Monthly Archive for November, 2007

Congress and the Whore of Babylon

During my sabbatical many interesting things occurred in the faith based community. Most of these events were the run-of-the-mill preacher activities involving sex, greed, drugs, and gambling, and are far too numerous to mention.

But--(I bet you all saw this coming) there is one ongoing event that has really peaked my interest--the investigation by Republican Senator Robert Grassley into the financial activities of six of the U.S.'s top televangelists.

Now, I am not so naive as to believe that this investigation will change the blind stupidity suffered by those who give money to these con-men, nor am I so stupid that I believe that a Republican Senator is going after members of the largest demographic of Republican donors without some ulterior motive. But, it does make for some pretty good entertainment, and material for my arguments when idiots like Creflo Dollar are grilled about their Rolls Royce, mansions, and corporate jets.

Hopefully, by now, at least one reader has wondered about my reference to the Whore of Babylon, because the explanation for this reference follows.

The Whore and her mountYears ago I had a discussion with a co-worker about the popular Protestant belief that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. The topic was brought up by this idiot and struck a nerve with me for two very different reasons. First, it is a topic that I suffered through for my entire childhood. When I was a child, my fanatic Christian father would quite often get on one of his many Holy Spirit and alcohol induced tirades and babble on for hours about the evils of the World. His second favorite topic during these sermons was Pope John Paul II's un-holy alliance with Satan (his favorite topic was my going to Hell because I was not a good kid).

The second, and major reason I attacked this moron's preaching about the Pope was my late wife. She was a devout Catholic, and an extremely good person whom I loved very much, and my idiot co-worker continually rambled on about her going to Hell for her beliefs, so, as is my nature, I did some reading, and confronted my antagonist with passages from the Bible which showed that, in fact, Billy Graham (this guy's favorite preacher) was the Anti-Christ not the Pope.

Part of my "proof" revolved around the Anti-Christ coming from the Whore of Babylon, and went something like this:

According to the Bible salvation and sex are gifts from God. A prostitute is evil because she charges money for something that is a gift from God, not a commodity to be bought and sold. Salvation is also a gift from God delivered by Jesus Christ who made a point of throwing a hissy fit when he caught people doing business inside a church.

Billy and another fine American ChristianWith these points in mind, a televangelist, who makes money by promising to deliver a gift freely given by God is merely a whore. The Whore of Babylon in the bible is obviously an institution, and the primary institution on this planet that exhibits whore-like qualities is televangelism. Billy Graham was the first major televangelist (born from the Whore known as televangelism) in the World, so is the primary candidate for Anti-Christ.

Since my discovery, I have often referred to televangelism as the Whore of Babylon as I did above.

Have a great day all, and beware of people promising salvation (or a good time) for money.

Congress and the Whore of Babylon

During my sabbatical many interesting things occurred in the faith based community. Most of these events were the run-of-the-mill preacher activities involving sex, greed, drugs, and gambling, and are far too numerous to mention.

But--(I bet you all saw this coming) there is one ongoing event that has really peaked my interest--the investigation by Republican Senator Robert Grassley into the financial activities of six of the U.S.'s top televangelists.

Now, I am not so naive as to believe that this investigation will change the blind stupidity suffered by those who give money to these con-men, nor am I so stupid that I believe that a Republican Senator is going after members of the largest demographic of Republican donors without some ulterior motive. But, it does make for some pretty good entertainment, and material for my arguments when idiots like Creflo Dollar are grilled about their Rolls Royce, mansions, and corporate jets.

Hopefully, by now, at least one reader has wondered about my reference to the Whore of Babylon, because the explanation for this reference follows.

The Whore and her mountYears ago I had a discussion with a co-worker about the popular Protestant belief that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. The topic was brought up by this idiot and struck a nerve with me for two very different reasons. First, it is a topic that I suffered through for my entire childhood. When I was a child, my fanatic Christian father would quite often get on one of his many Holy Spirit and alcohol induced tirades and babble on for hours about the evils of the World. His second favorite topic during these sermons was Pope John Paul II's un-holy alliance with Satan (his favorite topic was my going to Hell because I was not a good kid).

The second, and major reason I attacked this moron's preaching about the Pope was my late wife. She was a devout Catholic, and an extremely good person whom I loved very much, and my idiot co-worker continually rambled on about her going to Hell for her beliefs, so, as is my nature, I did some reading, and confronted my antagonist with passages from the Bible which showed that, in fact, Billy Graham (this guy's favorite preacher) was the Anti-Christ not the Pope.

Part of my "proof" revolved around the Anti-Christ coming from the Whore of Babylon, and went something like this:

According to the Bible salvation and sex are gifts from God. A prostitute is evil because she charges money for something that is a gift from God, not a commodity to be bought and sold. Salvation is also a gift from God delivered by Jesus Christ who made a point of throwing a hissy fit when he caught people doing business inside a church.

Billy and another fine American ChristianWith these points in mind, a televangelist, who makes money by promising to deliver a gift freely given by God is merely a whore. The Whore of Babylon in the bible is obviously an institution, and the primary institution on this planet that exhibits whore-like qualities is televangelism. Billy Graham was the first major televangelist (born from the Whore known as televangelism) in the World, so is the primary candidate for Anti-Christ.

Since my discovery, I have often referred to televangelism as the Whore of Babylon as I did above.

Have a great day all, and beware of people promising salvation (or a good time) for money.

Let the Games Begin—Again

Jeebus Christ--I disappear for a few months (Well almost a year) and people try to hijack my blog to spread their own messages. I guess I should be flattered.

Anyway--sorry about the absence. I had an incredible opportunity to do some things, and see some places, so I jumped on it, but the fun's over and now I return to my normal life, and my normal rants.

So, let the games begin---again.

Let the Games Begin—Again

Jeebus Christ--I disappear for a few months (Well almost a year) and people try to hijack my blog to spread their own messages. I guess I should be flattered.

Anyway--sorry about the absence. I had an incredible opportunity to do some things, and see some places, so I jumped on it, but the fun's over and now I return to my normal life, and my normal rants.

So, let the games begin---again.

Belief Vs. Opinion

Posted by Steve-

In past religious discussions, I have heard many religious moderates mention the fact that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and that it is not my right to challenged their beliefs. And herein lies the problem. A belief and an opinion are not the same thing. An opinion refers to a personally held attitude which says nothing about the concrete state of things. For example, it is my opinion that sausage pizza is better than mushroom pizza. Here I am not attempting to demonstrate some inherent truth, but simple stating a personal taste representing a very local rather than universal reality. Further, opinions require no additional evidence beyond the statements themselves, for once again, one is not attempting to demonstrate a truth that extends beyond oneself. A belief, on the other hand is a statement concerning a perceived reality which may or may not turn out to be correct. True, a belief does not have to rest upon strong evidence when first stated, BUT if strong evidence should arises that contradicts such a belief, it should be strongly reconsidered and perhaps reject. Example: a woman claims to believe that her husband is faithful. Now, either he is or he isn't. If this same woman were to stumble upon her husband and another woman having sexual intercourse, her earlier stated belief would have been proven false. She can hold onto this belief if she so chooses, however, she can no longer claim this it to be reliable, correct, valuable, or what have you. Further, she can no longer expect that stating her bunk belief aloud will not be met with legitimate contradiction.
Thus, unlike opinions, religious beliefs can be demonstrated to be false, or at least very likely false, should enough evidence arise to do so. When someone tells me that they believe in the existence of a omnipotent, benevolent, anthropomorphic god they have made a statement concerning a supposed reality, which can be demonstrated to be true or false. I believe that the latter shall end up being the case.

Belief Vs. Opinion

Posted by Steve-

In past religious discussions, I have heard many religious moderates mention the fact that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and that it is not my right to challenged their beliefs. And herein lies the problem. A belief and an opinion are not the same thing. An opinion refers to a personally held attitude which says nothing about the concrete state of things. For example, it is my opinion that sausage pizza is better than mushroom pizza. Here I am not attempting to demonstrate some inherent truth, but simple stating a personal taste representing a very local rather than universal reality. Further, opinions require no additional evidence beyond the statements themselves, for once again, one is not attempting to demonstrate a truth that extends beyond oneself. A belief, on the other hand is a statement concerning a perceived reality which may or may not turn out to be correct. True, a belief does not have to rest upon strong evidence when first stated, BUT if strong evidence should arises that contradicts such a belief, it should be strongly reconsidered and perhaps reject. Example: a woman claims to believe that her husband is faithful. Now, either he is or he isn't. If this same woman were to stumble upon her husband and another woman having sexual intercourse, her earlier stated belief would have been proven false. She can hold onto this belief if she so chooses, however, she can no longer claim this it to be reliable, correct, valuable, or what have you. Further, she can no longer expect that stating her bunk belief aloud will not be met with legitimate contradiction.
Thus, unlike opinions, religious beliefs can be demonstrated to be false, or at least very likely false, should enough evidence arise to do so. When someone tells me that they believe in the existence of a omnipotent, benevolent, anthropomorphic god they have made a statement concerning a supposed reality, which can be demonstrated to be true or false. I believe that the latter shall end up being the case.

Did you decide continued

Posted by Steve-

I'd like to answer a question raised in response to Brandon's ealier post. What do we think about cultural distinctions in general (Black, Italian, etc.). Becoming integrated in, influenced and molded by a culture is an inevitability, and in fact, necessity of human development. There is nothing wrong with speaking French if you were raised by French speaking parents or in a French community. What is inappropriate, and what is promoted by the dogma of religion, is the idea that our cultural preferences represent some sort of concrete reality, that the way We do things is fundamentally correct. When a Catholic refers to the saving grace of Jesus Christ son of God on high, and truly believes in this reality, the cultural issue arises. Either he must reject the reality that had he been raised under different circumstances (say the son of an Orthodox Jew)he would believe otherwise or he must admit to naivite on a grand scale: "I realize that, had my parents been Muslims I'd be a Muslim and reject Christ, but lucky me, my folks got it right!" (Further, he may want to ask what those poor saps who happened to be born prior to the rise of Christianity did to deserve missing out on the grand revelation [the Christian God is supposed to love all his creations equally]).
An analogous situation would be the Ohio State/Michigan rivalry. Is it reasonable to be a passionate alum who boos the other team and scorns their symbols? Sure. Is it reasonable to truly and honestly hate another person, or believe that one school is fundamentally inferior to the other? No. For in the latter circumstance, you fail to realize that, had you been born on the other side of the border, the coin would be flipped. I should point out, however, that this is not a direct analogy, for the Universities of Michigan and Ohio State represent concrete, verifiable realities. On could point out, for example, that Michigan Stadium is lager than Ohio Stadium.

Did you decide continued

Posted by Steve-

I'd like to answer a question raised in response to Brandon's ealier post. What do we think about cultural distinctions in general (Black, Italian, etc.). Becoming integrated in, influenced and molded by a culture is an inevitability, and in fact, necessity of human development. There is nothing wrong with speaking French if you were raised by French speaking parents or in a French community. What is inappropriate, and what is promoted by the dogma of religion, is the idea that our cultural preferences represent some sort of concrete reality, that the way We do things is fundamentally correct. When a Catholic refers to the saving grace of Jesus Christ son of God on high, and truly believes in this reality, the cultural issue arises. Either he must reject the reality that had he been raised under different circumstances (say the son of an Orthodox Jew)he would believe otherwise or he must admit to naivite on a grand scale: "I realize that, had my parents been Muslims I'd be a Muslim and reject Christ, but lucky me, my folks got it right!" (Further, he may want to ask what those poor saps who happened to be born prior to the rise of Christianity did to deserve missing out on the grand revelation [the Christian God is supposed to love all his creations equally]).
An analogous situation would be the Ohio State/Michigan rivalry. Is it reasonable to be a passionate alum who boos the other team and scorns their symbols? Sure. Is it reasonable to truly and honestly hate another person, or believe that one school is fundamentally inferior to the other? No. For in the latter circumstance, you fail to realize that, had you been born on the other side of the border, the coin would be flipped. I should point out, however, that this is not a direct analogy, for the Universities of Michigan and Ohio State represent concrete, verifiable realities. On could point out, for example, that Michigan Stadium is lager than Ohio Stadium.

Did You Really Decide?

Posted By Brandon

Concerning other people's children I would often hear my mom claim, "if those kids were raised in my house, things would be quite different". She was telling the truth! If the neighbor's child grew up in my house he would have watched Entertainment Tonight at 7:30pm and gone to bed at his age appropriate bedtime (which happened to be arbitrarily decided). If that other person's child was French and adopted by my parents shortly following birth, his native tongue would be English, NOT French. Is this so because the child has made a cognitive decision that English makes more sense to him? No, his environment made the decision for him. It seems fair to say that the previous examples gives us a small glimpse of socialization's influence. To take the same idea a bit further, if any child once born to (insert your favorite religious conviction) _______ parents were to be raised by my parents he or she would be a reform Jew. Same as in the language example, does the child have any say; did the child decide that any one dogma made most sense to them? Probably not. You may be thinking that is only how it is in your family. If you are of that mind, I challenge you to explain your own subscription to faith and that of your parents and their parents before them. I am willing to bet that there is a certain pattern.

Did You Really Decide?

Posted By Brandon

Concerning other people's children I would often hear my mom claim, "if those kids were raised in my house, things would be quite different". She was telling the truth! If the neighbor's child grew up in my house he would have watched Entertainment Tonight at 7:30pm and gone to bed at his age appropriate bedtime (which happened to be arbitrarily decided). If that other person's child was French and adopted by my parents shortly following birth, his native tongue would be English, NOT French. Is this so because the child has made a cognitive decision that English makes more sense to him? No, his environment made the decision for him. It seems fair to say that the previous examples gives us a small glimpse of socialization's influence. To take the same idea a bit further, if any child once born to (insert your favorite religious conviction) _______ parents were to be raised by my parents he or she would be a reform Jew. Same as in the language example, does the child have any say; did the child decide that any one dogma made most sense to them? Probably not. You may be thinking that is only how it is in your family. If you are of that mind, I challenge you to explain your own subscription to faith and that of your parents and their parents before them. I am willing to bet that there is a certain pattern.

Consensus On Morality Aboard A Bus

A very interesting friend of mine is a Kurd from Syria who was raised in a private Assyrian Christian Orthodox school and currently studies with me in Switzerland. He speaks Kurdish, Arabic, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Assyrian and Aramaic (which dwarf my own English, Spanish, Serbian, French, Italian combo) and he’s basically a very lax and essentially non-practicing Muslim, who learned how to pray as a Christian before learning to pray as a Muslim.

However, he still believes in a very meta-physical idea of a Supreme Being. Not that I hold it against him, but it led to an invigorating and stimulating discourse on morality while aboard the bus.

You must forgive me for resorting yet again to reproducing the conversation in an adapted dialogue form.

“Morality must come from religion. You see, for better of for worse, humankind believes.” said Salare.

“What do you mean believes?” I asked

“Everyone believes in something. It is an intrinsic part of our being insignificant in this vast universe. A believer will believe in whichever God he wants to believe in. I personally believe they’re all manifestations of one Supreme Being, whatever that is. An atheist will believe in science, or in the education their parents gave them, or in inherited moral values and so forth”

“I disagree with a number of things. Firstly, I like to believe I’m a moral person. I donate blood. I donate old clothes to Serbian families who need it. I help old ladies cross the road. None of these moral values came from religious morals because, as you point out, I received a very correct and secular, I might add, education from my parents.

Secondly, I firmly disagree with your comparison of religious belief with scientific belief. A religious person who believes in God will by definition have faith that their God exists. They will require no evidence to back their beliefs, indeed, they will often ignore contrary evidence to suggest the absence of a God. They might have had personal experiences that are out of reach to other people, but psychiatrists may or may not give these experiences concrete medical explanations. It’s an unchanging, unflinching world view. C.S. Lewis said (absurdly) once of his own religion that “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else”, which is rather misleading because an unchanging and unflinching world view is more like an over polarised pair of sunglasses which shields the beauty of the world from you.

My point is that an atheist who has a naturalist view of the world will base his views on existing evidence and on existing models, themselves supported by ample evidence. It’s a worldview that changes and adapts to contemporary discoveries. And there is ample evidence to suggest that morality is inherited, that it is an evolved trait in our primate species.”

“Adrian, you see, you are a moral person yourself, and indeed there are many like you who are moral for moraility’s sake. But for the same reason that many stores need security cameras to stop people from stealing, many people need to have the feeling of fear in order to stop themselves from killing or stealing. It’s part of the inherent egoism of humanity.

You are clearly capable of maintaining a very correct moral stance yourself derived from your own world views. But there is a problem not within religion itself but within the people who follow it and who engage in perverse acts sometimes despite the fear of being watched by God or by a security camera in a store.”

“Indeed, there are amoral people. What I, personally, find amoral is that many people need to be threatened into being moral, but right you are this is just what defined the diversity of our human species.

However, I disagree with your idea that religion is not inherently the problem. While it is true that many people derive their morals from religious texts, and that many pick and mix according to the day and age they live in (few Creationists would seriously take to heart the Biblical encouragement to slavery), the fact that organised religions can have such a powerful effect on people is to me, damnedly immoral.

For a start, I agree and I am the first to postulate that were religions to be truly inconsiderate of the fates of other people’s souls, and as long as they only promulgated morals that dealt in a similar, if not identical way to the legal civil code, the world would be an infinitely better place, and it would coexist with religion.

However, this is goes against the very nature of organised religion. It is moral for an evangelist to spread the word of Jesus to as many heathens as he can, because they honestly believe they are trying to save other people’s souls. The Muslim Hadith quite clearly orders Muslims to kill or convert unbelievers. It is hard to take that verse as a metaphor as it is quite clearly unambiguous [ed note: Qur'an Sura 9:5 reads as "Kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is gracious, merciful." and the Hadith, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260, Narrated Ikrima reads "for the Prophet said, "If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."].

My point is that there are a set of religious values which do indeed help to stop violent people from murdering. However, in practice, the leadership of organised religions attach a much higher importance to ‘values’ which help them control their flock.

I mean ridiculous and violent things such as the obsession with sin and sexuality – who you have sex with, when you have sex, how you have sex – and other inane and irrelevant ‘morals’ such as an anti-abortion stance (which is nowhere justified in the Bible, for one), chauvinism (in covering up women’s heads and conferring them less rights than a 6 year old male), anti stem-cell research and a long etc. If the heads of organised religions really cared about morals such as ‘Do Not Kill’ they would issue press statements on every murder committed by a believer instead of issuing inane statements on abortion or Church-State separation. Rather, the Catholic Church will pardon you for murder if you sit in a box, tell an anointed elderly pederast and pray four or five times.”

To this, Salare absolutely agreed.

And thus on the 7th bus stop, Odin said “Let there be consensus”. And there was consensus. And Odin saw this and everything was good.


Brief Physics Intercision – Force due to Electric charges between varying dielectrics

Allow me to interrupt the (irregular) schedule of the Gospel with a Physics question.

I study Electrical and Electronic Engineering in Lausanne, Switzerland. In a recent Electrotechnique I class, the topic of force due to an electric charge came up. Basically, for two positive electric charges Q_1 and Q_2 in a vacuum (permitivity \epsilon_0, a distance r), the force due to the electric charges can be expressed as the following:

F_1 = F_2 = F = \frac{Q_1 Q_2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r^2}

However, that supposes that the dielectric between them, in this case a vacuum, is the same. What I asked today in class, and this was something the professor was incapable of answering on the spot, was: how do you express the force if Q_1 is in one dielectric \epsilon_1 and Q_2 is in another dielectric \epsilon_2? Let’s say for convenience, there is a clean separation of the two dielectrics at a point, say, \frac{r}{2}.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Layman’s terms:

Given two ideal, solitary, positive electric charges, a theme very commonly used to explain electromagnetism equations in Physics, you can express the force they exert upon each other. However, it assumes that the material which lets through the electric field caused by each other is the same throughout the system. What if one charge was in one type of ‘material’ and the other in another type? It’s a simple enough concept to imagine, and it’s very easily answerable if you’re talking about capacitors (a type of electronic component that stores electric charge).

Thanks in advance.


God’s Timeline

Whilst returning home two days ago, I noticed this flyer on one of the noticeboards near my house. Unfortunely I missed the 'debate', but I was intrigued to find out what position was being taken, though my instinct pointed towards creationism.

Well what would you know, my instinct was right. The church has a page where you can listen to some talks by the eminent Paul Garner. I haven't gotten round to listening to them (thank you very much dial-up), but I'm sure they'd be worth a laugh.

It's a common strategy for creationists to try and make a big thing of the scientific credentials of their speakers. here we have Paul Garner with BSc (Hons), FGS (which I thought at first meant For Gawds Sake). But no, turns out he has the BSc for Environmental sciences (Geology and biology) and he's a fellow of the Geological society. How I don't know. However his next club is a little more predicatable.

The BCM have a page on their beliefs. Basically they're a bunch of young earthers. Really it dulls the brain. But we do find common ground on one point:

We reject the ‘two books’ concept which suggests that God’s revelation in nature can be approached independently from God’s revelation in Holy Scripture. We reject the idea that knowledge may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ truth.

They're right. Knowledge cannot be divided into secular and religous. There is only the truth. And it certainly isn't what they think it is.

God’s Timeline

Whilst returning home two days ago, I noticed this flyer on one of the noticeboards near my house. Unfortunely I missed the 'debate', but I was intrigued to find out what position was being taken, though my instinct pointed towards creationism.

Well what would you know, my instinct was right. The church has a page where you can listen to some talks by the eminent Paul Garner. I haven't gotten round to listening to them (thank you very much dial-up), but I'm sure they'd be worth a laugh.

It's a common strategy for creationists to try and make a big thing of the scientific credentials of their speakers. here we have Paul Garner with BSc (Hons), FGS (which I thought at first meant For Gawds Sake). But no, turns out he has the BSc for Environmental sciences (Geology and biology) and he's a fellow of the Geological society. How I don't know. However his next club is a little more predicatable.

The BCM have a page on their beliefs. Basically they're a bunch of young earthers. Really it dulls the brain. But we do find common ground on one point:

We reject the ‘two books’ concept which suggests that God’s revelation in nature can be approached independently from God’s revelation in Holy Scripture. We reject the idea that knowledge may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ truth.

They're right. Knowledge cannot be divided into secular and religous. There is only the truth. And it certainly isn't what they think it is.

Politician’s popularity unaided by his popular faith

Harry Clarke joins Andrew Bolt in bemoaning the anti-Christian menace.

This time it's Catholics, followers of the most popular sect (5 million) of the most popular religion (12.7 million) in Australia, who are being discriminated against:
Sadly, I cannot help thinking that prejudiced views on Tony Abbott's Catholicism have hindered his prospects. We live in a secular society where people like Abbott who seek to live by a decent moral code are regarded suspiciously.
Abbott is not disliked because he lives by "decent moral code". He is unpopular because he tries to enforce, through legislation, an illogical, harmful "moral code" based on belief in a sky fairy.

There is nothing decent about restricting access to emergency contraception. Or fighting embryonic stem cell research, an area of great potential which one day could allow for the development of "replacement nerves and organs to overcome a range of devastating illnesses."

Parliamentary Liberal Party members recognise how secular and socially liberal Australia is. As such, Abbott will never be their leader.

Politician’s popularity unaided by his popular faith

Harry Clarke joins Andrew Bolt in bemoaning the anti-Christian menace.

This time it's Catholics, followers of the most popular sect (5 million) of the most popular religion (12.7 million) in Australia, who are being discriminated against:
Sadly, I cannot help thinking that prejudiced views on Tony Abbott's Catholicism have hindered his prospects. We live in a secular society where people like Abbott who seek to live by a decent moral code are regarded suspiciously.
Abbott is not disliked because he lives by "decent moral code". He is unpopular because he tries to enforce, through legislation, an illogical, harmful "moral code" based on belief in a sky fairy.

There is nothing decent about restricting access to emergency contraception. Or fighting embryonic stem cell research, an area of great potential which one day could allow for the development of "replacement nerves and organs to overcome a range of devastating illnesses."

Parliamentary Liberal Party members recognise how secular and socially liberal Australia is. As such, Abbott will never be their leader.