bible – Bruce Llama

God Did It!

Bruce — Mon, 18 Aug 2014 09:17:00 +0000

At the Institute for Creation Research in northwest Dallas, a group of nine Ph.D.s from places like Harvard and Los Alamos National Laboratory say all that molecules-to-man stuff is nonsense. And they’re out to prove it.

The biblical story of Genesis is literally true, they say. God created the heavens, earth and life in six sequential days lasting about 24 hours each.

OK, more christian need to prove that the bible is true, despite decades of evidence to the contrary!

The universe is not 13.8 billion years old (as astrophysicists calculate by measuring the rate of cosmic expansion), the earth is not 4.5 billion years old (as geologists conclude by using radioisotope dating on ancient rocks), and humans did not split from chimpanzees and gorillas about 4 million to 7 million years ago (as suggested by genetics and the fossil record).

As I said, despite the evidence.

“Our attempt is to demonstrate that the Bible is accurate, not just religiously authoritative,” said Henry Morris III, CEO of the nonprofit with a 49-person payroll and an annual budget in the $7 million range.

How much? $7mil a year, say it takes them 10 years. Serious amount of money that someone is throwing at the concept. You can buy a 20kg bag of rice for about $150. Imagine how many bags you could buy over 10 years. (At least 460,000) Could feed lots of people! But oh no, makes much more sense to plough your money into stupid projects that the rest of the world is laughing about.

“The rationale behind it is this: If God really does exist, he shouldn’t be lying to us,” he said. “And if he’s lying to us right off the bat in the book of Genesis, we’ve got some real problems.”

What? If god is lying we’ve got some real problems? We have real problems, the planet is heating up, bees are dying, people are starving.

If god really exist, rice wouldn’t cost so much.

Jesus, Billy is missing out

Bruce — Fri, 07 Feb 2014 09:17:21 +0000

[SOURCE]

Oh I can feel the despair that good old Uncle Billy is feeling. He’s gone all wishy-washy at the knees. He’s just finished a 1453 word essay on the gospel and there isn’t an abortion or gay anywhere to be seen. That’s remarkable.

If you’re ready for a nap, go and have a read, otherwise, here’s the bits that are at least a little entertaining.

One thing you can always bank on is this: if we preach a wishy-washy gospel, we will end up with wishy-washy Christians. If we proclaim an anaemic message from the pulpits, we will end up with anaemic believers in the pews. If radical discipleship is not taught in our churches, we will not have radical Christian disciples.

That’s right and if you use the gospels to preach hate, then hate is what you get, radical christians hating people.

What is proclaimed and heard in our churches is such a feminised, worldly message that the clear biblical gospel is getting woefully garbled if not lost altogether.

Feminised? Does he mean weak and ineffective? Sounded just a little nasty their Billy.

Let’s start with John the Baptist: “In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea and saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near’” (Matthew 3:1-2).

How near is near? Two years, twenty, two hundred? How long do you have to wait for the kingdom to appear before you can say a long time?

Jesus offered the same message: “From that time on Jesus began to preach, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near’” (Matthew 4:17).

Seems jesus is on the wrong bus or he missed the stop. The kingdom is not near to anything at all.

The very heart and core of the gospel message is almost entirely missing from the New Age mumbo jumbo and self-centred baloney of these pop pastors. Instead you will constantly hear a message about how good you are, how you can live a better life, how you can have great wealth, and how you can even lose weight for Jesus.

That just sounds like professional jealousy Uncle Billy. Are you poor and stacking on the kilos – you probably need jesus.

So where is the gospel in all that? Whatever happened to the simple truths which John and Jesus and Peter and Paul proclaimed? Whatever happened to the core message that we are sinners under the wrath of God headed to a lost eternity, and unless we repent and put our trust in Christ, renouncing self and making him Lord, we are all doomed?

Oh doom, doom, doom. The kingdom is near and you’ll be all burning in hell if you don’t jolly well sit up and pay attention to Uncle Billy.

It must be so hard to be a biblical christian these days.

Christians Have a Home!

Bruce — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 11:19:57 +0000

[SOURCE]

It’s all happening for the Australian Christian Party this month.

They have a new office! Woo hoo.

The gala opening attended by 3 people and a photographer was call “historic” and their new address is PO Box 258, Croydon Vic 3136. Hang on, they have an office in a post box? Maybe they’re worried and don’t want to tell you where their office is…I suggest you simply drive around Croydon with your window down singing “Onward Christian Soldiers” while tooting your horn until the Director and her two volunteers appear.

Meanwhile in other more exciting news, the Australian Christians are now registered in Tasmania! It was a day of celebration as the party thanked Tasmanians for their support of christian values! The party has now officially been registered by the Tasmanian Electoral Commission after the party achieved the critical number of members to do so. All 100 of them! Wow, feel the love Tasmania – you’ve all gotten right behind the party to show real christian support. Any day now they’ll be opening an office in Hobart.

Oh and check out the happy couple throwing their arms in the air, probably giving thanks as the bible quote at the bottom of their post says:

“Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever.”

Either that or their waving to the other 98 who’ve just set off across Bass Strait to visit the Melbourne office. If they can find it. Alas, the happy couple are from a stock photo and their described as

Happy cheering couple enjoying sunset at beach with arms raised up in joyful elated happiness. Happiness concept with young joyous couple, Caucasian man and Asian woman.

Who knows, maybe they are praising cheeses.

A bag of baby jesus

Learning to Turn The Other Cheek with Great Sage Billy M

Bruce — Mon, 08 Jul 2013 22:42:03 +0000

[SOURCE]

As with any worthwhile worldview, there should be a measure of coherence and internal consistency. For example, there should not be glaring contradictions or a woeful disconnect between what you claim to believe and what you actually do.

A comment from Muehlenberg that sounds quite promising. “No glaring contradictions.” he says. This one should be good!

It is not just a question of one’s walk matching one’s talk, but of having a worldview – in this case, a Christian worldview – which covers all aspects of life, and has a consistent and uniform approach to things. Biblical Christianity is, among other things, a full-fledged worldview, and it should be one which is cohesive and non-contradictory.

Oh, it seems to have come unstuck already. Christianity is anything but cohesive and non-contradictory. It has unicorns for a start. Oh, dragons, giants and talking donkeys. It suggests stoning and loving everyone. And you can’t look at the chrisitans without noticing that there are so many of them under different banners. If there is but one truth why are there so many denominations?

For example, a person claims to be a follower of Jesus, yet:

-insists that obedience to his clear commands is an optional extra;
-refuses to agree with God about His purposes for human sexuality;
-votes for political parties which are committed to death and reject the sanctity of human life;
-lives in known and unconfessed sin; etc.

Hang on a minute, this is interesting list that we’ve been provided with by our Great Sage Billy M (GSBM). These are the very things that form the basis of his ranting blog.

Let me show you:

insists that obedience to his clear commands is an optional extra;

GSBM wants you do to what he thinks the world-view of his holy book is, that is you should be obedient to him and him alone. Remember only GSBM has the truth.

refuses to agree with God about His purposes for human sexuality;

GSBM wants you to hate the gays and only put your wandering genitals in places acceptable to him and him alone. You must not refuse to agree with him!

votes for political parties which are committed to death and reject the sanctity of human life;

GSBM wants there to be no abortion ever. Not only are you not to have an abortion but you have no right to object. Anyone who votes Labor or Greens is demanding abortion and you have no right to vote for anyone who doesn’t agree with GSBM.

lives in known and unconfessed sin; etc.

You have to get married. No shacking up and no orgies. And just in case he has forgotten anything he’s covered it with an etc.

These are fairly obvious examples of a major disconnect between one’s profession of faith, and what one actually does.

It’s an interesting list, but when it comes to major disconnect between faith and GSBM what about these ones?

Love one another as I have loved you
Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.
Therefore all things whatsoever would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them
but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Unlike GSBM list, my list is actual words from the bible, not a personal interpretation designed to fit my own personal agenda… ok, ok, it is to fit my own personal agenda. You see that’s what the bible is for, cherry-picking the bits to allow you to behave the way you want with little regard for everything else in the book. It’s really easy to take a bible and your own personal agenda and make the bible match and then claim that you have the truth. This is the only way that you can have this attitude:

there should not be glaring contradictions or a woeful disconnect between what you claim to believe and what you actually do.

You can only avoid the glaring contradictions when you have a woeful disconnect. It’s really no surprise that GSBM leaves out all the good bits and uses his blog not to focus on the good things of his faith but to focus on the negative.

It fits in with his world-view that there is a spiritual war going on and he is a warrior. Armed with the bible and a crucifix.

Time for a spanking GSBM – get those cheeks out for turning.

The Australian Christians lack respect for our institutions

Bruce — Wed, 03 Jul 2013 10:27:52 +0000

[SOURCE]

Australian Christian Party has been bobbing around a bit hoping to win a few seats at the next election – I wrote about them here. On their Facebook page they posted this comment, let me just pull this apart a bit for you:

When Ed Husic was sworn in to parliament the regular options to do so on a Bible or with an affirmation – representative of our Judeo-Christian and secular heritage

Well no, it’s not true. The bible or the affirmation are a personal choice of the person taking the oath. It is not representative of our heritage. We really should just leave it there as already we know where this lot is heading.

– were dismissed and the incorporation of the Quran

Nothing was dismissed. There is nothing to say a quran can’t be used. Husic could have sworn on a bible if he really wanted to.

was celebrated by our Governor-General as ‘a great day for multiculturalism’.

Well it is. How terrific that a bunch of citizens have been able to elect a representative that they want. Isn’t that the whole idea of democracy?

Those who were upset at this have been deemed ‘racist’.

Well yes, I’m not surprised. If you think about why you are upset it’s because your precious bible was replaced with another book from another culture that you hate. I can see how that view is arrived at but I guess ‘racist’ doesn’t really describe what’s going on here.

The Bible is engraved in our culture; in our parliamentary prayers, speeches and even on the floors of our parliament.

So is the Chinese culture that’s been here since before federation or the camels brought over with the first Afghans to explore the interior. They’ve been part of our culture too. Let’s not forget the indigenous culture that isn’t jewish, christian or islamic. It’s been here for well over 40,000 years. How crazy do you have to be to claim some special status. Not so much crazy as… arrogant.

It is engraved on the headstones of our forebears and finds its way into our common language.

Common language? You ever heard “the die has been cast” Greek from 49BC, or this old saying, “Respect yourself and others will respect you.” Perhaps even some of our forebears have muttered Eureka! Another word from ancient Greece and all pre-christian. You christians can’t lay claim to a common language any more than you can disrespect all the dead who have come from all nations on earth and are buried under their own headstone, graved in languages that have no judeo-christian origin. Just what planet are you living on?

Even the irreligious among us know the Golden Rule and what it means to bear our cross.

Is that the golden rule developed by Confucius from China, maybe the Babylonians or the Indians? I hope you don’t think jesus thought it up all by himself. But I’ll give you the bearing of the cross thingy – you can have that. It’s a horrible image of a man being tortured, dying, bleeding, broken, not the sort of thing you’d want to expose the kiddies to.

But for those who reject its core message, there is freedom to do so and our parliament doesn’t insist on respect of the Bible or its message for elected representatives; it accommodates difference with an option of affirmation.

And apparently the koran. Because as you rightly suggest, there is no insistence to use the bible.

That’s Australian culture and it has produced a freer, happier democracy than is evidenced in many other cultures. What it has produced, freedom of conscience, belief, association and equality before the law is why people come here.

That’s right, that’s why we have muslims. Freedom to be who you want.

With all the cultural sensitivity being promoted in Australia, have the people’s elected representatives ever considered that a little sensitivity towards Australian culture may be warranted?

Of course, you may notice that Husic has been sent to the parliament by this wonderful quaint little thing we call an election. He did it of his own free will. Remind me again about a little sensitivity towards our Australian culture.

While the Bible or affirmation have been used as validation for commitment to the rule of law and serving Australians, the Quran is the source of Islamic sharia law;

The bible that you so proudly hold up is a very vile book. You know it even calls for the stoning of adulterers, homosexuals and sheep buggerers. It may have escaped your notice, but in Australia we don’t actually stone people, even though its written in your precious book, and look we don’t allow muslims to stone people either. Go figure.

something that has produced very different outcomes in societies plagued by human rights abuse and totalitarianism.

Oh right, like the christians in Africa wanting to kill the gays? Or those in Central America that oppose abortion and would sooner that their young people die from pregnancy complications.

Perhaps Australians who desire to see a commitment to freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law are not racist in their expectation that elected representatives uphold the options given in recognition of Australian culture.

This sort of suggests that somehow Husic doesn’t have a commitment to those key things of our democracy. You seem to be suggesting that a fellow Australian, because that’s what Husic is, is somehow not worthy to hold the office that he has been duly appointed to. This rather vague notion that he isn’t capable of that because he is of muslim background seems to be racist to me. Not racist as in you hate black people, but racist in that you hate anyone from a different background. Perhaps your more xenophobic, although that’s more hatred for strangers or foreigners and Husic is not either of those to his electorate. So you tell me, what word would suit your rather narrow view of his abilities? Redneck perhaps?

Or will we soon see people sworn in with the Kama Sutra, Tipitaka, Rig-Veda, or the Zend-Avesta?

And so what if they do? We ask that they take their oath of office and provide a way of swearing-in that oath. For some that’s to hold the bible, others it’s by affirmation or the koran, it should seem self-evident that you need to do that on something has a deep meaning to you.

If I had my way we wouldn’t use any of this fancy rubbish. The bible swearing didn’t make Howard a good PM, he still lied and it certainly didn’t stop Rudd from doing unto others as he had done unto him or turn the other cheek or some such rubbish. Oh, I know, any eye for an eye, a top job for a top job.

In fact the whole oath thing is a bit of a silly concept. It gets changed all the time depending on who’s in power. Kevin Rudd said in 2007 (that’s the first time)

I, Kevin Rudd, do swear that I will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia, her land and her people in the office of Prime Minister. So help me God!

Then Julia came swanning in on her new found top job she said:

I, Julia Gillard, do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia in the office of Prime Minister.

Then the really interesting bit is this observation:

There is … no constitutional or statutory prescription of the oath of allegiance to be taken by Ministers of the Crown, and its use for this purpose was governed by nothing more than custom and tradition.

You’ll find all this wonderful delightful information here on the Australian Parliament Website.

So while this Australian Christians are silly enough to think that the oath of office is important, the reality is that it’s not. In just over 100 years of Federation it’s been changed and twisted and pulled this way and that. It’s not written in the constitution and it’s not reflective of the judeo -christian heritage.

This is nothing more than an attempt to drive fear and loathing of a group of people into the hearts of Australians, trying to undermine the multi-cultural society in which we peacefully live.

Feel free to share this blog on their Facebook! They’d love the feedback. Oh and be sure to read the comments if you have any doubts about the fundamentalist nature of these rednecks.

How to use tragedy to push your religion – Ray Comfort gets it wrong!

Bruce — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 00:26:37 +0000

[SOURCE]

Recently a man in New Zealand died after he was horrifically attacked and eaten by a shark. The atheist, however, can’t blame God for creating the shark, because (in his mind) God doesn’t exist. He has to say that this tragedy was the cold result of the evolutionary process. It was a matter of survival of the fittest. The shark simply ate a primate who was in his territory. The Christian, however, has a different worldview. This terrible death of a human being confirms that we live in a “fallen” creation, under the curse of Genesis–where sharks devour people. So do lions and tigers. Snakes kill, bees sting, mosquitoes suck blood and spread disease, crocodiles bite your arm off, and bears rip open your rib cage. There are a whole lot of other nasty predators that will eat you for dinner, if you get into their territory or if they are hungry enough to come into yours. While evolution rests on faith because the believer has to believe what he’s been told about old bones, about theories and dating data, we can “observe” Genesis chapter 1 in the existing creation and in the fossil record. Not only is the curse observable, but we see male and female in every kind and all of them reproduce after their own kind, just as the Scriptures say. It’s all readily observable in Nature. None of it needs faith.

And so says the ratbag New Zealand jewish christian pastor Ray Comfort. A man who has dedicated his life to being confused.

He thinks bananas are an atheist nightmare because they slip into your hand so well.

To his quote above from his Facebook profile. Comfort suggests that the death of the New Zealander was the cold result of the evolutionary process. The death of Adam Strange is indeed tragic, it caused a great deal of trauma for those who stood by and watched him attacked and killed. It wasn’t about the survival of the fittest, it was about nature doing what it does. Comfort hints at an atheist being cold and unmoved by this death, whereas a christian is somehow better placed to see the death as part of gods plan. He goes on to suggest that we are under the curse of Genesis, a curse derived from his rather cold god.

He says that it’s because Eve ate the fruit of the tree in the middle of a garden, where his god planted the fucking thing, that the shark ate a man. In Ray’s mind 6,000 years ago this happened. After all the generations we are still cursed because his god couldn’t get it right.

In some mind-twist that surely must hurt, he then says that evolution requires faith, whereas the believing in god has evidence. The bible is evidence. And why? Because we can observe the result of animals having sex. The offspring is observable, the bible says:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

See! The bible says so. Of course, it has nothing to do with the authors actually observing the universe from their goat-herding fucking ways and noticing that when you have sex with your own species you then have babies, when you have sex with the goats you don’t. It was going on all around them so they wrote it down.

I much prefer DifficultNerds theory on banana peeling. That’s very observable.

Spinksy Snorts at the Universe

Bruce — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 11:27:13 +0000

[SOURCE]

Somebody must’ve told me old mate Spinksy what a dip-shit he is to think the world was created because god farted.

Upon posting an article about a literal interpretation of Genesis I received several comments from friends and acquaintances that can be summed up like so:

“The creation story is not the important part of the Bible. What is important is the Gospel. Indeed the very arguing of a literal six days for creation can distract from the Gospel.”

I can’t help but feel deeply disturbed by these opinions. Firstly, I am concerned about the criticism I have received for even broaching on the topic of creation. Indeed in my previous article I did not treat a literal creation as a primary doctrinal issue, nor did I even say that we should be divided on the issue. What I said was that it was completely plausible for Christians to hold to a literal 6-day creation.

Oooo. He’s deeply disturbed because someone thinks creationism is silly. The bit I find deeply disturbing is that he thinks a literal 6-day creation is plausible. 6 days to do all this? You must be out of your mind!

Let’s just take a minute. Think of how small a grain of sand is. Now cut it in half, then cut it in half again and then once more. Can you imagine that? It’s pretty small. You may even have trouble finding it. The world is really big when you’re a tiny bit of sand. Look up at the sky, how far can you see? Forever is the answer. Everything up there that you can see beyond the atmosphere is bigger than you. Even the distance between your eyes and where the blue stuff stops is bigger than you. Like the grain of sand you’re small. Keeping going out, beyond our solar system, all the way to the Milky Way and then keep going. There are suns and planets out there that are huge. So big that we don’t even know how to comprehend their size. My mind can’t even get around the notion that these big stars are only small when compared to the total size of the universe. Here we are, on a tiny speck of sand in the grand cosmos pretending that it’s only 6,000 years old. There are people so small on this planet that they actually believe they are the most important thing in the universe. They think that their god magiced the whole thing up in under a week. It’s simply crazy to believe such dribble.

There is a vast difference between what is termed “old-earth creationism” and “theistic evolution”.

Well no, there’s not really any difference, both are fanciful stories that seek to force the universe into the words written by people over 3 thousand years ago. They’re the same people who thought you could fit all the earth’s animals on a big boat for forty days.

While I have concern about the former I believe the latter cannot hold under the weight of the creation story intertwining with the Gospel. Consider this, God makes Adam and Eve approximately 6,000 years ago (this can be verified via genealogies).

I’m gonna stop you there Spinksy, how is it verified? What independent sources did you use to verify the genealogies in the bible? Well, you didn’t use any – because there are none. Someone counted the generations in the bible going backwards and worked out the date.¹

If macro evolution had occurred previous to this creation we have a God who prescribes the term “good” on a process that improves a species only by generations and generations dying. Furthermore, the very essence of the Gospel, that is the depravity of man, is undermined by the lack of a historical Adam (the most compelling understanding of history from an evolutionary perspective).

So because you don’t want god waiting 10 million years before saying “Good” all the science is wrong? That makes sense.

Also, Jesus is constantly referenced as the last Adam. If macro evolution were to be true this would have catastrophic implications upon the Gospel. This is not a meaningless quibble, it affects (and distorts) the very nature of man.

Evolution is true and that alone should be enough for you to throw religious fairy tales away. Claiming the earth is no more than 6,000 years old shows how far your head is stuck in the bucket. If you hold still I can kick it till it falls off.

Certainly the implications of the age of the universe should not be overstated. One can land on either side of the debate and be doctrinally sound in other, more important, areas. Nor should our theological discussions be fixated upon this topic (to the detriment of countless other topics). Yet we must not understate the importance of a solid biblical understanding of the creation of the universe. It does have ramifications upon other areas of Scripture and undermining it can lead people away from being convicted by the Gospel. It is for this reason that, on occasion, I may discuss the creation narrative in my articles.

The implication is that it shows what a crock of shit the notion of the earth being 6,000 years old is. Basically Spinksy is saying that you have to accept that the world is only young because if you don’t then there are other parts of the bible that must also be make believe. If you believe in evolution then you probably don’t want to buy into the young earth creationism crap. That’s a worry for the likes of Spinksy, it means less followers because they have been led way from being ‘convicted by the gospel’.

Bring it on baby.

A number of people have given it a go over the years, none of them give any regard to science but base their belief only on the bible. LINK ↩

Sacerdotus imparts his godly wisdom on the Lame

Bruce — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 10:04:52 +0000

Sacerdotus has been the subject of a couple of myÂ recent blogs. Â He’s decided to answer me on his blog. Â He’s done what I do, pulls apart my words sentence by sentence. Â So, I’ve grabbed a couple of his sentences and done the same thing. Â If you want to get the jist of his answers, you can find the full blog here. Â And I haven’t answered every point that he’s made. Â I’m sure if Sacerdotus thinks I’ve missed something important he’ll let me know.

We are all part of the same species and originated from the first human beings to walk the Earth. Â You dismiss God without basis and you argue from assertion. We need more than that in order to take your position as valid.

I don’t need more than that. Â There is no god. Â If there is then show me. Â You can’t, and it’s a pointless argument. Â You’ve got plenty of others to argue that point with, I’m not interested in your god at all. Â Whether or not you want to take my position as valid is entirely up to you. Â You can, and will, believe whatever you like.

Speaking the truth does not make one a bigot. Â It is not news that all civilizations, old and recent, have had some sort of a death penalty.

You don’t speak the truth. Â You accept the gospel and the magisteriumÂ of the catholic church as truth. Â Both are flawed human endeavours. Â You hide behind your church and use that to pretend you’re a step removed from yourÂ bigotry. Â You’re not. Â You have a choice, use it.

The Catholic Church has earn its right to be a dominant relevant voice on Earth. Â We are the largest and oldest social structure in modern times. Â We have outlived every empire that are now gone.

So? Â The catholic church has no right, it is governed by a bunch of old men that elect themselves. Â In a modern society it is antiquated and out of touch. Â It doesn’t matter how old it is. Â The only reason that it is here is because it created its own power base byÂ accumulatingÂ property and devotion from aÂ gullibleÂ people. Â We’re not in Kansas any more Dorothy. Â It’s time to pack it up, sell it off.

TheÂ governmentsÂ of today have modeled their laws after our beliefs, philosophies and understanding of the natural law. Â We have provided modern science to the world, the school and hospital system as well.

Oh please. The laws the church pretends to have supplied were well inÂ existenceÂ before you lot rooted your first goat. Â In fact, the law has to be designed to limit the control of the church. Â And while the church does a great deal of good in the world, it does so because it thinks that’s what someÂ imaginaryÂ deity wants. Â The reality is that those schools and hospitals are full of normal people who think most of the churches teachings are bollocks.

That being said: Â The Catholic Church can never be silent when a minority subculture is attempting to distort reality. Â You are a fool if you think the Church will let an idea that just appeared this morning to take down thousands of years of knowledge, wisdom and common sense.

The church is a minority. Â Most people in the world don’t agree with you. Â Most Australians are not catholics. Â The only reason the church opposes things is because it’s a threat to its authority orÂ livelihood. Â You’re a fool if you thinkÂ otherwise.

Sin is a real thing. Â Look around you.

Sin is not real, it’s an invention created by religious nutters. Â It’s a perceived wrong done against a deity. Â There are no gods, therefore no sin.

Why do people do evil?

Because. Â They do. Â You’re god is very limited if he can’t even get that right.

Why be an addict? Â Do you want to be the sum of an act? Â Do you want to be defined by where you insert your penis, or do you want to define yourself by your character, knowledge and contribution to society? Â The choice is yours. Â I don’t think human beings exist to penetrate each other to one’s own content. Â There is more to life than that.

I’m human. Â I enjoy inserting my penis. Â I also have a job, community involvement, deal with 100’s of people every week. Â Sex is only a small part of my life, a nice part. Â It’s only you religious types that think because we’re gay we only ever think about sex.

God is extremely merciful. Â You’d be surprised at the many gay people who accept God at the last breath and make it.

Oh please, that’s such a silly line. Â You’d be surprised at how many catholics accept there is no god at their last breath.

WellÂ every timeÂ I see something about the LGBT community, it isÂ alwaysÂ sexual. Â Black and Hispanic history months demonstrate each respective ethnicity’s contribution to society. Â Its famous individuals, its intellectuals and the like.

Then you should get out and look more. Â Every year here in Melbourne we have a Pride March and most of the people who march are fully clothed showing their support. Â SupportÂ organisations, Â police, bands, schools, pubs and clubs, hair dressers are all represented. Â And yes, Dikes on Bikes, the gay Football team are mostly unclad people. Â But that’s not sexual, that’s just people with little on.

Gay pride month? Well…. disgusting sexual manifestations on city streets. Â Sex is portrayed, evenÂ in frontÂ of children.

Sex is everywhere. Â You heteros are forever putting in in TV shows, ads, billboards, magazines. Â It’s not disgusting at all. Â It’s part of being human. Â You seem to be hung up about it.

Â People are people. They have dignity. Â They are not objects of gratification for others. Â Why do you think so many LGBT opt out of life? Â Your lifestyle is killing them!

You’ll be pleased to know that sex between a man and a woman is about gratification. Â And it’s about love. Â You’ll then understand that sex between two men is also about gratification and it’s about love. Â Just like straight people hook up for a one night stand, so too do gay people. Â It’s the way it’s always been and no amount of you crying about gratification will escape the fact that there is more bodily fluids exchanged between people thatÂ doesn’t result in birth than does. Â There is more sex for gratification for both parties than for love. Â There just is. Â It’s what animals do. Â It’s what humans do. Â We just got it right, we don’t have to procreate just because we have sex. Â Being gay is a bonus.

Perhaps the reason LGBT people opt out of life is because they areÂ persecutedÂ by catholics with a narrow view of the world. Â Being gay is not a lifestyle. Â Sitting on the beach in a luxury resort is a lifestyle.

Please show me an event where gay authors, poets, philosophers, scientists etc speak to the people and encourage them. Â Please show me a LGBT event that is void of strippers, men dressed in silly costumes, young teens in underwear, old obese men in leather. Â Please show me something other than this circus.

Seriously? Â Get out more.

If that is true then why did my post get your attention? Â If you are so set in your life, then you would have just turned a blind eye to my post.

It’s a hobby.

Do you approach women to flirt? Â I am assuming that you don’t because they are not worth your time.

Why do you assume that? Â I work with some wonderful women. Â Yes, we interact, and yes we flirt. Â Women are an important part of the world. Â Catholics treat them like dirt.

So why pay attention to my blog and the Catholic Church’s views on homosexuality?

There was nothing good on the telly.

Obviously, my prayer to reach others did work for me.

I guess from the smiley face that you make a joke. Â Prayer just keeps you busy. Â You should pray more.

All human beings, Christian, non Christian, homo or hetero are called to something higher.

No they’re not. Â There is nothing higher. Â You get one life, that’s it. Â When you die it’s all over. Â Stop wasting your time on religion and do something useful with your life.

Â We are not the sum of our sexuality or of what pleasures us. Â When you realize this you will be free and know true joy.

I already realise that. Â I am free, and I have true joy. Â I’m also bound by the society in which I live, I work hard, I play hard and I love life. Â That’s the way it should be. Â People get on in the world because they know and understand the value of those around them.

It’s a pity that you won’t open your eyes to the true wonder of the world, leave the medieval religion behind and embrace humanity for what it is. Â A moment in universal time. Â A very brief moment, and one that you have been lucky enough to participate in.

Stop wasting thatÂ briefestÂ of moments.

Pope Confused about his Gender

Bruce — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 01:16:57 +0000

[SOURCE]

It’s that time of the year when all the christians get excited about celebrating the birth of their god, that’s the god who has alwaysÂ existed. Â Christmas is about his birth apparently.

Pope Bendydick, head of the catholics, addresses his cardinals with a christmas message, and has a bit to say about family.

The great joy with which families from all over the world congregated in Milan indicates that, despite all impressions to the contrary, the family is still strong and vibrant today.

What impression? I don’t think that families are going anywhere. Â Sure there are families that struggle, but generally society still has strong and vibrant families.

But there is no denying the crisis that threatens it to its foundations â€“ especially in the western world….So it became clear that the question of the family is not just about a particular social construct, but about man himself â€“ about what he is and what it takes to be authentically human.

Crisis? Â The ‘crisis’ isn’t named, it’s assumed that you know what it is. In the ‘western world’ Â he’s talking about marriage equality. Â You know, letting those gay people call themselves married and raising families. Â Bendydick overlooks the important piece of information that gay couples with children already call themselves families and some of those couples refer to each other as husband or wife. Â It’s been going on for years, and guess what, the world hasn’t ended. I also can’t help but notice the use of the word man, of course, Bendydick is German, speaking Latin, translated to English, so perhaps it gets lost in translation, but to talk about humanity as man is very rude.

The challenges involved are manifold. First of all there is the question of the human capacity to make a commitment or to avoid commitment. Can one bind oneself for a lifetime? Does this correspond to manâ€™s nature? Does it not contradict his freedom and the scope of his self-realization? Does man become himself by living for himself alone and only entering into relationships with others when he can break them off again at any time? Is lifelong commitment antithetical to freedom? Is commitment also worth suffering for?

Unless you’re asleep at the wheel Bendydick, people do indeed make commitments, they do so because they want to. Â People all over the world come together, have children, live and die. Â Some of them stay together, some of them break up. Â Contrary to popular papal crap, women too make commitments. Â And yeah, we all should be able to leave a relationship. Â Much better to be happy out of a relationship than unhappy in the relationship. Â Nobody wins when unhappiness abounds. Â I’m not suggesting Â that couples don’t try to maintain and nurture their relationships, one should never just give up.

Manâ€™s refusal to make any commitment â€“ which is becoming increasingly widespread as a result of a false understanding of freedom and self-realization as well as the desire to escape suffering â€“ means that man remains closed in on himself and keeps his â€œIâ€ ultimately for himself, without really rising above it.

Talk about make a crisis where none exists. People make commitments everyday. Â And I’m not sure what you mean by the desire to escape suffering, are you saying that if you make a commitment you will suffer? Â Who would willingly do that? Â If you mean that getting married means making some personal sacrifice, then that’s different to suffering.

The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family, made up of father, mother, and child, goes much deeper. While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being â€“ of what being human really means â€“ is being called into question.

Things must be tough when a catholic has to quote a jew on these matters. Â Where does this persecution complex come from? Â There is no ‘attack on the true structure of family’ as far as I can tell no-one is trying to rip apart families. Â The only notion being called into question here is the question of what happens when people don’t fit the mum, dad, child scenario. Â And rightly so. Â The way the church thinks things should be is not based in reality but in a false assumption that all was created by god and written in the bible. Â We’ve moved on.

He quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: â€œone is not born a woman, one becomes soâ€ (on ne naÃ®t pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term â€œgenderâ€ as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society.

By sex you mean male or female. Â It has never been an element given by nature. Â Gender identity has been around for as long as humans, we may have lacked the understanding and society has given gender roles, now we understand that someone’s gender identity may not be as black and white as previously thought.

The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves.

If the theory of gender identity is false, science will sort it out with more research. Â I don’t think that people dispute the idea that they have a natural gender identity. Â It’s not given, its innate. Â While some of us don’t understand how you can be born with one set of equipment but feel like you should have the other set, that doesn’t mean that it’s any less real. Â I have no desire to have sex with lady llamas, my straight friends don’t understand why that’s the case, but they don’t try to deny me my innate nature. Â Why would they? Â I’m not denying my nature any more than someone who is finding their gender identity is denying theirs. Â In fact, I would say that they are trying to throw off theÂ societalÂ expectation that they behave the way society expects based purely on the parts that dangle off their body.

According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed.

Stop taking everything the bible says as gospel. Â Wait…never mind. Â Brace yourself, Bendydick. Â The bible isn’t to be used to describe the nature of man. Â It was written so long ago, long before people began to seriously look at the world. Â It’s just out of date and wrong. Â You can no longer claim things as being ordained by god without providing some research or evidence to back that up. Â The duality of male and female is what you expect, it’s not what being human is all about. Â And yes, that duality is disputed, and it’s disputed because the one size fits all no longer fits, we know this for two reason, science indicates it and people are better able to articulate who they are.

The words of the creation account: â€œmale and female he created themâ€ (Gen 1:27) no longer apply.

They never applied in the first place. Â Gay people, transgender people, intersex people have always been part of our genetic make up as a species. Â At last we recognise the diversity of our nature.

No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female â€“ hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question.

You’ve got it the wrong way around. Â Society created them male and female. Â Now people are free enough to face the reality of their being. Â For me, my reality is how much I love my love llama. Â I didn’t create that reality. Â I accepted it.

From now on he is merely spirit and will.

Yeah, whatever.

The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes manâ€™s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed.

Around the wrong way again, it is the duality that was the manipulation of nature. Â Trying to get people to play the role of male or female based purely on the expectations of society and the bits of a person when they are born. Â Some men and women are ‘complementary’, some men and men are ‘complementary’… you get the picture. Â Again, the thing in dispute here is your expectation that humans should conform to your duality because it says so in the bible.

But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation.

At last, a sentence that makes sense. Â Duality of gender identity and the notion of family are all human constructs. Â Nature, if it could care, doesn’t give a flying duck fat crap about you, me or anything else.

Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him.

Some children are also girls. Â And this is such rubbish. Â A vast, overwhelming majority of births result in the love of one and sometimes two parents. Â Without question, because of our nature, we protect and care for our offspring. Â We do. Â We would do anything to protect them, to suggest otherwise is to miss the point of evolution. Â We are ‘made’ to breed, to continue the line of humanity. Â We are indeed driven by our innate desire to breed.

Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain. When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.

Families don’t need defending. Â Families are what people make them out to be, not some pre-conceivedÂ notion derived from your insanity. Â People will continue to bring children into the world, we will continue to love and protect them, to nurture them. Â If your god is denied then so be it, perhaps finally it will be relegated to the pile of useless humanÂ endeavours, and in true papal authority we are told that defending god is defending man, not woman, but man.

For us to survive, we need to ditch the god rubbish. Â It’s had it’s day and it’s holding us back. Â Having ageing virgins, who live only in communities surrounded by other virgin men isn’t at all healthy.

If anyone is denying their true humanity, it’s that lot.

Bendydick goes on to talk about interfaithÂ dialogue, I’m going to have a go at that one in my next blog.

Cameron Spink on Sex

Bruce — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 07:48:59 +0000

[SOURCE]

Spinksy, Spinksy, Spinksy, you really need to get out and live a little.

When Emma and I announced our engagement there were friends and family who responded in shock because we weren’t living together and presumably hadn’t slept together (these presumptions were correct). Hence some people raised with Emma their concerns about how ignorant we would be about our sexual compatibility (they never seem to raise these issues with me for some reason).

Poor Mrs Spinksy – she could have married a dud root.

I stumbled across an article today by sex therapist Matty Silver who outlined her thoughts on couples who have â€œmismatch[ing] libidosâ€. The idea that both parties should have equal â€œsex driveâ€ is at the heart of this idea of sexual compatibility. Silver’s solution to unequal â€œsex driveâ€ is good communication. And she is right, to an extent. However, her work with couples in regards to sexuality presupposes that love is merely â€œneurotransmitter phenylethylamineâ€¦.. combined with dopamine and norepinephrineâ€ to create â€œpleasingly positive feelings towards each otherâ€ Â We must be aware of our preconceived notions of what love is. It is neither defined by science nor should it be relegated to gushy feelings. Both strip love of its power.

Preconceived ideas, yes, you should be aware of them. Â How easy is Spinksy to throw out the science of love and the reality of how we feel love. Â He must have a really good basis for doing so! Oh, and you don’t stumble across articles like this, you make a decision to click the link. Â The article is from The Age and there is no stumble Spinksy, you used that free will you’re so fond of and clicked the link. Â And just so we are clear, Matty Silver knows a thing or two – she’s done training at a university and everything.

Master of Health Science (Sexual Health)
The University of Sydney

Graduate Diploma of Health Science (Sexual Health)
The University of Sydney

Graduate Diploma of Counselling and Communications
Australian College of Applied Psychology (ACAP)

I guess Matty Silver has some good research to back up her article. Â What’s Spinksy got?

In fact the Bible paints a completely different picture. Wives are to be â€œsubmissiveâ€ to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22) and husbands are to love their wives (Ephesians 5:25). These are doing concepts rather than feeling and don’t fit within romantic or scientific notions of being â€œin loveâ€. If we then move the blowtorch to the idea of sexual compatibility it is clear that the worldly perspective falls a long way short of defining how relationships should be approached in reality. We must be active in doing love not merely hoping to feel love.

Oh, the bible. Â Spinksy is basing his ideas of love on the bible? Â This is the same bible that claims god so loved the world that he sent his only son to be killed for himself to pay for the wrongs of humanity caused by his own creation. Â That sounds loving.

The reason, Spinksy me old mate, that the bible falls a long way short on the perspective of worldly love is because the authors of the bible had a very differentÂ understandingÂ of the world, because the Â University of Sydney was about 2000 years away. Â As they say, we have moved on.

Not only is sexual compatibility a myth but sexual attraction is also a dead end.

I can only assume that Emma and Spinksy are not sexually compatible. Â Whether you want to admit it or not, sexual attraction is the reason you got married, it’s the way it works. Â Just because you didn’t have pre-martial sex doesn’t mean you aren’t sexually attracted to Emma. Â In fact, without that sexual attraction, your relationship would never have started.

There are people who legitimately believe that it is important for couples to be sexually compatible. That sex must be dabbled in before the marriage night just to make sure that you are chaining yourself to the right person. We need to be rid of such immature thought-processes. A marriage commitment does not require sexual compatibility or fornication. In fact, possibly the worst thing you can do for your future marriage is to live together before you tie the knot.

Lions having sex outside marriage

Seriously Spinksy, there are a lot worse things to do in the world than live together and have sex before you get married. Â Dabbling in sex is fun, you should try it. Spinksy simply avoids the obvious truth in the world, people have sex outside and inside marriage. Â They always have. Â I would suggest that it is not all the ‘fornicators’ who have the immature thought-processes. Â Spinksy also avoids the issue that people like Matty Silver are successful because there’s a market for them. Â There are many relationships that fail, and there are many that succeed. Â I would bet that most of those that are success stories had sex a lot before they married. Â What planet are you living on Spinksy?

We need to stop giving opinions like Silver’s any credence. The world suggests many lies and we are not filtering properly. Instead we continue to play church while believing that it is important to ascertain whether we are sexually compatible with our future spouse. News flash, sexual compatibility is the mouth wash of relationships. Its invention has derailed marriage which, despite the naysayers, is an institution that is very good.

Come on. Â You can dismiss whoever you want. Â But it’s not like Matty Silver is silly. Â Perhaps there is something in her way of operating and it’s the likes of christians that need to have their opinions questioned thoroughly and then discarded like a used tissue after a private session.

Might I then present to you something radically different. Sex outside of marriage rather than helping you in your pursuit of sexual compatibility actually sets you up to fail in regards to commitment. We are being set up to fail. Our sexual desires, if we take our ques from society, will be unfulfilled. We will not get what we seek. And so, people throw their relationship under the bus if the other person in the relationship does not satisfy what cannot be satisfied. Perhaps it is worth turning the disappointment around and looking at our perceptions and how they may well be the part of the cause of the problem. Yet we cannot hope to drag our preconceived notions of sexuality out of the mire without the help of somebody uncorrupted by society. But there is no solutions available except the one who created sexuality in the first place.

FFS – I read and re-read. Â That’s just such a load of twaddle crap dipstick duck shit. Â You start by asking to present something radically different and then all you really do is rant about how bad things are. Â I think, but I’m not sure, that your radical idea is getting the help of someone uncorrupted by society – probably your god. Â That’s not radically different, that’s what we expect from religious nutters. Â Your preconceived notions are derived from a book that was written so long ago and has never been updated. Â You want us to accept sexuality as laid out in that thing? Â You seriously think that we need a solution because there is no solution, and the only one available is in the bible? Â You need to do a course on sexual health. I hear Sydney Uni has some on offer.

You see, you may believe that you can keep God away from your sex life, or indeed any part of life you may wish but it simply doesn’t work that way.

Yeah, it’s easy to keep him away, there is no god. Â And it does work that way.

If we divorce our relationship from the intentional plans of God, from His created intent, we are cheapening, abusing and condemning the relationship.

So, if a plan is intentional it’d be nice to know what it was. Â Expecting people to follow your plan when you don’t tell them what it is, is stupid.

We are using the other person, putting them on a pedestal, and when they fail (as they always do) we may call it quits or grow to resent them.

Well yes. Â It’s actually ok, good and healthy to get out of a bad relationship. Â You’re putting Emma up on the pedestal, I hope she’s secure.

Needless to say the introduction of sexual compatibility for the finding of a â€œsoulmateâ€ is a toxic concoction that has proved to be indigestible. We must throw off this charade, and encourage our friends to do so, if we want to live relationships that glorify God.

I’m not sure that the quest to find a ‘soulmate’ is such a bad thing. Â It certainly isn’t toxic, and I don’t see any evidence to prove that it is indigestible, in fact it just feels like you’re making it up as you go along.

It’s you, Spinksy, mate, that need to throw off the charade. Â Living in a relationship to glorify a being that doesn’t interact with you in anyway is crazy talk. Â Really you should focus on your life with Emma and what makes her happy. Â The love you have is to share with her, unhindered by outdated dogma and you should tap into the wealth of knowledge about relationships. Â There is so much stuff out there that will make your relationship zing.

Clearly you need more zing, otherwise your zinger will drop off.

bible – Bruce Llama

God Did It!

Related Posts

Jesus, Billy is missing out

Related Posts

Christians Have a Home!

Related Posts

Learning to Turn The Other Cheek with Great Sage Billy M

Related Posts

The Australian Christians lack respect for our institutions

Related Posts

How to use tragedy to push your religion – Ray Comfort gets it wrong!

Related Posts

Spinksy Snorts at the Universe

Related Posts

Sacerdotus imparts his godly wisdom on the Lame

Related Posts

Pope Confused about his Gender

Related Posts

Cameron Spink on Sex

Related Posts