Self promotion is hardly my strong suit, so I'll keep this short... Introducing the Brain Hulk - Logic Shop! Have you ever wished you could have a Brain Hulk shirt, hat or even a phone case? Well, now you can have one. You can even use your reserves of logic to get a reusable shopping bag so you can take Brain Hulk on all your shopping trips. Help support the site, so I can try and post more often than I presently do. Just follow the above tab, or go to www.cafepress.com/brainhulklogicshop Many thanks to all my readers. And if there are any design or product requests, please let me know and I'll do my best to make them a reality.
-Brain Hulk
Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Monday, June 17, 2013
God: The ultimate deadbeat dad
Unsurprisingly, Billy Graham's letter this Sunday is Father's Day related. Even less surprising is how terrible his answer is...
Reach out to your children this Father's Day
DEAR BILLY GRAHAM: I know I wasn’t a very good father, but I’m an old man now and I really wish I could see my children again. I’ve begged them to forgive me, but they just ignore me. I don’t know why I’m writing, but maybe you can urge fathers to do better than I did. — B.W.
DEAR B.W.: Today, Americans will be celebrating Father’s Day, a special day set aside to honor our fathers and thank God for all they have meant to us. Being a good father isn’t easy, but almost nothing is more important, when we see it from God’s viewpoint.
If you could live your life over again you’d probably try to avoid the bad decisions you made, and you’d try to be a better father. And that’s one reason I wanted to reprint your letter, because it reminds us of what happens when fathers ignore their God-given responsibility to “Train a child in the way he should go” (Proverbs 22:6). God is our heavenly father, and he is our example of what it means to love and care for our children.
What can you do? First, seek God’s forgiveness for the past — not just for the wrongs you did, but also for the good things you failed to do. God loves you (as well as your children), and the greatest discovery you’ll ever make is that he loves you so much he sent his son into the world to die for you. By a simple prayer of faith confess your sins to God and ask Christ to cleanse you and come into your life.
Then do whatever you can this Father’s Day to let your children know you still love them, in spite of your failures. Pray for them also, that God will bring healing to their hurts and help them forgive the past.
Now, I don't know the details of the kind of dad that BW was and is, but the pact that he doesn't seem to be serving a life sentence in prison suggests that he's a better dad than the example set by God in the Bible. But I'll get back to that in a bit...
What the hell is Graham on about? I can tell you that wen I (and most) celebrate Father's Day, it is not to thank God fro what my father means to me, but to thank my father for what he means to me. Why on Earth would someone thank someone who doesn't exist, and if he did, had sod-all to do with what kind of dad my dad was and is? I guess you could thank God if your dad was an overbearing religious follower that shoved the Bible down your neck at every turn... But that definitely wouldn't be something to be thankful for. So instead, I'll thank my dad for being the great dad he's was and continues to be.
But then 'bad news Bill', give the same horrible advice he gave on Mother's Day... Follow God's example of parenthood! How about no... I'm not a horrible individual, and would like to stay that way. Let's look at what kind of god the dear old sky daddy is.
Well, first he tells you from the moment that you are born, that you are a terrible person deserving of eternal torment and anguish. Does that sound like a loving parent? How many dads do you see that start yelling obscenities at their newborn child the moment the moment that leave their mother's womb? None... so the vast majority of parents are better than God right there!What about children loving a parent? Typically, love is reciprocal to some degree. Not so with the Christian god. You must love him no matter what. May I ask if your father threatens you to love him? I know mine doesn't! I love him (and my mother) for who they are and how they've raised me. They provided for me, cared for me, helped me and yes, even disciplined me. But never did they hang horrible penalty above my head like God supposedly does...
If a child doesn't love their father back (be it the father's fault or the child's), they simply lose that relationship. They could have a strained relationship, fight at times, or just not communicate or see each other at all. But God takes to about five-thousand steps further... If you don't love him back (a poor choice of words since it doesn't seem like he loves anyone but himself), he doesn't simply get sad and wish you could make up. No, he sentences you to a fate worse than death. Don't love him and he casts you into eternal fire to burn forever in agony and never-ending torture. Where is the love there?
What would you think if a man kidnapped his child, locked him in his basement and proceeded burn him with cigarettes, electric shocks, break his fingers one at a time, pummel him with his fists, etc? Then wait for him to heal and regain his strength only so he can start the circle of torture once more. And he did all of this because his child didn't love him. What should become of this terribly psychotic father? You'd probably want him locked up for life, and even put to death! Yet that is exactly the fatherly example that God sets. Love me or will wish you had. But the thing is, parents that love their children would never purposely put them through such harm. If you love someone, you don't want to cause them pain, regardless of if they feel the same. Yet God is ready and willing to torture each and every single person that is born. Translation... God doesn't really love anyone.
And then what about Jesus. We are told that God sacrificed his only son for us. But is that really a good story to illustrate an example of fatherhood to strive for? Of course not. He sent his son to die for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Jesus didn't have to die (if the stories were true)! If God wanted to forgive the worthy, he could, you know... just forgive them. I know, talk about a complicated proposition. You want to forgive people, you know who is worthy, so you forgive them without a meaningless hurdle that will only cause less of the worthy to be forgiven, and more of the unworthy to be forgiven. Jesus' death and suffering would have been meaningless, and God would have known this if he really is all knowing.
It would be like you told you grandmother that her cooking was disgusting, and she was outraged by this statement. She loves you though, so she wants to forgive you, BUT there's a catch! She tells you that she's going to send her first son (your uncle) to his death for your insult. If you accept this sacrifice she will forgive you and your hurtful words. Would any sane person make such and insane
So this father's day, and hereafter, do not follow God's example of parenting, and instead be a good parent. Love your children for who they are, and don't try to force them to be something different than they are. And don't try to force love. Forced and demanded love is not love at all. Genuinely thank you dad for his genuine love for you, and if you want to thank a creator, thank your parents, because without them, there would be no you.
-Brain Hulk
Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter
Friday, June 14, 2013
Agnostic or atheist?
Every now and then, the topic of atheist vs agnostic will come up. Sometimes it will be a self described agnostic that claims that atheists are just as close-minded as theists. But usually it is the theist that will try to claim that the atheist really isn't an atheist at all, but is actually agnostic. However, both of these situations simply reflect a common misunderstanding...
In the example where the agnostic is making the claim, the usual argument is that atheists are just as defiantly sure that God doesn't exist, as believers are that he does. But is this really an accurate argument?
In the example where the believer claims that the atheist isn't really an atheist, there is a question they usually ask first. The theist may question if the atheist can be absolutely sure that there is no God. That there is at least some small chance that they could be wrong about there being a God. When the non-believer admits that they can't know with 100% certainty, the theist will declare, "Ah,ha! You're agnostic, not atheist!". But is that true?
In both cases, the conclusions are false, and stem from a misunderstanding as to what the terms atheist and agnostic really mean. But is that not to be somewhat expected when the church has claimed atheists to either be angry with God, worshipers of Satan, outright deniers that God exists, certain that God doesn't exist, or just don't want there to be a God. Considering that none of those are what 'atheist' means, I can see where there could be some confusion.
When you get right down to the simplest meaning, an atheist is simply a person who lack a belief in gods. No need to be certain. No need to claim to know if there is or isn't a God. Quite simply if your answer to the question "Do you believe in God?" is anything other than 'yes', you are an atheist. But shouldn't you be an agnostic if you don't 'know' there is no God? No...
The term atheist is about belief, and agnostic is about knowledge. So the terms really answer two different questions. If you don't believe in any gods, you are an atheist. If you do, you are a theist. If you claim knowledge that there is or isn't a God, you are gnostic. If you don't claim certain knowledge, you are agnostic. This means that most agnostics and atheists are actually 'agnostic atheists'. I actually fall into that classification. I do not believe in God, therefore I am an atheist. But I also don't claim to be absolutely certain that there are no gods. Therefor, I am also agnostic.
Some may ask if there is still room for a standalone agnostic classification. A classification for those that don't believe, and also don't disbelieve... The problem is, that I don't feel that there is an existent position between belief and lack thereof. Remember, if your answer to a question of belief is anything other than 'yes', then you lack belief. If you claim that you 'don't know' if you believe, then you do not believe. Belief is an affirmative stance. Lack of an affirmative stance leaves you with the negative classification. So no, on the question of belief, I do not feel there is a classification between belief, and lack thereof.
All that said, I can understand that some prefer to call themselves simply 'agnostic'. As I said before, the term 'atheist' has an (undeserved) social stigma. In some cases, calling yourself an atheist will land you in a tougher position than calling oneself an agnostic. But remember that the most accurate classification for most non-believers is 'agnostic atheist'. You can be both, and be proud of it. I know I am.
-Brain Hulk
Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter
In the example where the agnostic is making the claim, the usual argument is that atheists are just as defiantly sure that God doesn't exist, as believers are that he does. But is this really an accurate argument?
In the example where the believer claims that the atheist isn't really an atheist, there is a question they usually ask first. The theist may question if the atheist can be absolutely sure that there is no God. That there is at least some small chance that they could be wrong about there being a God. When the non-believer admits that they can't know with 100% certainty, the theist will declare, "Ah,ha! You're agnostic, not atheist!". But is that true?
In both cases, the conclusions are false, and stem from a misunderstanding as to what the terms atheist and agnostic really mean. But is that not to be somewhat expected when the church has claimed atheists to either be angry with God, worshipers of Satan, outright deniers that God exists, certain that God doesn't exist, or just don't want there to be a God. Considering that none of those are what 'atheist' means, I can see where there could be some confusion.
When you get right down to the simplest meaning, an atheist is simply a person who lack a belief in gods. No need to be certain. No need to claim to know if there is or isn't a God. Quite simply if your answer to the question "Do you believe in God?" is anything other than 'yes', you are an atheist. But shouldn't you be an agnostic if you don't 'know' there is no God? No...
The term atheist is about belief, and agnostic is about knowledge. So the terms really answer two different questions. If you don't believe in any gods, you are an atheist. If you do, you are a theist. If you claim knowledge that there is or isn't a God, you are gnostic. If you don't claim certain knowledge, you are agnostic. This means that most agnostics and atheists are actually 'agnostic atheists'. I actually fall into that classification. I do not believe in God, therefore I am an atheist. But I also don't claim to be absolutely certain that there are no gods. Therefor, I am also agnostic.
Some may ask if there is still room for a standalone agnostic classification. A classification for those that don't believe, and also don't disbelieve... The problem is, that I don't feel that there is an existent position between belief and lack thereof. Remember, if your answer to a question of belief is anything other than 'yes', then you lack belief. If you claim that you 'don't know' if you believe, then you do not believe. Belief is an affirmative stance. Lack of an affirmative stance leaves you with the negative classification. So no, on the question of belief, I do not feel there is a classification between belief, and lack thereof.
All that said, I can understand that some prefer to call themselves simply 'agnostic'. As I said before, the term 'atheist' has an (undeserved) social stigma. In some cases, calling yourself an atheist will land you in a tougher position than calling oneself an agnostic. But remember that the most accurate classification for most non-believers is 'agnostic atheist'. You can be both, and be proud of it. I know I am.
-Brain Hulk
Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter
Thursday, June 13, 2013
The fence test?
Another day, another chain email... This one is reported to be a list by Jeff Foxworthy that will point out if you are a Republican or Democrat. First of all, the list does not originate from the comedian it is attributed to. Secondly, it becomes apparent very quickly that the 'list' is hugely biased. Now, I am not a Republican or Democrat, but I'd say I lean closer to Democrat if I was forced to choose one over the other. So allow me to examine this list from my unaffiliated perspective, as well as the views or Democrat friends of mine...
I could say that if a Democrat doesn't like abortion, she just doesn't have one.
If a Republican doesn't like abortion, they want to outlaw it and/or violate women to keep them from having one.
Obviously not all Republicans feel this way, but if we are just amplifying stereotype, Republicans have just as much or more mud to wear than the Democrats. So how about we actually focus on facts for a change?
-Brain Hulk
Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter
Which side of the fence?Wrong! I don't like guns, yet support the second amendment. My solution? I don't buy one. Unsurprisingly, Democrat friends of mine follow the same example. The problem here is the fantasy that gun control = outlawing guns. That's simply false and a play on exaggerated fear.
If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.Tell me this one is a joke. I have never once seen a Democrat advocate the outlawing of meat products. If a Democrat is a vegetarian, they simply don't eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.No, a democrat asks for the equal treatment that has been unfairly kept from them. I would not be surprised if a Republican homosexual were in favor of equality as well. But what about Republicans on homosexuality? The party position seems to be the restrict homosexuals to second class status, and to restrict access to the rights that rightfully theirs. IE: fighting against marriage equality.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.Again, incorrect. When I have tough times, I work hard to better my situation. I have Democrat and Republican friends that do the same. Likewise, I know Republicans and Democrats that simply want to be taken care of for free. Contrary to your claim, it's not a Republican or Democrat thing.
A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.Come again? I've heard of Republican's setting up boycotts of shows that they don't like, as well as calling on advertisers to stop supporting the show. The same can be said of Democrats. Republicans have called for certain hosts to be fired, Democrats have called out against certain hosts. Both situations are sad. People have free speech rights, agree or not, they have the right to say what they want.
Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.That's either a bold faced lie, or someone being pissed about not being able to force their religion on everyone. A Democrat or non-believer does not call for every mention of God and religion to be silenced. What we speak out about are Constitutional violations of church/state separation. You can talk about and worship your god all you want. But you may be break the law and forecfeed your religion in public schools and courthouses.
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.I hope this list wasn't written by Pinocchio, otherwise his nose is probably long enough to span the Pacific... I know a Republicans that shop around for insurance, and I know one that is riding the free train from coast to coast. I also know someone who is a left wing as anyone I've ever met that works a lower paying job, just because it offered healthcare.
A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.A good laugh over inaccurate info? Okay, if that's how you get your jollies, I guess it is what it is. I wouldn't so much say I'm offended so much as disappointed about how lazy people can be in their research. Does the truth matter, or would you rather just perpetuate stereotypes?
A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".
I could say that if a Democrat doesn't like abortion, she just doesn't have one.
If a Republican doesn't like abortion, they want to outlaw it and/or violate women to keep them from having one.
Obviously not all Republicans feel this way, but if we are just amplifying stereotype, Republicans have just as much or more mud to wear than the Democrats. So how about we actually focus on facts for a change?
-Brain Hulk
Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
NYC: Madison Ave or Muslim Ave?
It's chain email time once more! Are Muslim's taking over New York City? Let's look at the email, then lets look at the facts...
DO NOT JUST LOOK AT THE PICTURES. PLEASE READ THE BOTTOM
COMMENTS CLOSELY !!
This is in NYC on Madison Ave – not France, Yemen, Kenya or the Middle East
A Christian Nation cannot put up a Christmas scene of the baby Jesus in
a public place, but the Muslims can stop normal traffic every Friday afternoon
by worshiping in the streets.... Something is happening in America that is
reminiscent of what is happening in Europe . This is Political Correctness
gone crazy... Scary! Isn't it?
Is there a message here???? Yes, there is, and they are claiming America for Allah. If we don't wake up soon, we are going to "politically correct"ourselves right out of our own country!
PLEASE SEND THIS TO EVERY CHRISTIAN AMERICAN YOU KNOW!!!!
Are Muslims stopping traffic in NYC every Friday to pray? No, that's just an outright lie. The pictures in the email are not of a weekly event, but of an annual one. They are from the annual Muslim Pride Parade. An event that has been taking place since 1985. The email pictures are from the 2009 event. Last I checked Islam is only the religion of choice for 0.6% of Americans. There are even more Jehovah's Witnesses (0.7%) and Buddhists (0.7%) than Muslims in the USA! So for an event that has been taking place since 1985, it is hardly taking over America.
While I can appreciate that this parade, and all that stop traffic in busy areas like this can be annoying, they still have the right. I do not agree with Islam, but as Americans, they have the right to peacefully assemble. Additionally, being a parade, they would have had to go through the same permitting process as any other similar event.
Most importantly, the declaration that the United States is a Christian nation is an outright falsehood. Yes, the USA is populated with more Christians (78.4% of the population) than any other faith groups. But that makes it a nation populated by a great number of Christians, but it does not make it a Christian nation. To call the USA a Christian nation for those reasons would also require you to call this a white nation or a female nation. But to do that would be equally as wrong as the claim of teh USA as a Christian nation.
But history paints an even clearer picture. The treaty of Tripoli (signed by President Adams) states:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religionNot is any sense founded on the Christian religion? That sounds pretty cut and dry to me. But maybe the Constitution has something to say as well...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofWell lookie there! The United States may not make a law respecting an establishment of religion, so there may be no official national religion. Also, the free exercise clause means that Christians and teh government may not stop this Muslim parade from taking place (or Muslims stopping a Christian parade). The first Amendment protects all equally.
And what are you getting at with the 'Christians can't display Jesus' BS? Christians can display Jesus all they want, but not on government property. Likewise, Muslims can't do the same on government property. The establishment clause strikes again! Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state means that the government may not grant preference to any one religion over another. That means either not allowing religion, or allowing them all.
What we probably have here, is yet another example of Christianity wanting it all their way. Muslims exercising their rights? We must stop them! We aren't being allowed to force our religion on everyone, even in schools and government buildings? Ignore the law and scream persecution!
So yes, while I would be annoyed by this parade getting in my way, it is only an annual event, not a weekly one. Take some time to look at the facts before spouting off. Otherwise you weaken your own argument when your 'logic' is found to be wanting.
-Brain Hulk
Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter
Monday, June 10, 2013
Class of lowered expectations
This week students everywhere are graduating from high school. With all the reports on the news and stories in the newspaper, it reminded me of the last time I attended a high school graduation...At that graduation I was reminded of a portion of the public that I feel perpetuates a standard that I feel holds our education system behind. A 2012 study placed America's public education system in 17th position among 50 nations. The rankings looked like this:
1) Finland
2) South Korea
3) Hong Kong
4) Japan
5) Singapore
6) United Kingdom
7) Netherlands
8) New Zealand
9) Switzerland
10) Canada
11) Ireland
12) Denmark
13) Australia
14) Poland
15) Germany
16) Belgium
17) United States
What's to blame for this 17th place ranking? I'd contend that it's a lowering of expectations (and inadequate funding). A rewarding and over celebrating of the lowest levels of success. Allow me to provide an example...
At that last graduation, there were families sitting in front and behind (though there were many other like them there). The procession started. Their child walked by, and they initiated their deafening screams of, "You did it!!!!!! You actually did it!!!!!!! That's my baby!!!!!! You did it!!!!!! You graduated!!!!!! Way to go!!!!! " Etc...
Okay, so you're probably asking yourself what is wrong with them being proud of their child? And I will tell you right now that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being proud of ones child. But I am certain all of us have met people like those I am discussing here. The ones who go on and on about trivial successes at the office, expect praise for doing what they should do anyway or rewarded for simple help given.
The way in which these parents cries were emphasized, you would have though the kid had just just won the Nobel Prize or mastered quantum physics. Something truly exceptional and extraordinary. Something... unexpected. These people are proud, and rightfully so. But they should be proud of the journey their child has made... That they are taking that next step in life... If they did above average or exemplary in their studies and of the people they have become. But not of the simple fact of the graduation. But that is the part some parents focus on and make the act of graduating itself something surprisingly remarkable.
And this is the underlying cause that is what actually annoys me. Shouldn't we live in a society where something as important as graduating high school is expected? Where those who fail to, well... failed! We live in a time where where everything seems to be rewarded and shortcomings are sugar coated and swept under the rug. What the hell is wrong with a little accountability and giving credit where credit is due? Every little thing is twisted into a reason to celebrate and congratulate. Preschools and kindergartens are even holding graduation ceremonies complete with cap's, gown's, and diploma's! Sure, they look cute, but what is there to celebrate? That little Joey and Sue excelled at nap time and play time?
But the thing about high school graduation is that it is really just a foregone conclusion for the vast majority of students. So actually graduating really isn't all that special. What you did with that time, what you learned, how it prepared you for life and what your GPA rank was, ARE important. Did the person who graduated with a 2.1 GPA actually do anything remarkable? Or did they simply waste years that they could have used to further their future? The answers are 'no' and 'yes'.
The actual act of graduation for me, was simply a milestone. A marker for memories for what had been and hope for what was to come. Was I overwhelmingly proud that I graduated? No. I was proud, but didn't feel that act of doing so was anything remarkable. However, doing so as valedictorian and the knowledge I gained, was something I was extremely proud of and will always stick with me.
All that said, I still feel that graduation is a time to celebrate and enjoy. I just hope that everyone focuses on what is really important and hoists the simple act of graduation to be some grand achievement that it isn't. Yes, they may be starting a new chapter in their life, but that is a journey that almost all will take. High school gradation is an achievement, but not an exemplary one. And until we set this task as no more than the minimum threshold of achievement I feel American will continue to fall behind. Lets not celebrate all 'achievements' big and small equally, but instead emphasize the best and the brightest. By emphasizing and rewarding the ideal you will incentivize the reaching for greatness, rather than satisfaction with mediocrity.
-Brain Hulk
Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter
Saturday, June 8, 2013
For God so loved the world…
…that he deemed that all are deserving of eternal torment. Look at the person on your left, your right, behind you, in the mirror. Picture them engulfed in the agony of never-ending fire. Picture yourself meeting that same fate.
What about your husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend, son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, father, friends, family, coworkers, and even perfect strangers? Ask God, and he’d tell you that all deserve no less than endless torture.
Why? How could anyone deserve such a fate? In God’s eye, all it takes is simply being born. Yes, from the innocent newborn, to the kindly aged, the moment of birth somehow justifies this vilest of fates. Think of all those people I mentioned prior. Have any of them ever done anything, for which you would wish them to burn alive for all eternity?
What would it take for you to wish unending torture on another? Would it be enough if someone murdered your child or loved one? Or would their own death satisfy you? The point is that there are very few crimes that most people would append an eternal sentence to. Yet, that is the only sentence that the Christian god employs.
In the civilized world, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. But that is not the Christian view of the world. All are guilty and deserving of the maximum sentence. This is true at the moment of birth. No matter if your future crime is minor, major or imagined. Who could call such a thing justice? Who would dare to call that love?
Nay, the Christian god is not one who speaks of love. And original sin does not help this vain deities cause. The supposed sin of Adam of Eve would have ended with their individual punishment with a loving god. Do we imprison a rapist’s child with him because of his father’s crimes? So why then, should we accept that original sin damns all to eternal agony in Hell?
The answer is simple. We should never accept such an answer. Christianity’s god is not one of love. Rather, he is cruel and is hungry for power and control. If he were real, such a god would not be worthy of worship. On the contrary, he would more resemble the evils he is said to oppose. So don’t buy into the fantasies that the Christian god is one of love. We know better and see him for the villain he truly is.
-Brain Hulk
Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter
What about your husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend, son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, father, friends, family, coworkers, and even perfect strangers? Ask God, and he’d tell you that all deserve no less than endless torture.
Why? How could anyone deserve such a fate? In God’s eye, all it takes is simply being born. Yes, from the innocent newborn, to the kindly aged, the moment of birth somehow justifies this vilest of fates. Think of all those people I mentioned prior. Have any of them ever done anything, for which you would wish them to burn alive for all eternity?
What would it take for you to wish unending torture on another? Would it be enough if someone murdered your child or loved one? Or would their own death satisfy you? The point is that there are very few crimes that most people would append an eternal sentence to. Yet, that is the only sentence that the Christian god employs.
In the civilized world, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. But that is not the Christian view of the world. All are guilty and deserving of the maximum sentence. This is true at the moment of birth. No matter if your future crime is minor, major or imagined. Who could call such a thing justice? Who would dare to call that love?
Nay, the Christian god is not one who speaks of love. And original sin does not help this vain deities cause. The supposed sin of Adam of Eve would have ended with their individual punishment with a loving god. Do we imprison a rapist’s child with him because of his father’s crimes? So why then, should we accept that original sin damns all to eternal agony in Hell?
The answer is simple. We should never accept such an answer. Christianity’s god is not one of love. Rather, he is cruel and is hungry for power and control. If he were real, such a god would not be worthy of worship. On the contrary, he would more resemble the evils he is said to oppose. So don’t buy into the fantasies that the Christian god is one of love. We know better and see him for the villain he truly is.
-Brain Hulk
Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)









