Funny How the Houses Are Always Colonials and the Penises Are Always Circumcised Isnã¢â‚¬â„¢t It Jim

Beepbeepitsme has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can run across the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the globe. If you would similar to bring together, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts.

I Am The Cheshire True cat

Well, I must say that I am shocked and stunned. Who would have thought? This trivial quiz jewel is courtesy of Texas Haven.

Alice in Wonderland - "I'thousand Odd" - The Cheshire Cat

cheshire cat , alice in wonderland , lewis carroll , odd , quiz , atheist

Which Famous Feline Are You lot?

Yous're the Cheshire True cat . Your mysterious aura and your penchant for riddles keep your friends guessing. You dislike staying likewise long in any 1 place. Your advice is ever sound, if somewhat enigmatic. The sum total of this is that people are always following you and you just Want TO GET AWAY!

Link

The Correct Hand Of God

Click on image to enlarge

~*~

"And sittith on the righthand of god the male parent almighty, from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead." - Nicene Creed

~*~

Why was the righthand the "right" side and the lefthand the "incorrect" side? The reason may go dorsum to some of our primeval observations of the sky.

~*~

In the Northern Hemisphere,the early on thinkers and teachers noted that their ain shadows moved from left to right, every bit does the shadow of a stick or a sundial move from left to right during the course of the sun across the heavens.

~*~

In that same northern hemisphere, however, if you want to bank check the path of the dominicus across the heavens, you lot have to confront southward, and the sun moves from your left to your right. Therefore, our preference for the right over the left may be based in ancient mythology, ancient astrology, aboriginal sunday worship, where the sun was moving Away from the left towards the right.

~*~

Ancient lord's day worshippers in the northern hemisphere, (modern religions were probably influenced by these thoughts too), would have seen their god, the dominicus, moving steadily away from the left and towards the right. The same pattern can be seen when travelling southwards from the northern hemisphere in a transport.

~*~

When the transport is travelling from the northern hemisphere southwards towards the equator, the sunday appears to ascension to the left (e), reaches its highest point almost straight overhead, and sets to the right (west). When the ship is far to the south of the equator, and so the sunday continues to appear to rise to the left (east), reaches its highest point due behind (northward), and sets to the right (w).

~*~

That this was the path that the ancients believed their god took, as it moved across the sky, was probably enough reason for them to be suspicious of the left.

~*~

Exodus 15:6 "Thy correct hand, O LORD, is become glorious in ability: thy right hand, O LORD, hath dashed in pieces the enemy."

Red Hot Chili Peppers - "Route Trippin" (But a Mirror For The Dominicus)

Link

CIRCUMCISION, AND THE EGYPTIAN FERTILITY CULT

(Click on epitome to enlarge)

Let's talk about circumcision. Why not? I discuss almost everything else, and then why not even so it all hang out, so to speak...
This commodity will be in reference to a couple of other articles dealing with what aboriginal people knew about procreation and the natural world and how their cultural and religious philosophies were influenced by this cognition and lack cognition.. So for any of y'all who want a background to this commodity, read hither and here kickoff.

The other point I would like to make is that I am reading and analysing the bible non from a position of faith. I am looking at it in the same way I would read any other book. I am allowing myself to not only doubt the claims that are made in it, but to inquire where did these claims originate and why did people thousands of years ago interpret their world the way they did. In other words, I am examining the information they had which formed their worldview.

Now, to start with, I will take for the sake of argument, that the hebrews were historically a group of people who left Arab republic of egypt. So an exodus in this sense did occur. (Exodus 2:23 And it came to pass in procedure of time, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God past reason of the bondage. 24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.) What was this covenant that the hebrews made with their god?

The covenant, or Abraham's Brit, occurred in 1714 BCE on the 13th of Nissan of the year 2048 from cosmos (1713 BCE). God supposedly appeared to Abram, changed his name to Abraham and commanded him to circumcise himself and all members of his household and all future descendents then that "My covenant shall be in your flesh, every bit an eternal covenant". Abraham was supposedly 99 years former at the time, and his son Ishmael, thirteen. Isaac, who was born a year subsequently, was supposedly the outset Jew to exist circumcised at viii days.

To find out specifically what this covenant was, nosotros need to await at Genesis 17: ii,9 and x.

• Genesis 17: 2 "And I will brand my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly."
• Genesis 17:half-dozen "And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come up out of thee. "
• Genesis 17:9 "And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt go on my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed afterwards thee in their generations."
• Genesis 17:10 "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, betwixt me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised."
• Genesis 17:11 "And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you."

So the covenant with god was that god would multiply the hebrews exceedingly, that they would be fruitful if they performed the ritual of circumcision. This ritual was to be performed on every man who was a jew and in render god'due south promise was that he would make the hebrew people abundant and powerful.

Now where did this thought of circumcision originate? Many jews, christians and muslims will claim that it originated with the jewish traditions as that is where most people are familar with it equally a religious and a cultural practise, only the oldest recorded show of circumcision is in Egypt. Tomb artwork from the Sixth Dynasty (2345 - 2181 BC) shows men with circumcised penises, and i relief from this period shows the rite existence performed on a standing adult male. Evidence of circumcision abounds in aboriginal egyptian temple reliefs and egyptologists have found both circumcised and uncircumcised penises on the unwrapped mummies of pharaohs.

The egyptians seem to have been circumcising males for at least a few hundred years before the hebrews had circumcision every bit their covenant with god. So, why did the egyptians have male person circumcision as part of their culture? What purpose did it have and what did it symbolise?

For a start, some historians take suggested that the priests of Egypt were circumcised as a sacrifice. As a manner of forsaking "sinful pleasures". This sounds more like modern christian morality trying to retrofit itself into an ancient culture, because the concept of sex as sin, is non known to take been a office of the Egyptian religion. What is known is that the circumcised penis was a symbol of fertility, as can be seen in temple reliefs throughout Arab republic of egypt. So, the origin of circumcision in Egypt, is more likely to be that the circumcised penis was seen as a fertility symbol.

"According to Egyptologist, E. A. Budge ('The Gods of the Egyptians'. Dover Publications), there was a very early God of Circumcision whose job was to maintain the fertility of the Nile banks. Another early Egyptian myth contended that God circumcised himself and the blood from his penis fell and created the universe. This myth is idea by some to be the progenitor of the blood cults, in which animals were sacrificed and the blood covenants in the modernistic Semitic religions. Another theory, quite unorthodox, holds that the Great Pyramid (Cheops) was not a tomb at all (it contained no artifacts, no mummies, etc.) but was a temple of initiation. The young initiates to the priesthood were, supposedly, led single file through the narrow passages receiving one initiatory degree after another and, reaching what is now chosen the "Queen's Chamber", they were circumcised and then proceeded up the Grand Gallery towards the "King'southward Chamber" and their terminal degree. The circumcised priests were the guardians of immortality; symbols of fertility and life everlasting." (From Ancient Egyptian Circumcision & Mod Day Practices in Males)

Whichever theory is correct, circumcision was seen as a symbol of fertility and power. I don't consider it to be a coincidence that the hebrews would ALSO meet circumcision equally a symbol of fertility and a symbol of ability, as the nigh powerful nation in the world at that fourth dimension, Arab republic of egypt, practised this ritual. Now, to empathize why the egyptians and the hebrews would see circumcision as a symbol of ferility and power we have to back up a bit further historically.

So HOW was circumcision associated with fertility? Now, if yous lived in Egypt you lot were dependent upon the flooding of the Nile and the prosperity of crops and food resources that resulted from this annual effect. The flooding of the Nile rendered the narrow strip of country on either side of the river extremely fertile. Intensive agronomics was practised on these strips of land by the majority of the peasant population. So, subsequently the alluvion waters of the Nile receded, sowing and ploughing would accept taken identify using primitive wooden ploughs. Therefore, the fertility of the soil, which was built upward through flood and alluvial deposits was crucial to the being of Egypt.

Two of the major gods of fertility were Hapi/Hapy and Min. Interestingly, some of the major fertility gods were male. Hapi is often depicted every bit a male person with female person breasts and was the god who personified the flooding of the Nile. He was honoured as it was through his deportment that the country was fabricated fertile and set for the sowing of seed. Soil, earth, and fields have in many aboriginal cultures traditionally represented the female. Hapi, as the flood god, represented the male force which makes the female soil fertile for the sowing of seed.

One of the other major fertility gods in Arab republic of egypt was Min. Min was once once again a male god who symbolized fertility and sexuality. He was also the patron of travelers through the eastern Sahara. He was depicted as a man with a big erect penis. He is about frequently depicted holding his penis erect in his left hand (a masturbatory reference to fertility), and wearing the attire of a pharaoh, a feathered crown and carrying a flail. (The way he holds his flail might be symbolic of sexual intercourse as the flail forms the V while his upraised forearm seems to thrust within the V.)

Min wasn't just a fertility god, he was as well a god of male fertility who could give the pharaoh (and other men) the power to father children. As a god of male sexual potency, he was honoured during the coronation rites of the New Kingdom, when the pharaoh was expected to sow his seed. This was more often than not idea to have been plant seeds, although there has been the suggestion that the pharaoh was expected to demonstrate that he could ejaculate and thus ensure the almanac flooding of the Nile.

Therefore, the phallic god Min, (sometimes referred to equally Menu), represented the sexual say-so of the pharaoh, the Great Firm, an attribute of the Good God considered necessary to the fertility of the Nile valley. During the annual festival of Min, men engaged in public acts of masturbation in his award. (From Masturbation Throughout History)

Ane of the symbols of Min was a bed of lettuce that the egyptians believed to be an aphrodisiac, as egyptian lettuce was tall, straight, and released a milk-like substance when rubbed. A characteristic similar to the penis. Min was always depicted with an cock and uncovered phallus, and thus, in afterward history, christians routinely defaced his monuments in temples, and Victorian egyptologists would have but waist-up photographs of Min, or otherwise detect means to cover his protruding manhood.

However, to the ancient egyptians, Min was not a matter of scandal, but part of their religious and cultural belief system. And he was manifestly a very important part, that of male fertility. He was worshipped to not only ensure the fertility of the pharoah and other men, but besides to ensure the flooding of the Nile. No flooding of the Nile meant no fertile fields. No fertile fields meant no crops. No crops meant no herd animals which meant starvation and eventual decease. Farming was the life's claret of Arab republic of egypt and the fertility of the land was paramount to its survival.

So what has circumcision equally a fertility ritual have to do with this? Why would the egyptians and consequently the hebrews, see circumcision equally a means to prosperity, abundance and power? What data did they accept that would take led them to such a conclusion? Merely more than importantly, I think, what data did they NOT take?

The ancient Egyptians saw fertility and the cosmos of new life equally primarily a male responsibility. Afterall, they had prove of the role that the male person played in reproduction. They had evidence of ejaculation, which is frequently refered to as seed in ancient texts. The male penis was a symbol of fertility, for as the seed was sown in the soil and field to produce fruits, and so was the seed of human being sown in adult female to produce "human fruit." The male person seed held the "spark of life."

If you believe that it is the male who contains the seed necessary to create life, information technology stands to reason that your culture and religion mirrors this conventionalities. And then seed, (semen) and seed for crops, may have all been considered as originating from the male person of the species. Seed, which was produced EXCLUSIVELY, past men. The earth, soil, fields and womankind, may have but been considered the depository for seed and where the seed would accept fruit.

How do I know that the aboriginal Egyptians considered that the responsibility for fertility as the producers of seed was primarily a male responsibility? I know this because the ovum (female person egg) was only discovered by Prussian-Estonian embryologist Dr. Karl Ernst von Baer in 1827. And that in 1843 Martin Drupe discovered the fact that homo formulation occurs when the sperm enters the ovum. While people used to believe that the male implants life into the female, they now knew that both the male and female EACH contributed half the textile needed to create life. This changed forever the way the world would run across human reproduction. But it did NOT change the cultures and religions which grew out of male fertility cults.

At present, back to Egypt for a moment. It is highly probable that the egyptians, who revered the instrument of human production, and bore its image in their processions, conceived the idea of offering to their main gods, Isis and Osiris, a modest portion of that organ with which these deities had connected the perpetuation of the homo species. (From Voltaire - Philosophical Dictionary)

Afterall, if you accept the belief that seed is produced exclusively by males and that women do not contribute genetic textile in order to create new life, so you about probably create a ritual which symbolises the importance of this conventionalities. If women and men were made from seed which human produced, and then the male person penis would take on special religious significance. I suggest that the ritual which was created to symbolize this male ability was circumcision.

Then, did the hebrews take with them the religious civilization of circumcision when they left Arab republic of egypt? I think then. And I think they practised it for the same reasons that the aboriginal egyptians did. The god of the onetime attestation promised the jews the same things that the ancient egyptians believed they were getting from their religious ritual of circumcision. They were promised abundance and power. Lots of "fruit", (descendents), through the sowing of "seed" ways economical and political power.

Which brings me to the final part of this article. Y'all really want to know why I recollect the ancient hebrews created laws about bestiality and homosexuality? Or why they believed that certain sexual practices were sinful? I propose that they fabricated the rules about bestiality and homosexuality because the covenant with god was to make them prosperous and arable.

Genesis 17: ii "And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly." That is, seed would be wasted if it was sown where it could not conduct fruit. Therefore, in that location was to be NO wasting of "seed" on men or animals as seed sown in that location didn't bear "fruit." All that "seed" was to be used for procreation, if a people wanted to get prosperous and abundant. Religions know that big groups are powerful groups. Lots of "fruit" (descendents) ways economic and political power.

And your circumcision scar, (as modest or as large as information technology might be), probably has its origin in Egypt, in a fourth dimension when the penis was part of fertility worship. So, guys, what does it feel similar to exist part of an ancient fertility cult? ;)

The Bangles - "Walk Like An Egyptian"

(I had considered posting the track "The First Cutting Is The Deepest" but I thought amend of it. No signal in rubbing salt into the wound. Oooops.. )

Link

To BEE Or Non To BEE - That Is The BUZZ

Most religious people claim that morality, or the group ethic is based in a religious origin. This is a common claim, made often and repeatedly by most people of religious faith. I don't come across whatever obvious correlation betwixt god belief and morality. Neither god belief nor the lack of it, guarantees moral or ethical homo behaviour.

I think that people cooperate because it is mutually advantageous. Nosotros are capable of natural feelings such as empathy, sympathy, remorse etc. Our natural abilities to empathize with other humans forms the footing of what we consider to be moral or ethical. There are rare people who are termed sociopathic, who obviously are incapable of these emotions, but for the vast majority of u.s. these homo emotions allow usa, by understanding our own needs, to sympathise the needs of others. So, I think that morality has every bit much to practise with our genetic origins than it has with any hierarchial supernatural construct that we take devised in an endeavor to keep people in line. (By hierarchial supernatural construct, I mean god belief.)

Primatologists like Frans de Waal take long argued that the roots of human morality are evident in social animals like apes and monkeys. The animals' feelings of empathy and expectations of reciprocity are essential behaviors for mammalian group living and can be regarded as a analogue of human morality. Marc D. Hauser, a Harvard biologist, has built on this idea to propose that people are built-in with a moral grammar wired into their neural circuits by evolution. In a new book, "Moral Minds" (HarperCollins 2006), he argues that the grammer generates instant moral judgments which, in role considering of the quick decisions that must be fabricated in life-or-death situations, are inaccessible to the witting mind. It implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape to an innate behavior. And it suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes merely, rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral beliefs. (From Atheist Girl)

I would also draw your attending to a recent report concerning bees and behaviour. Just recently scientists mapped the bee genome. They were interested to try and explain why it was evolutionary advantageous for worker bees to be sterile and to invest all their time and life caring for the eggs of a single queen bee. What they observed was that in some hives, a small-scale per centum of bees which were usually worker bees and sterile, were actually laying eggs in the hive given the opportunity.

They called these bees "anarchist bees" because their behaviour conflicted with the usual reproductive and social design exhibited within the hive. By mapping the genome of a "normal worker bee" and that of one of these "agitator bees", they were able to compare the differences in their genomes. What they institute was that the "anarchist bees" did not accept the reproductive indicators turned off which would accept made them sterile. Instead they were fertile, just equally the queens were. The scientists wondered why a small % of bees exhibited with genomes which expressed this concrete behaviour.

They conducted an experiment whereby they seeded a hive with a queen and a much larger collection of "anarchist bees" than would normally be nowadays in a hive. The result was inevitably disasterous for the hive. When most all the bees were trying to lay eggs, there were not enough sterile bees to do the work, and the social structure of the hive collapsed. Information technology was e'er wondered what evolutionary reward sterility might have considering that fertility is the key to passing on genes. And why would such a large population of bees bar i, the queen, invest all their energies and life into the rearing of another bee'due south young?

Essentially, sterility IS an evolutionary advantage for bee hives. Scientists refer to this sterility as "genetic altruism." "Altruistic" in the sense that the majority of bees have, through natural selection, waived their "rights" to breed, in favour of the continuation of the hive and the continuation of the species. This suggests that what we may consider equally a moral behaviour or ethical behaviour, namely altruism, has been natural selected in bees and is expressed genetically.

I also think that natural option in man beings has resulted in the genetic expression of moral traits and ethical traits. Many religions preach the code of selflessness, non-ego, putting others first etc (and however slse it tin can exist expressed); still, the bulk of people, even when they say they adher to such a code, find that it is extremely difficult to put this code into practice. Personally, I recall it is an unrealistic code for a number of reasons.

Although I believe that conscious acts of "altruism" may be considered worthy and perhaps fifty-fifty noble, I doubt that it is possible to physically survive for extended periods of time if altruism didn't have a payoff for either the individual or the group to which the individual belongs. I retrieve information technology is in contradition to our "genetic instructions" (yes, any that means - factor expression, perhaps) - to behaviourally demonstrate altruism which doesn't have a payoff.

Where does this concept of self sacrifice, or putting the needs of others offset originate? Well, as an atheist, I think that these human attributes and predispositions are to be found in gene expression. For example, it is demonstrated in nature that many beast mothers will place themselves in considerable damage in society to preserve their family unit. It is too demonstrated in nature that male person animals will fight off the attentions of other males in order to preserve the pride, pack, grouping. In both instances they are examples of what nosotros may consider to be "altruistic behaviours." These supposed "altruistic behaviours" though, practise include a payoff to the individual and as well to the group. And then, even though we may incorrectly characterization them as "acts of altruism," they are essentially acts of self involvement.

And then, animals and humans both has a sense of what it is preserve a grouping. But essentially, their interest to preserve the grouping through self sacrifice might merely be that of self interest. In other words, they are prepared to put self concluding only as an act of self interest. (Sounds contradictory, I know.) They have a vested interest in the preservation of the particular grouping to which they belong which may exclude their human activity of self sacrifice every bit being an act of altruism.

We ascertain an altruistic act as an human action or behaviour where nosotros put the needs of others above the needs of cocky. Merely, as I accept suggested, acts of altruism tin simply as easily be seen as acts of self interest. For instance: Politicians regularly "autumn on their swords" in society to preserve that which they consider to be the integrity, or worth of the party to which they belong. Religious fanatics regularly sacrifice their very lives in order to preserve (as they see it), the belief arrangement of the religious grouping to which they belong. And of course soldiers of every nation take sacrificed their lives for the same ideal; the preservation of the group/nation/political ideology to which they identify.

In the example of the political leader, the religious fanatic, or the soldier, the act of cocky sacrifice emulates the instinctual deed in the animal kingdom. The party has become the family/pride/flock. The religious group has get the family unit etc and the nation for which the soldier fights for has become the family etc. In other words, these groups have become for all intents and purposes, the families that we would like to preserve. If these groups (religious, political, cultural etc) go synonmous psychologically with the concept of the family or pack, are these acts ones of self cede or are they an instinct to preserve cocky by preserving the group?

When the group that i identifies with becomes synonymous with the self, the example could be made that self sacrifice isn't putting oneself last, information technology may just exist putting oneself first. Preserving the group might become preserving self when personal identification with the grouping is so psychologically compelling. Maybe the groups and the ideologies which man beings are capable of identifying with, tap into our naturally occurring, naturally selected predisposition to preserve self by preserving the grouping. Similar the honey bee, the lion, and animals of other species, we may only be acting upon a naturally selected predisposition to enhance survival.

"BEE" Gees - "Stayin' Alive"

Link

Were Adam And Eve Framed?

How could adam and eve know that it was wrong to disobey god if they had no knowledge of proficient and evil? Why would an omnipresent god, (one who is everywhere at once), allow the serpent to tempt eve? Why would an omniscient god, (one who knows everything), allow eve to be tempted knowing that eve WOULD be tempted? Co-ordinate to the bible this is the sequence of the relevant events. Genesis ii:viii-eighteen "And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and in that location he put the human whom he had formed. 15 And the LORD God took the human, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16 And the LORD God allowable the homo, proverb, Of every tree of the garden chiliad mayest freely consume: 17 Merely of the tree of the noesis of proficient and evil, yard shalt not eat of information technology: for in the twenty-four hours that k eatest thereof thou shalt surely dice. 18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the homo should exist lone; I volition make him an help meet for him.


Ok, that is the background. God created a garden called eden and he placed a man and a woman, who he as well created in the garden and he commanded the man non to eat of the tree of cognition of adept and evil. Now also in this garden was a ophidian or serpent, which god had besides created. ( Genesis 1:25 "And God made the beast of the globe after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth subsequently his kind: and God saw that it was skilful.")

Adam, who was the first to be told not to eat of the tree of proficient and evil must have gone on to tell eve, because when the snake tempts eve, eve replies - Genesis 3:3 "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall non eat of information technology, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." The snake then goes on to tell eve that they won't dice but that they will be like gods as they will know good and evil. ( Genesis three:4-5 "And the snake said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5For God doth know that in the twenty-four hours ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Hang on. That ways that adam and eve had no knowledge of what was proficient and what was evil as the bible states that it is Afterward they eat the fruit from the tree that they will know good from evil. And then how could they know it was wrong to eat the fruit in the commencement identify? And just equally importantly, how could they know that it was wrong to disobey god and wrong to listen to the snake? Something isn't correct here.


Adam and eve, after eating the fruit, realized that they were naked. Apparently being naked is a bad affair as they so proceeded to cover their "naughty bits" with a leafage or ii. God gets a bit stroppy about this and says: - ( Genesis3: xi "Who told y'all that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?") So, god now realizes that adam and eve have acquired the knowledge of good and evil AFTER eating the fruit, and that they did NOT know expert from evil prior to eating the fruit.

And then adam and eve only gained the knowledge of good and evil Later on they had eaten of the fruit, they had no idea what proficient and evil was before that time. If they only gained the knowledge of good and evil subsequently they ate the fruit, they plainly did not know that it was evil/bad to swallow the fruit in the first identify.

Let's now discuss the result of an omnipresent god. If god is omnipresent , that is he is everywhere at once, god must have been able to see and hear the snake tempting eve. If that is the case, why didn't he only kick the ophidian out of the fashion earlier it could open up its yap? Surely he wouldn't have wanted adam and eve to be tempted? I dunno. Maybe he was decorated finishing off the fjords at the time and wasn't paying attending. And why would an omniscient god, 1 who knows everything, NOT know that the snake was going to tempt eve and that he would be successful in this venture? An omnicient god should accept known that the snake was going to successfully tempt eve, so why would he have put the snake there in the first place?

"In The Garden Of Eden" by - I. Ron. Butterfly

adam+and+eve , garden+of+eden , bible , god , genesis , talking+serpent , atheist , omnipotent , all-seeing

Link

Five Things About Me

Kill The Afterlife has tagged me for the "Five Things Nearly Me" meme. So, this post is all about me.

• 1. That is my real caput.

• two. That is a real car.

• 3. That is a real beach in Australia.

• iv. The song, "Drive My Motorcar" by The Beatles, must have been written for me because it has my blogname in it.

• five. That proves that either The Beatles were psychic or that Starsky and Hutch were. Accept your pick.
  

Starsky and Hutch - "Drive My Automobile"

As tradition demands, I volition now tag anyone else who reads this blog and would like to keep the "Five Things Almost Me" meme. A link dorsum, would always exist appreciated.

egoism , drive+my+car , the+beatles , starsky+hutch , atheist , meme , five+things+nearly+me

Link

Freewill - "Turn or Fire"

~*~

I take often said: "It isn't freedom if it is simply the freedom to agree." Today, I am going to elaborate slightly on this concept by suggesting that " It isn't freewill if it is merely the freedom to agree." The concept of freewill is used in many aspects of our lives, yet today, information technology is primarily its theological utilise which I will be exploring. Freewill is a basically a term for the capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. So, I suggest that the prerequisites for freewill to occur are:i. a rational agent 2. a choice of diverse alternatives. Scenario:

A vacuum salesman comes to my door and wants to sell me a "ridgy didge, you beaut vacuum cleaner." He tells me information technology is the best vacuum cleaner that you tin can buy. It will last forever and information technology has more suck than a frog's bum on the windscreen of a car travelling at 100 miles per hour. I tell him that I don't demand a vacuum cleaner as I sweep the floor past hand and that the backlog use of electricity will but add to the effects of global climate modify. He tells me that I must buy the vacuum cleaner or he will transport his manager around to boom my face in. Now, if I believe that he has a manager who has the ability and the will to smash my face up in, I might be encouraged through the threat of violence to BUY that vacuum cleaner. Merely would it be of my ain freewill if the transaction occurred because of perceived threat of violence that would occur if I didn't comply?

Is it an human activity of freewill if a man holds a knife to your throat and tells you to submit to sex or he is going to slit your throat? The law says a resounding "no." The extenuating circumstance of the threat of violence negates the idea that the victim has a reasonable choice. The concept of freewill means that she would exist likely to choose an culling which HASN'T been offered. If the victim had freewill, they would more likely choose to exist sitting at home with their anxiety up watching the Idiot box, or some other action which they considered favourable.

Consequently, the courtroom doesn't tell the victim who was raped ," Distressing, luv, you had a option and yous chose to be raped without violence, instead of being raped with violence." The court recognises that the woman or man, has had their power to choose what they consider to be a favourable upshot impaired. They recognise that neither the threat of rape, nor the threat of rape with violence, offers a choice that the individual may non would willingly agree to, if a threat had not been applied. They recognise that essentially, the victim'south freewill has been severely limited because of the lack of favourable choices.

The concept of freewill under these circumstances is basically an case of the simulated dilemma with a threat of violence. The faux dilemma involves a state of affairs in which two alternative points of view are held to be the simply options, when in reality in that location exist 1 or more other options which take non been considered. In other words, when but two options are given to an private and neither selection may be favourable to the private and yet it is demanded that they choose one of them.

ii Chronicles 15:12-13"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and anybody who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small-scale or smashing, whether man or woman."

Psalm 7:12 "If he plow not, he will whet his sword; he hath aptitude his bow, and fabricated it ready."

Is it freewill if people are told to "turn or burn? " Is it freewill if the options are "heaven or hell?" Join u.s. or exist killed, bring together us or get to hell - they are not options of free will. They are threats of violence where an alternative pick, which the individual may find favourable, is excluded. There is no freewill if you lot believe that a god exists, there is but penalisation if you don't obey. That'due south not gratis volition. That is intimidation, coersion and threats of violence and suffering if you don't join the society, buy the vacuum cleaner or submit to sex. Information technology isn't an exercise of freewill, as freewill requires that y'all make up one's mind WITHOUT fear of violence or penalisation. Consent is not consent if threats of violence elicit the consent and where the options presented are then narrow that i can find neither option favourable. Consent is not of one's freewill if the threat of violence elicits the consent. Freewill is not freewill, if it is just the freedom to agree to propositions which the individual finds unfavourable, unsatistactory, or distasteful.

PS: And before anyone accuses me of picking on christians, I do recognise that islam has the same mentality.

Black Sabbath - "Heaven and Hell"

Link

The Holy Invisible Egg

Image: - Artistic Representation Only

~*~

'Gulliver's Travels,' (1726, amended 1735), by Jonathan Swift , is a satirical novel on human nature. The story loosely is about a eye grade englishman, Gulliver, who goes on a body of water voyage and is shipwrecked on the island of Lilliput. In Lilliput, there are basically ii groups of people - loftier-heeled Tramecksan and depression-heeled Slamecksan. The animosities betwixt these parties run so high, that they will neither consume nor drink, nor talk with each other.

~*~

In that location exists a further rift between the ruling Little-Endians and the persecuted Big-Endians, who interpret in dissimilar ways the sacred text: "That all true believers shall suspension their eggs at the convenient end."

~*~

So what does this story of Lilliput and its inhabitants accept to do with current earth events? As an atheist, who doesn't have a religious domestic dog in the fight, watching the confrontation between christianity and islam is like watching the Little-Endians and the Large-Endians (from 'Gulliver'due south Travels'), arguing and going to state of war over from which end they should open up an "invisible egg." The Little-Endians take non-negotiable faith that the only way that the "invisible egg" can be opened is by opening it at the pointy end and the Large-Endians have an equal amount of non-negotiable faith that the "invisible egg" tin only exist opened at the non-pointy stop.

Each grouping'south indominable and not-negotiable religion encourages their adherents to believe that no matter what happens, that their fight is a just and noble battle against evil. And that the other side must exist inherently evil, or at the least, very rude and uncivilized for suggesting otherwise. This "organized religion mentality" is what allows each side to go along behaviours which are potentially dissentious, harmful, or at least non-productive, to anyone else who doesn't share their non-negotiable religion.

Meanwhile, the skeptics, atheists, agnostics and assorted other non-believers, are sitting around scratching their heads and saying - "Excuse me, only what makes you so convinced that there is an invisible egg in the first place.?"

The Beatles - "I Am The Walrus"

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things: Of shoes and ships and sealing wax; Of cabbages and kings. And why the sea is boiling hot; And whether pigs have wings." - Lewis Carroll

jonathan+swift , gulliver's+travels , satire , islam , christianity , atheist , agnostic , lilliput , egg , religion

This is a video of Steve Carell and Stephen Colbert arguing which religion is better Islam or Christianity.

Link

Homosexuality Is Natural Part 2

Employ Your Discretion. This mail contains Adult Concepts.

~*~

This post is a follow-upward to a previous article I posted called "Homosexuality Is Natural." In the video below, Ricky Gervais gives his comedic touch to the position that homosexuality is natural. If you haven't seen this before, and you like Gervais, I suggest you lot requite it a watch. I observe it hilarious, merely then, that is me. Allow me know what you remember.

~*~

~*~

The below video plainly lends the Cole Porter song a little more meaning. "Birds practice it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it. Let'southward do it, allow'due south fall in love." Comments are welcomed.

~*~

Link

Creationism Is Comedy

Gervais is an atheist . In an interview given to John Humphrys he said, "Existence an atheist makes someone a clearer thinking, fairer person. . . . They (atheists) are not doing things to be rewarded in sky ; they're doing things because they're right, because they live by a moral code ."

He also added that, although he doesn't believe,

God , (if he exists), would like him.

Ricky Gervais - The Bible

~*~

~*~

"What I do take an interest in is the notion that the ancient mythology of the Jews should be the standard against which claims in modern scientific discipline should exist judged. To me, that is just plain stupid. Yes, that's right; I discover it stupid to believe that the God of the aboriginal Jews dictated science lessons to Moses or other chosen ones." - Dr. Robert T. Carroll

Link

It's All Well-nigh Sexual activity Baby...

Image - "The Seed Every bit The Origin Of The Fruit"

~*~

What was the biological knowledge of the people in the middle east a couple of thousand years ago? How did they alive? How did their lifestyle influence their worldview? Did the express biological knowledge of the time upshot in not merely in a shift towards a more overt course of patriarchy, and if so, could this shift towards male political and economic power take helped to create the concept of a "supreme male person god"?

~*~

It'southward interesting to note that the supposed time span from Abraham to the time of the early church is a period of about two thousand years. Information technology is during this time that there was a cultural change from a nomadic lifestyle which consisted of moving from identify to place with herd animals, to a more settled agronomical based club. This may have occurred for the israelites when they reportedly settled in Canaan later on leaving Egypt. Farming became a more than of import way of making a living. Grains, such as wheat and barley, were used for making breadstuff, and were the nigh of import crops.

~*~

As time went on, their knowledge as farmers helped them to grow fruits, including melons, figs, dates, grapes, and olives. From these practices, developed a number of religious festivals which were based on their agricultural society. Some of the major religious festivals in Israel were the Harvest Festival and the Festival of Shelters. These festivals were coordinated with the farming cycle. The Harvest Festival, also chosen the Festival of Weeks, celebrated the wheat harvest in the spring (Exod 23.16). The Festival of Shelters (or Booths) is an autumn holiday for the occasion of the planting and gathering of crops, and the annual harvest.

~*~

Grain and seed and the resultant propsperity and eventual dependence upon an agrarian lifestyle meant that seed would be seen as an essential element to the continuation of life. The veneration or importance of seed would exist obvious in an agrarian society. At that place was political and economic power in being the producer of the seed. Seed was necessary to plant the grain crops. Plus it was necessary for all the fruits, such as figs, dates. Aparts from their knowledge of seeds and agriculture, people of this time period would accept been enlightened of the copulation of their herd animals and the fact that male animals deposited "seed" into female person animals who then went on to bear the "fruit" which originated from this seed.

~*~

It is doubtful if there was any recognition that either female humans or female animals contributed whatever matter towards the growth of the seed to the fruit. They provided the environment, or the soil in which the seed could have root and prosper. It was the male who produced the seed. The seed was probably thought of equally the primary element. Information technology was the female who nurtured the seed until it grew into fruit. The fruit, when born, was of male seed, or his seed - not of her egg or ovum as they didn't know that women produced ova. If women could not "acquit fruit" even though they had received "seed", they were seen as barren, as soil was considered barren, or lifeless, if it did not produce a crop of grain or fruit.

~*~

This kind of puts in perspective to me, why Jesus cursed the fig tree in Matthew 21:nineteen. "And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and establish nothing thereon, only leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for always. And before long the fig tree withered away." Was this because he had been expecting fruit and had received none? Had the fig tree failed him equally a barren woman would accept failed her husband? I don't know. Sounds suspiciously like it to me. Perhaps from Jesus' betoken of view, it was the task of that tree to produce fruit. It had been seeded and had grown to a tree, merely had non produced fruit. It had disappointed him, and therefore deserved a bit of a natural language-lashing.

~*~

Patriarchy, or male power structures, therefore, may have been given a heave with this shift from a hunter/gatherer culture to an agrestal 1. Certainly, information technology has been suggested that this huge shift in human behaviour and the resultant changes in the emerging cultures and societies, may accept been the catalyst towards the creation of strongly patriarchial religious systems. The major monotheistic religions and their overt patriarchial hierarchies evolved in the spaces between nomadic and agrestal societies, not in the hunter/gatherer ones.

~*~

Then, why is information technology "all virtually sex?" I call up that the female gods and female power structures continued to disintegrate during the cultural and societal shift from hunter/gathers and nomadic lifestyles to more settled agrarian cultures considering men were able to show that they produced the seed needed to create life. Equally their crops came from seed, and so did their children come from seed. In essence, men began to see themselves every bit the creators of life. Perchance, they also began to see their penis' every bit the tools for the creation of life, as evidenced by the jewish covenant with god being a foreskin.

~*~

Prior to the development of male dominated religions, in the hunter/gatherer cultures, the cosmos of life was always viewed as something mystical, supernatural, mysterious AND essentially female. Afterall, women gave birth - they were the "creators of life" or the "producers of life", therefore fertility and the creation of life may have been viewed as essentially female. With the appearance of agrarian cultures and the increased knowledge of natural biological processes, the thought of who was responsible for the creation of new life probably shifted from a female person origin to a male ane.

~*~

People became enlightened that females, (humans and animals), did non give birth and create life without a cause. Males may have began to see themselves as the crusade of life as evidenced by sex and male ejaculation. It didn't take a Rhodes Scholars to work out that women did NOT give create new life unless they had been with a man. Female animals did not create new life unless they had been with a male. Then, I think a few misconceptions were made. Firstly at that place was the misconception that the male was responsible for the cosmos of life and that the female was just the vessel. She did not contribute matter to the creation of new life, she simply provided "the soil" in which the "male seed" was planted.

~*~

Many biological and religious misconceptions almost probable arose. Women were supposedly responsible for the lack of conception as she must be barren as soil is arid. It was not considered that the male seed may be non-productive, because information technology was assumed that all the elements for the creation of life were contained inside his seed. Best to retrieve at this juncture, that the ovum (female person egg) wasn't discovered until 1827 by Prussian-Estonian embryologist Dr. Karl Ernst von Baer. Prior to that, there was no evidence that females contributed any matter to the creation of life.

~*~

Man provided the seed which women gave nativity to as fruit. (the fruit of the womb) - The seed, which mankind provided was the catalyst for creation. Fruit was created from seed. Human being derived power from being the seed. The fruit grew from the seed, the woman provided a vessel (womb) for the growth of the seed, but essentially the seed was male. Perhaps this is besides why some cultures take considered female children to be inferior fruit as they could non produce seed, they could just receive seed.

~*~

Of course this blazon of agricultural thinking and the resultant religious thinking, is obvious when one looks at the language used in the bible. There are many references to seed and fruit. Not always literally used as "seed" and "fruit" as we would use them today, but also referring to seed as possible decendents and fruit as being babies. Some examples below.

~*~

• 1. Genesis 46:7 "His sons, and his sons' sons with him, his daughters, and his sons' daughters, and all his seed brought he with him into Arab republic of egypt." (Children are all his seed.)

• ii. Genesis 17:7 "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed later on thee." ( The covenant of circumcision.)

Why is the jewish covenant with god a foreskin? Something to do with the veneration of seed? The penis and the male sexual organs produce "seed". Is this recognition that the male through his seed, is the creator of life as the male god is the creator of life? Did this idea that males were the creators of life through their seed result in developing a religious concept that the supreme god must be male person? That is - males are the creators of life through their seed so therefore god must be male? If god is male, he must be capable of impregnating women even if he doesn't have seed. (Gods tin can do that sort of thing, doncha know...) In fact, peradventure the caput honcho would be someone who COULD get women pregnant without having to go through the usual "manly procedures.") Now THAT takes some skill. I can hear the local guys at the pub now. "Encounter, I am so virile, I only have to look at her and she gets pregnant." ;)

~*~

• 3. Leviticus 12:ii "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man kid: and so she shall exist unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Women conceive after the planting of seed.)

• 4. Ezra ix:2 "For they take taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed take mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been primary in this trespass." (All seed is equal, but some seed is more than equal than others if it is holy seed. The "holy seed" is a reference to the males of State of israel spreading their seed where they shouldn't. Namely amongst the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.)

• five. Genesis 30:2 "And Jacob'southward anger was kindled confronting Rachel: and he said, Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?" (Another naughty adult female who hasn't borne fruit later the seeding procedure.)

• 6. Leviticus 25:19 "And the land shall yield her fruit, and ye shall consume your make full, and dwell therein in safety." (A reference to the earth as female which produces fruit after she is seeded.)

~*~

These are merely a couple of examples, merely it is obvious to me that the shift from a nomadic lifestyle towards a more settled agrarian lifestyle, coupled with the knowledge of agriculture and farming; directly influenced the gender roles within their developing religion. It influenced which gender would have which power roles and why.

~*~

Perhaps human took the credit for the creation of life a few thousand years ago based on insufficient information virtually natural biological processes. The agrarian cultures only enforced this belief every bit the sowing of crops, was probably seen as the sowing of male seed into the female globe. We however refer to the globe as female. We refer to churches, ships, houses, planes as females. Many objects which can be symbolic of the female person womb is refered to as a "she". Whereas objects which are symbolic of action, acts of creation, sowing seed, shooting missiles, etc are generally refered to as "he." Maybe this is why the cultures which grew out of nomadic and then more settled farming communities, developed concepts of a supreme male god who, through his creation of men and women, would spread his seed across the face of the planet.

~*~

Just my thoughts on the subject.

~*~

PS. And homosexuality would have been seen as "bad" considering men would NOT have been sowing their seed in lodge to produce more than fruit.

sex , bible , patriarchy , female+gods , male+god , agronomics , hunter+gatherer , nomadic , judaism , circumcision , covenant , seed , fruit , jesus , gender+roles

~*~

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and baseborn, for the active ability of the male person seed tends to the product of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active ability." - Thomas Aquinas, 'Summa Theologica', Q92, art. one, Reply Obj. 1

Link

grahamstan1955.blogspot.com

Source: https://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2007/01/

Share this post