Easter and the “resurrection.”

     Well, It’s nearly Easter.  I can tell because of the candy sales — that and the library is closed tomorrow.  At any rate, around this time, christians like to claim that their original leader is “resurrected” and still alive.  For some reason, they are never able to produce him.  Surely someone that famous, if still alive, should be making television appearances.  Is he that reclusive?

     Now, a lot of these christians will insist that the fact that we cannot produce an identifiable corpse is proof that this guy rose from the dead.  Well, no it’s not.  I can’t produce an identifiable corpse of any prisoner executed and dumped into a mass grave thousands of years after the fact.  It is not reasonable to expect me to be able to do so.  And it is not evidence that any such person rose from the dead.

     I know some christians are going to ask “wouldn’t it be easier for the authorities to produce a corpse in the few months following the death?”  And it would.  But it would serve no purpose.  This man was (supposedly) executed around 785 AVC.  The early christians claimed a spiritual resurrection.  That is, it wouldn’t matter if the Romans produced a corpse.  The corpse was just an empty shell.  The spiritual body was “much more glorious” and he had no use for the earthly body.  The christians were similarly convinced that they would have no need for their earthly bodies.  It was not until around 825 AVC that the claim of a bodily resurrection was made, with the attendant challenge that the Romans produce a corpse.  By this point, no one would be able to pick the right body out of the mass grave and almost no one would recognize the right body if they could.  The challenge was a sham and deliberately so.

     Some people might wonder if my challenge to produce the living person is equally a sham.  It is not.  While I would certainly not recognize this person by face (I have never seen him) I would recognize someone displaying the talents attributed to him.  Someone miraculously curing the sick would be very impressive.  Alas, we still need doctors and technology.

Advertisements

I found this interesting.

     The “patriarchy” has always been a result of women’s choice in mate. The predominately straight white male at the top of the Royal Class is endorsed by the internalized misogyny of the matriarchy. The result is what I call the “lion” effect.

     The Lion appears to be a patriarchy where the male simply eats and reproduces with multiple partners. It sounds like, and would be every males fantasy… if you only look at the head of the pride.

     In reality… it is an exaggerated model of misandry at work because 7 out 10 male lions don’t live to the age of puberty. Of the remaining 3, One is head of the pride, and entitled to reproduce. One is occasionally allowed to be a “beta” whose only reward is to remain with the pride basically as a childless assistant. The last survivor is driven out of the pride at the approach of puberty and usually ends up either a lone hunter, or finds another exiled team mate to hunt with.

     This effect is softened by society in humans. We have one of the best male survival rates for any species, yet this natural misandry is still the law of the jungle.

     A male lion at the head of a pride must constantly defend his territory from younger males. His future is to be deposed as king and end up a slowly starving to death. With 1% of the male population using the entirety of society to eliminate their younger and stronger competition, misandry is simply a good tactic to keep power.

 

Source.

Hey, look! Norman is lying again.

     Norman is, once again, insisting that Hitler was an atheist.  Of course, he is lying.  Hitler was a christian.  It is well known that Hitler was a christian.  But that fact is inconvenient for people like Norman; so, in his own words he wants to “give Hitler to the atheists.”

     Now, let’s start off with some understanding.  A christian is simply someone who believes that the bible is the “word of god” and worships the god of the bible.  As Hitler met both of these criteria, he was a christian.  The fact is very straightforward.  But for those christians that are most like Hitler, those who are hate-filled, and those who want to repeat his methods, the fact is problematic.

     The christians I am talking about want to demonize outsiders (a tactic very popular with totalitarian regimes.)  One of the methods that they use for this is “guilt by association.”  They seek to associate outsiders with the methods of brutal dictators.  Norman and those christians most like him call all outsiders “atheists” regardless of their actual beliefs.  Now, there is no shortage of brutal dictators that have actually been atheist.  But if they were to admit even one was christian, their strategy of “guilty by association” would blow up in their faces.  So they do a “No True Scotsman.”  They insist that nobody who did what Hitler did could possibly be a christian.

     Pay attention when people like Norman claim that Hitler was an atheist.  They are revealing their own inner darkness.  They want to dehumanize those not like them and make it more “acceptable” to do to outsiders what Hitler did to his outsiders.  They will even tell themselves and each other that mass slaughter is “god’s will.”  And they will have bible verses to back it up.

     Now, of course, none of what I have said above applies to most christians.  Most christians believe in something like “forgiven, not perfect” and don’t need to deny Hitler being christian.  They only need to reject the “guilt by association.”  And they are correct in the rejection.  Hitler was a christian.  But his actions were not representative of christianity.  Again, this is only a problem for those who would demonize outsiders.

Dishonesty in discussions

     One problem I find in discussions, particularly internet discussions and most particularly those with a controversial topic, is that people will have a tendency to be dishonest.  It is as though they are trying to score points with their base or something and not trying to convince the person who believes differently.

     For example:  Abortion supporters will chant “her body, her choice” as if it should make the wonderfulness of abortion self-evident.  They refuse to admit that those of us who are opposed to abortion do not think the child is her body.  Many of them will deny that we believe what we believe.  Only too often you will see “oh, you only want to control women” or the term “anti-choice.”  (There is a secondary consideration in that many supporters of abortion do not apply the concept of discretion over one’s own body to other topics — if they oppose recreational drug use or elective amputation.  For these people, the mantra is false outright.)

     The first indicator of what someone believes is what he says he believes.  If you are going to declare outright that he is lying about his beliefs, you should first have evidence to that effect.  You should be able to point to statements and/or actions that do not fit in with his stated beliefs.  No, holding up your propaganda and saying it says he believes X when he says he believes Y does not count.