Freedom of Speech

The term freedom of speech is oft bandied about in our society, yet many do not appreciate what it really means. Freedom of speech means not only the freedom of each of us to make our opinion known, it is also the obligation to let others say as they will about us. Our laws protect only against statements of defamatory imputation and no more. To limit the ability of others to criticise us is, in reality, an open move against the freedom of speech.

Religion is known for limiting freedom of speech. Emperor Justinian burnt all opposing (non-christian) temples and schools of study and made the crime of heresy punishable by death. They moved against freedom of speech. Hitlers first command when he obtained Chancellory was to limit press freedoms and then silence the Courts. They moved against freedom of speech.

Why do people that hold themselves out to be true, right and correct, fear the criticisms of others? Could it be that they know they are not right at all.

We know only that limiting the Freedom of Speech is a step towards darkness and recklessness. A man who has courage and honour will brook any words made against him. A tyrant and coward, one and the same, will always seek to limit freedom of speech. Shame on that tyrant and coward alike.

Challenge to Christians

Could any of Jesus's God bothering cronies please answer this for me:

John 7: 38 states

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

I've looked and looked, but I can't find a quote in the Bible that "He that believeth on me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water". Or any words to that effect. This can obliges any person that cannot find such words to conclude that:

1. The Bible is not complete, and thus not the perfect word of God; or,
2. John 7: 38 is incorrect, and thus the Bible is not the perfect word of God.

Correspondence

Mimi of California asks:

I am amazed that so many people take God and Hell so lightly. CASE, what is the reason for this?

I chose the psychological angle to explain why non-believers (and even believers) do not constantly cower in fear of the supposed afterlife BBQ:

The reason is psychological and the same reason that theists come to fear death, even though they assume they are "saved".

The human brain has two sources of information, logos (logic, reality) and mythos (fantasy, imagination). These sources appear to be identical to the conscious mind, however, the subconscious retains some understanding that:

1. Logos can be trusted, in this way, we know that if we jump off a building, we will fall. There is no fear that we will not fall.

2. Mythos is untrustworthy, in this way, we know that although we think we are good looking, we have doubts about our personal attributes when we ask a girl on a date.

Similarly, if we are bungee jumping for the first time, our expected experience is only imagined (mythos) and we have doubt or fear about not stopping the fall in the face of our knowledge (logos) of gravity.

Because the brain knows that religious activity is mythos (fantasy and imagination), it does not create the same fear effect as if we were standing on a precipice over a ravine. That is, essentially, the reason why people take God and Hell so lightly.

However, there are many situations where the fear created appears to be logos deceptively. For instance, a child that is beaten, berated, socially ostracised or suffers some other coercion if they disagree with the Bible will naturally form the rule that disbelief brings about greater fear than professing belief and thus, will not tend to treat the matter lightly. Of course, this is a strong reason behind the use of peer groups in churches, particularly, youth groups. The sad conclusion, however, is that these children live in a world where the only alternative on any religious issue is fear, which is damaging to the psyche and potentially destructive to the life of the child.

Calvinism, hating the poor and working hard

Josh,

I remember where I heard about Calvinism! It was during my studies of criminology and the early modern philosopher, Max Weber, who penned a study of protestant churches in Europe, a note from the commentary:

Weber traced the origins of the Protestant ethic to the Reformation, though he acknowledged some respect for secular everyday labor as early as the Middle Ages. The Roman Catholic Church assured salvation to individuals who accepted the church's sacraments and submitted to the clerical authority. However, the Reformation had effectively removed such assurances. From a psychological viewpoint, the average person had difficulty adjusting to this new worldview, and only the most devout believers or "religious geniuses" within Protestanism, such as Martin Luther, were able to make this adjustment, according to Weber.

In the absence of such assurances from religious authority, Weber argued that Protestants began to look for other "signs" that they were saved. Calvin and his followers taught a doctrine of double predestination, in which from the beginning God chose some people for salvation and others for damnation. The inability to influence one's own salvation presented a very difficult problem for Calvin's followers. It became an absolute duty to believe that one was chosen for salvation, and to dispel any doubt about that: lack of self-confidence was evidence of insufficient faith and a sign of damnation. So, self-confidence took the place of priestly assurance of God's grace.

Worldly success became one measure of that self-confidence. Luther made an early endorsement of Europe's emerging labor divisions. Weber identifies the applicability of Luther's conclusions, noting that a "vocation" from God was no longer limited to the clergy or church, but applied to any occupation or trade.

However, Weber saw the fulfillment of the Protestant ethic not in Lutheranism, which was too concerned with the reception of divine spirit in the soul, but in Calvinistic forms of Christianity. The trend was carried further still in Pietism. Baptism diluted the concept of the calling relative to Calvinists, but other aspects made its congregants fertile soil for the development of capitalism--namely, a lack of paralyzing ascetism, the refusal to accept state office and thereby develop unpolitically, and the doctrine of control by conscience which caused rigorous honesty.

The "paradox" Weber found was, in simple terms:

* According to the new Protestant religions, an individual was religiously compelled to follow a secular vocation with as much zeal as possible. A person living according to this world view was more likely to accumulate money.
* The new religions (in particular, Calvinism and other more austere Protestant sects) effectively forbade wastefully using hard earned money and identified the purchase of luxuries a sin. Donations to an individual's church or congregation was limited due to the rejection by certain Protestant sects of icons. Finally, donation of money to the poor or to charity was generally frowned on as it was seen as furthering beggary. This social condition was perceived as laziness, burdening their fellow man, and an affront to God; by not working, one failed to glorify God.

As per usual, it seems you know less about your own theology than the atheist.

William Lane Craig is a douche

Dinosaurs, Behemoths and the Great Biblical swindle

A few weekends ago, a friend of mine from Operation 513 (a dangerous terrorist organisation) made a statement that Job 40 proves that humans walked the earth at the same time as dinosaurs. For those of you who don't know, Job 40: states:-

40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
40:18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
40:19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
40:20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field
play.
40:21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
40:22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
40:23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
40:24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Now, I had previously read about this and it already appeared that the passage and following passage regarding the leviathan were pretty clearly just imaginings, not unlike faeries or the loch ness monster. Nonetheless, when dealing with fundamentalists it takes significant evidence to persuade them of the silliness of their position. For this reason, I began investigating the matter in detail, and, to my suprise revealed another example of propoganda and coverup which exemplifies the sickening intellectual dishonesty engaged in by the christian agenda.

It was no suprise to me that ancient Jewish legend does tell of three mythical beasts, the Behemoth of the earth, the Leviathan of the Sea and a third entity not mentioned in Job, Ziz, a sky creature of incredible power. The ancient Jewish mystic tradition (Haggi) these three beings would battle against each other at the end of the world.

Some readers consider the behemoth could be put down to some of the massive african fauna such as elephants or hippopotamus, however, this is usually discounted by the description in Job 40:16 that the behemoth has a tail "like a cedar tree". The counter argument to this was that an elephants trunk could be confused for a tail, which makes some sense in that the behemoth is said to never allow humans to get close "it can only be destroyed by its creator". Alternatively, it is noted that the skin of an elephant (or hippo for that matter) has the same texture as a cedar tree and this may be the detail referred to in the passage. Another interpretation is that the "tail" is a miscontruction of the word in Jewish which is more often used to describe a large male genetalia - of which elephants are well blessed.

Creationists, of course, consider the passage, in particular the reference to the tail, describes a large sauropod like apatosaurus or brachiasaurus, of which there are numerous fossilised examples. This is where the scholarship of christians comes into question. The passage above is from the King James Translation of the Bible, whereas newer translations state at 40:16:-

Behold now, his strength in his loins and his power in the muscles of his belly

So why would christians replace "his power in the navel of his belly" with "his power in the muscles of his belly"? The reason is simple, dinosaurs were birthed in eggs - that is, they do not have umbilical cords like humans. Accordingly, the behemoth - if a dinosaur - would not have a navel. This proves that behemoth was not a dinosaur and more likely a figment of imagination or forgotten description of an existing species of animal.

But, that alone is not the final word, it mentions that the behemoth eats grass. Yet, fossil records of dinosaurs show they had spoon like teeth and not molar teeth which are required to eat grass or chew cud "like an ox".

Furthermore, in the earlier translations, there is reference to behemoth lying below a lotus tree in Job 40: 21:-

He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh. The lotus
trees cover him with their shade; The willows by the brook surround him

It is perhaps ironic that of the lotus species, none of the plants grow to more than two meters high. Were these pygmy dinosaurs?

This highlights two points, firstly, the Bible does not describe humans and dinosaurs side by side. Secondly, christians (who are no doubt aware of these facts) are prepared to change their "interpretation" of their own holy text in order to preserve their point of view.

Creationism, Intelligent Design - What do the academics really think?

I often hear from creationists that there is substantial academic support behind intelligent design. This bizarre statement is at odds with reality - which is not unsuprising given its source. Nonetheless, I have done some basic research into the matter and found that several academic bodies in Australia and around the world have policies against the teaching of Intelligent Design and strongly rebuking creationism as a whole.

As you would expect, intelligent design policies are more heavily populated in areas which are subject to this vile academic schicanery, particularly geology and biology. Perhaps the best instance of this comes from the Geological Society of Australia who released its own Intelligent Design policy in March 2006 which was undersigned by the president and 18 former presidents of that society. The policy is strongly worded against the teaching of intelligent design:-

The Geological Society of Australia considers that notions such as Fundamental Creationism, including so called "Flood Geology", which disregard scientific evidence such as that based on repeatable observations in the natural world and the geological record, are not science and cannot be taught as science.

An essential element in the teaching of science is the encouragement of students and teachers to critically appraise the evidence for notions being taught as science. The Society states unequivocally that the dogmatic teaching of notions such as Creationism within a science curriculum stifles the development of critical thinking patterns in the developing mind and seriously compromises the best interests of objective public education. This could eventually hamper the advancement of science and technology as students take their places as leaders of future generations.

In some parts of Australia, the advocacy of notions like Creationism is confronting the integrity and effectiveness of our national education system and the hard-won evidencebased foundations of science. The Geological Society of Australia cannot remain silent. To do so would be a dereliction of our responsibility to intellectual
freedom and to the fundamental principles of scientific thought. As a consequence, the Society dissociates itself from Creationist statements made by any member.

So the next time someone says there is academic support for Intelligent Design or Creationism. Tell them they are full of it.