Anti-Free Thought

I find this interesting and timely.

Americans don’t want their government telling them what to think or how to express themselves but they’re more than happy to let their employers tell them what to think or how to express themselves. And they’re happy to tell other people’s employers how to express themselves and what patriotism means.

Why is it bad for one group to control our thoughts and not bad for another group to do the exact same thing?

And how is demanding your employee genuflect to a flag different than ISIS demanding we bend a knee to Allah? Are those both dogmatic faith based methods of arriving at truth?

If we’re happy to let our employers tell us what patriotism is maybe we should be happy to let them tell us what god to pray to or how to pray or not pray at all?

Ahh ahh but those ideas are off the table. We don’t tolerate our employers telling us what to pray to. If that’s the case, why do we tolerate our employer telling us other deeply held beliefs we should adhere to? Like what patriotism is?

Let’s be consistent and put all thoughts, ideas and expressions on the table for our employers to dictate to us or not depending on their whims, right?

Once one tells others what to think or how to express themselves they’ve removed themselves from the table of free thought.

American Rant

Do my fellow Americans seriously want their employer dictating to them what it means to be an American? Apparently, yes. They do.

They want their employers tellling them when to genuflect to the flag. Does your employer have you sing the anthem at the beginning of each shift? No? Why not? Are they not American? I haven’t heard the anthem sung at any McDonalds drive thrus. Ever. Does Fox News sing the anthem every morning? Commies, right?

One American value I adhere to is I do not get to dictate to others how or what to think or how to express themselves. But, apparently, my fellow Americans disagree with me. They want to dictate to others what they should think and how they should express their deeply held beliefs. Boy…is my thumb not on the pulse of America.

What if your employer decided you needed to stand to a song by Kid Rock(like one where he samples another band because Kid is to inept to come up with his own riff) in honor of our Dear Leader Donald J. Trump and if you didn’t you would be fired?

Employers have no business dictating to their employees what it means to be an American.

But the NFL gets to do that. A private corporation gets to dictate to others how they should express themselves. While at the same time genuflecting to the flag and anthem, acting Uber American, and denying others the right to those values represented in the anthem and flag. Oh the irony and disingenuousness.

Our Dear Leader Trump and the NFL and many of the fans of the NFL, who want to dictate to me what it means to be American, can excuse themselves from the table of free thought and free expression. They don’t adhere to those values. They will dictate when we bow to their ideas. Their gods. Their statues.

Feel free to stand for the anthem. Salute the flag. Wear it as a cape or as underwear. Burn it. Reject it. Make your own flag. Compose your own anthem. But dont ever let others compromise your thoughts, ideas, deeply held beliefs or values.

Ask those who do to pound sand.

#ImWithKap

Free Speech Mother Fucker(In A Nice Way)

I’m confused. If Islam is a religion of peace then one shouldn’t have to worry about one’s security for simply criticizing the doctrine of Islam and the interpretations of that doctrine by it’s adherents. So why isn’t this the case? Ayana Hirsi Ali canceled her trip to Australia because of security concerns. 
It seems we’re not even at the point of being able to openingly critic ideas one finds abhorrent. If we support free speech should we support one’s right to speak out about how they see Islam, meaning it’s doctrine, and how they see some of it’s adherents interpreting it’s doctrine which can lead to behaviors? Negative behaviors that impact others? Like banning gay marriage? Or not allowing women to drive? Or work? Or go anywhere without a guardian?
It baffles me. I see many liberals, progressives and lefties openly criticize Christianity but when it comes to Islam they take it off the table. Are they proponents of free speech?
Do they have to couch what they say about Christians with statements like, “Not all Christians…” when they talk about Senators who use Christian doctrine to justify denying women reproductive rights? I’m not seeing that. Or when Westboro Baptist Church uses Christian doctrine to say things like, “God hates fags” when we can draw a direct line from that belief to the doctrine of Christianity? 
It seems many liberals are able to distinguish different interpretations of Christianity from one another but when it comes to Islam they lump all Muslims together as a monolith who interpret the Quran and Hadith in the same way. 
Similar to the Old Testament we can draw direct lines between beliefs and behavior in the Quran as well. Allah condemns non believers ad nauseam. He commands its adherents to kill them. Many Muslims ignore these commands, thankfully. I applaud them. 
The vast majority of Christians are able to ignore many of the horrific commands by Bible God. Bible God commands adherents to kill those who eat shrimp, work on the sabbath, children who curse their parents, those who wear mixed fabrics and people who may claim other gods are the one true god. 
How are Christians able to ignore these verses? Why aren’t we seeing Christians killing those who work on the sabbath? How are they able to ignore the more toxic ideas in their holy book? 
They’re able to do this because the work of those who spoke out against those bad ideas over the centuries and forced Christianity to capitulate. To capitulate to the values of modernity. Christianity slammed up against reasoning and science and had to reconcile with it or vanish. It reformed itself. Not internally but externally. That’s what I see Ayaan doing. Criticizing a bad idea, attempting to force it into the modern world.
But more importantly, do I not have the right to criticize how I see the Bible? Do I have the right to condemn those bad ideas in the Bible? Can I say the God of the Bible is an abhorrent monster? I find him disgusting. Can I not say that? According to the Bible I can’t. Adherents should kill me for doing so. But they don’t. Why not?
That’s what we’re talking about with Ayaan. She’s simply speaking out about how she see’s things. But let me grant you that she’s a bigot. Are we saying bigots don’t have the right to express their bigoted ideas and expect to feel safe? 
Cuz that’s what I’m hearing. 
When you take ideas off the table for criticism or mockery, expect to have your ideas taken off the table. Ideas that are not offensive don’t need free speech protection. It’s the one’s we find offensive that do.

Silence

This killer article by Robyn Blumner Here is what inspired the following.

Let’s try the headline like this, “Democrats diss blacks, but still count on our votes”. That shouldn’t hit anyone who opposes bigotry any differently than having the label “atheist” in the headline. But it does. Why is that? 

This is equivalent to the raging bigotry of Donald Trump. It’s raging bigotry. Top DNC officials, who have since resigned, and at least one who was picked up by Hillary Clinton, wondered if smearing Bernie Sanders as an atheist would be a wise move to help Hillary Clinton win the nomination. That’s a fact. 

When will Hillary disavow this bigotry? How can she when a line can be drawn from her to this type of bigoted thinking? Hillary is the Queen of identity politics so it’s troubling when she does not reach out to atheists but, instead, does the opposite. She appears to endorse bigotry towards atheists. How? By appointing the former head, who also resigned in shame, to her campaign. I think the appointment was within an hour of resigning. That’s a throat clearing endorsement of the behavior of the DNC. I hear incessant shouting about how Trump is a bigot from Hillary supporters but not a peep about the DNC’s bigotry or that of Clinton. Why is that? Is some bigotry good?

This is only one reason, and a deal breaker, why I can no longer support a party who brushes bigotry under the rug. And the reason they can brush it under the rug is because many of my fellow liberals are silent. Silent. 

If you’re appealing to Trump supporters to NOT support Trump because of his bigotry, and he is a flaming bigot, shouldn’t we call out the bigotry of the DNC and Hillary as well?

Let’s pile this on. 2013 Hillary finally came out for marriage equality. When it was nice and safe. Well into adulthood Hillary was more than happy to tell us, one time from the Senate floor, about her bigotry toward gays and lesbians. Those against gay marriage had nothing but a bigoted position. To deny equal rights to people based on an immutable characteristic is bigotry. Even when wrapped in a holy book.

Remember, when Hillary points her finger at Trump for his bigotry she has 3 pointing back at her.

I love Bernie Sanders. I love his ideas more. If we found out Bernie had bigoted ideas we should call those out. If we discovered some of his ideas were bigoted we should discard those immediately. I have no allegiance to any politician. Maybe this will help demonstrate what I mean? Bernie asked me to vote for Hillary. Bad idea. I’ve rejected that idea of Bernie’s and I’ll keep the good ideas. Like no TPP, end Citizens United, publicly funded elections, regulate Wall Street, etc.

I find it very sad the party who gladly and eagerly takes the moral high ground on fighting bigotry is in fact bigoted. What’s sadder is the silence.

A conversation with @BlessingCounter

@BlessingCounter
I applaud your ability to take my questions to heart and examine why you believe what you believe. Your blog post was thoughtful and showed your open mindedness to examine your beliefs. 
If I’m understanding correctly it seems the Bible is the foundation to why you believe your god is true or real or exists. Please correct me if I’ve misunderstood. But if that’s the case I’d like to push a little deeper. Let’s say the vast majority of Bible scholars discovered the Bible was unreliable. Let’s say they discovered the Bible was completely made up. Not true. Would you still believe your god exists? If you still believed your god exists then the Bible wouldn’t be the reason you believe. So why do you believe? 
I find belief revision valuable. How do we revise our beliefs in the event we’re wrong? It seems you have no way to correct your belief about your god existing. If one believes things based on evidence it’s possible new evidence could come forward compelling one to change one’s mind. If I understood correctly you couldn’t identify what it would take to change your mind. So if that’s the case are you really using evidence to base your belief a god exists? Here’s why I ask…
You said, “There is nothing in this life that could change my mind. I’ve seen God’s grace alive and active in my life and in the lives of others. It’s faith, not pie in the sky by and by, but grounded on the foundation of Jesus, the Word of God and a host of others who have searched, studied, and clung to the evidence that supports the truths of the Bible.”
Here you mention faith and evidence. I’d be curious to know how you define faith and evidence. If you had to choose between believing your god exists based on only one which would you prefer? Would you rather believe based on only faith? Or would you rather believe based on only evidence?
I know I’ve thrown a lot at you here. Again, I’d like to thank you for your thoughtful blog post and engaging in civil conversation with me. 

Jesus says advice is cheap

The words of Jesus that follow may be some of the worst advice I’ve heard. The lack of value Jesus puts on the only life we know is staggering. It is an experiment towards maximizing human suffering. And an experiment carried out in modern day Africa where we can readily see the atrocious results played out in staggering levels. Why send help to the poor and starving if what Jesus says is true? Maybe they’re “true” believers in Jesus? I see very few Christians following this advice because it’s self evidently horrific. In addition, many Christian charities proactively work against this advice and help those in need, including themselves. And I applaud them.  

Wouldn’t the halting of eating or drinking be equivalent to suicide? Wouldn’t one know that not drinking will end their life? So haven’t they intentionally killed themselves?

Setting aside whether Jesus existed simply as a human or was divine and the son of God this advice is a mess regardless who says it. There is no evidence to warrant belief not drinking is a good thing to do but if it can be demonstrated it is good for well being I’m open to change my mind.

Jesus is suggesting one should not plan for the morrow. Don’t set my alarm to wake up on time so I make it to work on time and fulfill my obligation I’ve made and in return receive compensation so I can provide food, shelter and clothing for my family? Or am I missing something?

And if I am missing something please correct me. I’d much rather be shown wrong than show another wrong. But I’d be very curious how you know what Jesus meant. And how you could be wrong about what you think Jesus meant.

For example, I could be wrong about what Jesus meant because the authors of the Bible errored in accurately recording what Jesus said. Or Jesus may have been a madman? Or I could be poor at understanding the usage of words. Maybe words mean the opposite of what I think they mean? Maybe there was no Jesus, therefor, no ideas to interpret in the first place? Maybe the Bible is a forgery? Maybe suffering to death is maximizing well being? Maybe being happy is bad? Or there’s no evidence warranting belief Jesus existed at all? These are examples of how I know I was wrong and then could revise my beliefs to more accurately line up with the truth. Many of these would be difficult to demonstrate so the last one is the position I hold. I see no reason to believe Jesus said any of this. So, ironically, if you disagree with me in that you don’t believe Jesus meant what I’ve claimed earlier then we are in agreement. We both don’t believe Jesus prescribed suicide but for different reasons.

Suffice it to say I won’t be taking the advice of Jesus. Will you?

And Jesus said, “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life? “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. (‭Matthew‬ ‭6‬:‭25-34‬ NIV)

 

Sermon 6

The Fulfillment of the Law

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (‭Matthew‬ ‭5‬:‭17-20‬ NIV)

I find this one of the more interesting quotes ascribed to Jesus. As I understand, the Law is the 613 commandments given to Moses from God found in the first five books of the Bible known as the Pentateuch. Most people are aware of the 10 Commandments even though they may not have them memorized. I don’t. Do you? Some are: have no other gods. Remember the Sabbath. Honor your Mama and Papa. Don’t kill or steal. And no coveting. These are included in the first 10 Laws of the 613. 

I’ve been told Jesus had some great things to say, and even if one doesn’t believe he is the son of God, one can take the wisdom he offered. And that may be true but there are some deal breakers which seriously call into question the character of Jesus and The Fulfillment of the Law is one of them. 

Also included in the 613 Laws are things like “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Leviticus 20:13 NIV Or Deuteronomy 22:25 which states “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father 50 shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” According to Jesus if I practice and teach this to others I “will be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.”  The Law also claims God endorses slavery and commands the death of non believers. 

There are many more very disturbing commandments attributed to God which are just as insidious and disturbing. Again, let’s be thankful many believers reject verses like these. If Jesus rejected the Law, or was at least ambivalent towards it, that would be one thing but Jesus fully endorses the Law. By doing so his character, and specifically, his wisdom come into question. If Jesus is wise why does he endorse horrific commands by God? And what would it mean if he didn’t endorse them? Could Jesus reject God’s Law? And if Jesus did reject or change God’s Law would Jesus be called least in heaven?

I’ve asked believers their thoughts about my observation of Jesus and the Law. One told me they find it hard to reckon with and didn’t refute my conclusion. Another made a more interesting claim. They said Jesus has fulfilled the Law and we no longer need to follow it. But there’s a massive problem with this position. If we don’t have to follow the Law anymore does that include the 10 Commandments? It’s ok to murder and steal and covet now? Or we don’t have to follow the Laws one finds abhorrent? How does one know which to follow and not follow if one chooses to deviate from the word of Jesus?

It seems the only reasonable position is to reject the parts of the Law, which many believers already do, and keep the Law which maximizes well being and/or minimizes suffering. I haven’t received answers to those questions. If you’re a believer in Jesus I’m curious how you reckon with his endorsement of the Law. 

Sermon 5

Jesus said, “Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

And not much later Jesus says, “Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.”

This seems to be a possible contradiction at worst and very confusing at best. But let’s set that aside. I’m interested in why one should do good. 

Here’s how I’m using the term “good”. 

A particular action or choice is good or moral or right when it somehow

promotes happiness, wellbeing or health or it somehow minimizes

unnecessary harm or suffering or it does both. 

And for clarity this is how I use the term “bad”.

A particular action or choice is bad or immoral or wrong when it somehow

diminishes happiness, wellbeing or health or it somehow causes unnecessary harm or suffering or it does both.

So why should one do good? To “glorify your Father which is in heaven?” Is doing good only about glorifying God and not about increasing the well being of others or oneself? I don’t see anything about Jesus saying we should increase wellbeing. I have to assume Jesus is saying to do good for the sake of glorifying God. Everything else is irrelevant, including our well being. 



Sermon 4

“Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.” – Jesus

This seems to be a metaphor. I’m not sure if it’s a good or bad metaphor but let’s assume salt can lose its flavor. So if one has lost its flavor what does that mean? A relationship with God? Faith in Christ? I’m not sure. Whatever it is it seems one is “good for nothing” and should “be cast out”. What does that mean? If one loses Faith in Christ they are worthless? Why? What if one who had lost Faith in Christ, or never had it, ended suffering for another? And what if the other had Faith in Christ? And what if that other was able to continue to spread the word of Christ due to having the suffering end? That would be worthless? Good for nothing? I don’t know. And why the confusion? Wouldn’t a divine being be able to communicate sufficiently enough to convey its message without producing any confusion?

Sermon 3

I like to ask questions. Wonder. Do you like to wonder? The questions I ask are not contingent on my existence and are not necessarily my views. So…

Is this sound advice?

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”

Does this include criticism of the belief Jesus is divine? Would that be persecution? If it is persecution doesn’t that help insulate the belief Jesus is divine and possibly cause division and not foster an arena for cooperation? If Heaven is the goal isn’t persecution a good thing? So is this good advice from a divine being?