Search This Blog


Friday, August 8, 2014

Should the Pledge have been changed?

When the Pledge of Allegiance was created it did not contain the words, under God". Therefore, the entirety  of the Pledge was altered  when the words were added. The Pledge was written in 1892. It was not until 1954 that the additional words were added. For 62 years, the Pledge allowed Americans of ALL beliefs to proudly make a statement of allegiance to this great country. The Pledge without those two words, was sufficient to get us through WW I & II and the Great Depression. 

However, now, the original and completely satisfactory Pledge has been altered and made a point of controversy. If it had never been changed, then ALL Americans could still proudly make a statement of allegiance to the USA without compromising who they are and what they believe. 

I am sure Christians feel the Pledge was enhanced with these words, but many disagree. Given that was never necessary to change this Pledge, it is unfortunate that one group in America has hijacked the Pledge that was meant for all citizens.

Monday, August 4, 2014

Does the Hebrew word Chuwg mean a flat circle like a coin or a sphere?

The Hebrew word Chug (חוג) means a flat-circle like a coin. The Hebrew word for a sphere like a ball is Dur (דור). He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball (Dur) into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house. (Isaiah 22:18) While the Hebrew language lacked a specific term for sphere, we can tell from the way the word is used in other verses, that it is referring to a flat circle. Dur is not exclusively a word for sphere, but it is much closer to describing the earth than a circle is. Is. 29:3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee. Obviously the soldier would not camp around a sphere but encircle the city. The root of chûgh (or chug) is mentioned six times in the bible, and it is quite evident from its usage, in context, that it refers to a specific geometrical shape; "A circle as drawn with a compass" or "encompassed". In Job 26:10 and Prov. 8:27, chûgh is used with choq, intending "to inscribe a circle." This nominal infinitive form also appears in Job 22:14, when signifying "the circle of the heavens"In Isa. 40:22, where it denotes "the circle of the earth".43:12 uses chûgh as description of the rainbow.In Isa. 44:13, chûgh appears as mechûghah, which simply means "a compass," in other words the geometrical instrument which you use to can draw circles on a paper. In contemporary Hebrew cosmology the common belief was that the earth was formed as a plano-concave plate with slightly raised edges covered by high mountains, where the heavens were attached to the earth. In the second part of the above mentioned verse by Isaiah this becomes quite obvious when god stretched out the heavens over the earth like a canopy - which completely lose all meaning and become utterly absurd if you try to apply the text to an image of a spherical earth. However, it fits perfectly with a flat earth model. Moreover, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Jeremiah 16:19 and Daniel 4:11 all claim that the earth has ends (or edges depending on what version you read) But regardless of translation, a sphere has neither edges, nor ends. But a two-dimensional flat form does. In Job 11:9 you can read: "Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea" which also become quite incomprehensible if you try to apply the verse to a spherical conception of the world, but again corresponds completely with the idea of a flat earth . Finally, in Job 38:44 it says: "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?" If the author would have had a spherical shape in mind, the last question in Job should have read "Who stretched a measuring line around it?"  

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Why Jesus could not be used as a sacrifice.

There are several verses that indicate that God is against child sacrifice. God expressly forbids it:
  • Deuteronomy 12:31: You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.
  • Deuteronomy 18:9-12: When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire...Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.
and its practice is described as evil:
  • 2 Kings 16:3: He walked in the ways of the kings of Israel and even sacrificed his son in the fire, following the detestable ways of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.
  • Psalm 106:38: They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood.
  • Jeremiah 19:4-5: For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal - something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.
The OT doesn't prescribe or require human sacrifice. All the rules concerning what sorts of offerings were acceptable for various purposes mention only animals, birds, and grain - humans are never mentioned as an option. 

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

The Real Martyrs


1546 Etienne Dolet, French printer and bookseller and passionate advocate of learning, was imprisoned several times for his outspoken criticisms of the Church.
Dolet was condemned for atheism and burnt at Lyons, along with his books, leaving his family destitute.

1553 Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician who discovered pulmonary blood circulation (an advance upon Galen) fled the Inquisition and thought himself safe among Protestants.
Big mistake.
John Calvin, the puritanical "Protestant Pope" of Geneva proved his Christian credentials by having Servetus burnt at the stake for heresy. Servetus had criticized the Trinity and infant baptism.

"The Dutch Radicals did not forget to question, when questioning had gone out of fashion for the rest of theology."
– Albert Schweitzer, Geschichte der paulinischen Forschung, 108.

1589 Francis Kett, a tutor at Bene't (Corpus Christi), Cambridge, expressed doubts that JC may not have been the great moralist Christians believed.
For his audacity the professor was burnt to ashes.

1600 Giordano Bruno, Italian philosopher who taught in Paris and Wittenberg, paid the ultimate price for thinking for himself.
After languishing for 7 years in a dungeon of the Inquisition, where he was subjected to repeated torture, he was condemned and burned at the stake.
Bruno had had the audacity to suggest that space was boundless and that the sun and its planets were not unique.

1619 Lucilio Vanini (aka 'Giulio Cesare' - 'Julius Caesar').
Philosopher, teacher and freethinker, in 1616 the ex-Carmelite monk Vanini imprudently published his thoughts in “De admirandis naturae reginae deaeque mortalium arcanis” (“of the marvelous secrets of the queen and goddess of the mortal ones, nature."
His ideas included the possibility of human evolution from apes and the denial of an immortal soul.
Vanini rejected Christianity as a fiction invented by priests and argued for natural explanations for miracles. As a result he had to flee from place to place to avoid Catholic persecution.
But he was taken at Toulouse, condemned, his tongue cut out, strangled and burnt.

Thomas Paine (1737-1809) – revolutionary champion of liberty.
"I detest the Bible as I detest everything that is cruel."

Bruno Bauer (1809-1882) – the original iconoclast.


Kersey Graves (1813-1883) – Quaker who saw through the Jesus fraud.

Arthur Drews (1865-1935) – one of the great German pioneers in the denial of the historical existence of Jesus.
"The 'historical' Jesus is not earlier but later than Paul; and as such he has always existed merely as an idea, as a pious fiction in the minds of members of the community."
– Drews, The Religious Problem of the Present.

Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga (1874-1957) – Dutch theologian and New Testament professor who refuted the existence of Jesus.

The End is Nigh

"Not only has the divinity of Christ been given up, but his existence as a man is being more and more seriously questioned.
Some of the ablest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all.
A commanding literature dealing with the inquiry, intense in its seriousness and profound and thorough in its research, is growing up in all countries, and spreading the conviction that Christ is a myth.
Jesus ... will have to take his place with the host of other demigods whose fancied lives and deeds make up the mythology of the world."
– Marshall J. Gauvin (Did Jesus Christ Really Live? 1922)


"Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him."
- The philosopher Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not a Christian". (1927 lecture).

Dead Sea Scroll Scholar

In 1970 biblical scholar and Dead Sea Scroll expert John Allegro argued for the non-existence of Jesus Christ.
Allegro's thesis associated notions of the godman with narcotic-induced visions.
The hallucinatory plant in question was Amanita Muscaria (Fly-Agaric), the phallic mushroom, arguably used by early Christians and interpreted as a virgin (i.e. seedless) birth and "God come in the flesh."
Allegro was subjected to acrimonious fury and ostracised. He died in 1988.

High on Jesus?

Born Again Atheist

Evangelist who "threw out the bath water and discovered there was no baby there."

“There is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, during his entire lifetime.
This does not disprove his existence, but it certainly casts great doubt on the historicity of a man who was supposedly widely known to have made a great impact on the world. Someone should have noticed.”
Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist (1992, p. 360).

Historian comes off the fence
"I have come to realize that mythicism is significantly more probably true than historicity. This I consider as radical a departure from my previous agnosticism as my agnosticism was from my previous historicism."
– Richard Carrier, Editor-in-Chief, Internet Infidels, July 18, 2005

Thursday, June 26, 2014

How would stars fall to earth?

“Behold, I have told you in advance. So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.“ (Matthew 24: 25-34)"

So, I was reading this verse and this line jumped out at me, "--and the stars will fall from the sky--". 

Now a star is actually a sun and many suns are even bigger than ours. But if a star started to fall, where would it go? Unless it fell to earth, we would not really see anything unless we were tracking it with a telescope. But as a light in the sky, if a star moved somewhere else, we would not really see anything other than the same light in the sky. And what does it mean that a star is falling? There is no up or down in space.

The only way we would be aware of a star falling is if it fell to earth. And if a star fell to earth, our planet would be completely destroyed. Given that the verse says that stars, plural, will fall, then the earth would be inundated by numerous, much larger bodies. One star would destroy us if it hit the earth, and if many stars all fell to earth, the result would just be overkill.

When a Christian says they believe that everything in the bible is completely accurate, ask them how the earth would survive being destroyed by much larger suns hitting us.

Monday, May 19, 2014

Being self-righteous

Self-righteous Christians Defined: Is This the Norm?
by Rich Deem


Christians seem to like to tell other people how to behave and act as if they never do anything wrong. They also tend to focus only upon a few moral issues - namely abortion and gay marriage - seemingly to the exclusion of more important issues, such as justice and care for the poor. Is this the kind of behavior the Bible commends or are these people acting against what biblical Christianity actually stands for?

What is being self-righteous?

To begin the discussion, it would be good to know what the words "self-righteous" really mean. Here is the definition from the The American Heritage Dictionary1:
self-right·eous (sělf'rī'chəs)
  1. Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic.
  2. Exhibiting pious self-assurance: self-righteous remarks.
So, a self-righteous person is one who acts as if he is morally superior to everyone else.

Righteousness and the Christian

If there is anything that is antithetical to Christianity, it is a person who thinks that they can be righteous by their own good works. The Bible says that all people are sinners and that none can meet God's standard for righteousness.2
Yet, wait a minute. God allowed Noah to survive because he was a righteous man.

This is the account of Noah and his family.
Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God. 10

How could Noah be righteous, if no one can achieve gods idea of perfection?

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Definition of Conundrum

The definition of the word Conundrum is: something that is puzzling or confusing.
Here are six Conundrums of socialism in the United States of America:

1. America is described as capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.

2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.

3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives who they elect run the government.

4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.

5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.

6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about -yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

Think about it! And that, my friends, pretty much sums up the USA in
the 21st Century.

Makes you wonder who is doing the math.

These three, short sentences tell you a lot about the direction of our current government and cultural environment:

1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few
lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.

And here's another one worth considering...

2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money? What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't. Think about it.....

and Last but not least,

3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army to a level lower than before WWII, but we are not stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens.

Am I the only one missing something?