating conditions or even dying at, or before birth, seems to be the greater immoral act, at least to me.

  • would you want to risk losing your life *and* your child by letting a highly risky pregnancy go to full term?

the possibilities beyond the black and white are endless, and these are obviously very sensitive issues but it seems to me that a lot of the religious crowd, would say that an abortion is not justified, *ever*.

Sure, abortion as a form of birth control is probably not the most practical nor the most moral thing to do but, the anti-abortion religious person would have you believe that every abortion is wrong because it is terminating a life, but what if the abortion saves a life?

In all of those situations above, having the child could see entire families affected, with long term stress and depression for all involved and could even lead to multiple lives being lost in the long run due to the despair of being involved in caring for a special needs person because not everyone has the strength of character or financial ability to care for such unfortunate individuals.

Ultimately, I feel that an abortion should be up to the woman, or the parents of the girl if she is under age to decide what is the best course of action. If the woman is incapacitated or guardians are not available, medical and psychiatric professionals or possibly even the courts at the recommendations of health professionals should act in the best interests of the woman.

That seems to be the most sensible thing to do, doesn’t it?

So to my point:

A person that can evaluate individual morally challenging situations based on their individual circumstances and make an informed decision based on what may or may not happen if the “immoral” action is, or is not performed, is the person with the superior morality.

Yes – it’s a little bit more complicated than the black and white system, but that’s what our brains are supposed to be used for and with the aid of compassion for the individual, a better solution that speaks to that individual can be applied.

The morally superior person not only speaks to the consequences of action or inaction in the here and now, but they also speak to the consequences of an action or inaction in the future and this person will also speak to the individual rights of a person, in spite of what is “normal” for everyone else.

Abortion is just one example where morals are simply not black and white and morals are certainly not the exclusive domain of the religious, far from it. In fact, it seems to me that these religious black and white morals, are very much backwards, outdated, anachronistic, and ultimately inferior in this day and age where people supposedly are allowed to have their own individual rights.

These religious black and white morals may have held up well thousands of years ago, but as in the issue of abortion described above, thanks to advances in science, abortions *can* be performed safely when the circumstances give moral and compassionate reason to go ahead with the procedure.

Anyone still holding on to such black and white morals, such absolute and rigid lines in the sand, is not as compassionate as they think they are, nor are they willing to think outside of the box they call their religion to fully participate in the human race and show some of that unconditional love and compassion that they so often preach to the bleeding ears of the world, deafened by centuries of hypocrisy.

If you are unable to think outside of your religion’s values, then it’s no big deal to stick to your indoctrinated beliefs, as they still apply to most situations and it’s probably unlikely that you are going to be exposed to such morally vague situations anyway, probably…

That’s OK, but can we leave all the hard decisions in life to those who actually *can* think beyond morals that were carved in stone thousands of years ago, especially when you are not even following those teachings in the first place?

For example, I’ve seen so many christians telling lies that this commandment of not bearing false witness would seem to be an optional one and if one commandment is optional, then why not make the rest of the ten optional as well, depending on how many degrees the teachings have previously been distorted? Not to mention that Jesus superseded the Ten Commandments and taught two of them that can basically can be summed up by saying…

“be good to other people, especially to those in need and to those who would call you their enemy, that is how you show your love for me”

ie. Jesus taught that we are to love everyone, including our enemies, so how can there have been any wars involving any moral christians in the past two thousand years if these moral christian people were truly living up to the moral standards as commanded by their Messiah? hmmmm? ….

this is ultimately what disgusts me about christians; christians aren’t even following these morals that they so loudly and proudly claim are so superior in the first place!

and christianity isn’t at fault here, because it is just a fucking story and if you want to believe in a story, that’s great, but when the story that you supposedly believe in says that you are to love everyone and yet you do no such thing, then you are lying that you are christian because what you believe in, isn’t christianity, it isn’t the Jesus from the bible, it is your *own* version of Jesus, that you made up yourself.

Your own ego is Jesus/god, which means you are worshipping a false god. This god might be a little bit like Jesus from the bible, but you have gone and made up your own “teachings of Jesus”, so therefore your morality, just like the non-believer, comes from your own ego anyway.

At least the non-believer doesn’t pretend to aspire to the teachings of god and then just totally fucking ignore everything that god supposedly taught them, anyway…

Posted 4 November, 2008 by manabrau in atheism, Christianity, god, idolatry, jesus, morality