62 thoughts on “Oh, for gods sake …

          1. Don’t bother Ark. It’s just the same-old, same-old. And exceptionally long at that. (I stopped after the first paragraph and then scrolled down … and down … and down.)

            Something I wonder about is why it takes believers so many words to try and convince people about their god …?? All non-believers need to say is .,.. I don’t believe in the existence of any supernatural entity. End of story.

            Liked by 2 people

      1. Ha! Nice try at mockery. I would like an explanation, especially in light of Carl Sagan’s arguments over how an extraterrestrial entity would communicate with humanity.

        Like

        1. Not to answer for Jim, but it’s only fair that if you would like an answer from him you should have the integrity to provide evidence for your claims regarding Jesus.
          Fair’s fair, after all, Diana, wouldn’t you agree?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I provided two links which provide evidence that if you think about their content you would have to concede that the story of Jesus has a supernatural aspect to it. I mean, just sit down and reason with yourself. You have no evidence for the existence of any other writers…and the biblical record is confirmed by archaeology, yet you treat it all like WE are writing the fairy tale!

            Like

          2. I provided two links which provide evidence

            The piece/ article on your blog is not evidence.
            The bible is evidence of the bible. There is no evidence of the claims it makes.

            and the biblical record is confirmed by archaeology,

            Give me a few examples.

            Like

          3. I need to add, Ark, that we have no way to test, demonstrate or prove the supernatural and miraculous. Towards that end, we go with Hume that no miracles have been proven. Diana should try again.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. Have you seen Sagan’s mathematical/3D puzzle he presented without instructions to his graduate students? They solved it not knowing what it was.
          Of course a god that invented our ability to language should be able to stoop down to our level and communicate. Especially since we are his children. Are whales children of god?
          Btw, it would be a fun exercise to find intelligent people from another galaxy. You think they’d know YHWY? Hahaha. Hardly. It would be fun to watch He churches scramble for relevance

          Liked by 2 people

          1. What does God look like?
            Well, according to you god is a He, so god must be strictly masculine, white bearded grandfatherly type with a white, middle eastern son. And of course we have no mother.

            Like

    1. As a Christian, diana… I didn’t believe God was “in the sky” at all. If He is… He is EVERYWHERE at ALL TIMES and IN ALL THINGS… or Nowhere at all. Arguments and philosophical pretzels won’t get you actual evidence of His existence. And we being limited to examining the Natural world only… are at a true loss to examine anything or anywhere outside of the Natural world. Belief in God is an act of the Will to believe what one cannot demonstrate to be actually true. Faith requires us to go beyond even the question to simple Belief, sans or even contr evidence available.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I thought you were writing an algebraic equation …y… then forgot the x or something!
        Don’t fret until you walk out the house and realise you forgot to put your pants on. Or worse…. someone points it out!

        Liked by 1 person

  1. Not as a religious person, but as a human being with a sober mind, it’s
    interesting what some consider funny……while others see the same thing as vile.

    This person is a vile human being.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well, freedom of expression is all the rage, so rage on my moth eaten leonine friend.
      But …. and you knew there might be one of those on the flat earth horizon!
      So … but … let’s compare vile humans shall we?
      No prizes I’m sorry to say, CS, but it’ll be a fun exercise nevertheless.
      Please identify the one you consider more vile.

      Murdering people because they drew funny cartoons of Mohammed OR Patton Oswalt.

      Burning thousands of people alive because the church claimed they were witches OR Patton Oswalt.

      Coming up behind a stranger in a Belfast street and whispering in his ear, ”Catholic or Protestant” and if the answer was ”wrong” shooting them in the knee cap OR Patton Oswalt.

      Burying a woman up to her neck and stoning her to death because someone claimed she had an adulterous affair OR Paton Oswalt.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Good comeback. The one who murdered or killed based on religious preferences/ stoned because of affairs- they were not vile.

        They were worse. I use ‘vile’ to describe personality defects- usually because of poor interpretations and mischaracterizations- which Oswald did rather well.

        Sorry ark- I’m not big on vulgar.

        Like

        1. The one who murdered or killed based on religious preferences/ stoned because of affairs- they were not vile.

          Sadly the entirety of religion – all religion -is built upon such foundations and it continues to this day, whether we talk about the extermination of the Cathars, justification of slavery/apartheid, to the Middle East conflict and suicide bombings.
          It pleads love but its actions are vile and evidence supports this through and through.
          Such things are as vulgar as they come, my friend.
          Oswalt is just using words to highlight the irrationality of affording religious privilege /respect when none should ever be given.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. The trouble ark is that people gauge acts of egregiousness- who themselves are imperfect-

            But I asked the other day- why no voice of protest against the death of a good man- the headless baptist.

            So we compare unfairly and with prejudice.

            Like

          2. It is human nature to judge. You did it in your opening comment. Yet those who do vile things in the name of a god have usually believed their actions were virtuous. It is for such reasons that Hitchens rightfully asserted religion poisons everything.
            Was Herod worse than Torquemeda, or any number of Popes?
            Yet to compare either of these to Patton Oswalt is ludicrous.

            Like

          3. True that we judge. Seems a good idea to adjudicate the proper punishment for a parking ticket vs a DUI.

            We judge whether a potential spouse will accentuate our life or threaten it.

            But the chaps brand of comedy misses the mark because he pretends to know more than God/ sitting in judgement of someone who is perfect- while imperfect and defective himself.

            The laundry list of abuse by men past and present is no excuse to TRY to blame a book- a book mind you that is harmless as it sits on the shelf or in the hands of fools.

            ‘He saw that His creation was very good.’ Yeah, somehow this ideal scene hat turned into later chaos…..was Gods fault, now subject to mend legitimate chastisement of Him? I don’t think so.

            But Oswald falls waaay short. I do not find him clever, funny, or smart. To me he is annoying like most television comics.

            Like

          4. Wrong. He is calling out those who assert we must respect an individual’s beliefs, no matter what they are, including religious beliefs.
            Furthermore, the bible is not harmless as it has been directly cited and used to discriminate and murder throughout its history.
            And it sanctions slavery.

            That you don’t find him funny is an issue you have.
            He could just as easily have poked fun at Islam and the abuse of women, including cutting off the clitoris of young girls.
            But that isn’t funny, now is it?
            Perhaps he could have targeted Mormons and Joe Smith?
            Or how about Ron Hubbard and the lunacy of Scientology?

            You are just peeved because he seemed to focus on your religion and your god.
            Well, boo hoo! Cry me a river, CS.

            If it harms people, it needs to be called out.
            And religion causes a lot of harm.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. I can respect Hubbards idiotic beliefs/ I can respect his freedom to be stupid- but his abuse of members is vile too- there is no book on earth that is responsible for the actions of they who read. None.

            It’s like a piano- lifeless yet making sound- not responsible if someone plays songs to God or the devil.

            I’m so tired of hearing that a lifeless book of any kind puts a gun or knife in a hand. Are people that pathetic not to know NOT to stick their head in a five gallon bucket without a warning label?

            Books/ instructions/ of any kind- are not responsible for stupid acts of users.

            Now the Bible. ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Anything hard to understand? So now it’s the Bible’s fault that Jim Jones commanded the drinking of cyanide? No.

            This is why I find any attempt to blame God or scripture through false humor revolting.

            So while I agree with you that sects/ cults/ channel the weak- they have their right to be stupid- yes, I am mature enough to respect their freedom to be fools- but if they are lawbreakers through abuse etc: I would hand them over to the severest punishment that fits the crime.

            Like

          6. Now the Bible. ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Anything hard to understand?

            Nope. Simple and easy peasy. So we can assert with the utmost confidence Christians the world over since Christianity was invented are simply cherry picking.
            And this is without even mentioning all the vile laws and edicts in the bible itself.

            That you have not raised any other issue at ALL suggests you are trying to hide something?
            I wonder why?

            Like

          7. If a person chose employment ( sometimes called slavery) by a master at their own will, as opposed to death by someone who would swat them like flies, I suppose some would choose slavery, such as servants in the homes of the rich, which included 3 meals and a bed, but ‘slavery’ under the likes of Pharaoh for instance, which was always abusive and self serving……..

            In the US, many southern people chose that life because it afforded them stability; then there is always the law of the 7 th yr slave, who after working the 7 th, could choose to stay.

            They thought it was a gd deal, while many others berated the owners a d them. History proves other opinions of a heated topic.

            Like

          8. I am referring to the mandated slavery in the bible. Why do you believe God laid down specific laws about slaves, from obtaining them, their treatment, and even laws regarding their sale?
            There are also recommendations regarding slaves in the New Testament.

            Like

          9. Hard to speak for the enslaved here. I’m guessing many loved that life as it rewarded them dividends greater than a possible gutter life?

            The issue then would be HOW there are treated. To wit, a modern day comparison would be Aunt Jemima/ or the servants of Tara in Gone with the Wind/ Seems they did not complain/ as a matter of fact some said they ran the place.

            Not a bad gig for a life that many despise eh? That said ark, the law per the Bible applied to ONE nation. Anything g else in this context is irrelevant or hearsay.

            But do show where a ‘slave’ complained.

            Like

          10. Again you didn’t address the question. Why did God/Yahweh issue laws regarding the taking of slaves, their treatment and their use as property?
            And why did God / Jesus not say anything?

            Liked by 1 person

          11. This is why I find any attempt to blame God or scripture through false humor revolting.

            Whether serious or humorous, there is much to blame “God” for in scripture.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. Based on religious preferences… John, have you read the ot lately? God people, on gods command, did exactly what you would now call vile to “cleanse” the land of idolatry. I’m not sure you’re being completely honest with yourself in applying your tag of “vile” without re examining some of the stories we have in the Pentatuch specifically or the Torah in general.

          Like

          1. The trouble with me and you mike- is that we are incapable of rendering PERFECT judgment and justice.

            God owns the title deed to the earth, as opposed to many mortgage companies……and can do as He pleases, but let’s rennet, His creation was VERY good.

            Us? Not so much.

            Like

          2. Just so we’re clear John, you’re saying that God can’t be held to the same standard of morality that we are because… we lack “perfect” judgment and that God Himself definitionally can do no wrong because He created us. God is just and good even if He does what we would be judged unjust and “vile” if we did the same. Got it.

            Like

          3. We should be able to know “moral” from what He tells us is moral… or you have a situation where He is neither Moral or Good, but simply not concerned with His own morality at all. Which would make Him Amoral and Capricious at best. Situationally Immoral and psychopathic at worst. If the Lawgiver isn’t able to be held to His own standard that He sets for us… are they really standards or just controls?

            Like

          4. Don’t get me wrong. I still believe that God may in fact exist. However any God worth serving or following would be able to be held to the same standards of morality and good that He sets for His creation. If not, then He isn’t really God. He’s just a creation of Human minds from that culture or a monster parading and masquerading as God.

            Like

          5. CS — why didn’t the Do-No-Wronger create other Do-No-Wrongers instead of Do-No-Wrongers that can’t resist eating apples?

            Like

          6. You’ve got to be kidding me! The forbidden “apple” in the Garden. Have you so quickly forgotten one of the most well-known fairy tales?

            Like

          7. You are forgetting my pay grade nan. I actually pay attention to detail, which leads to scrutiny, which leads to context, which leads to proper understanding.

            Figs maybe? Mangoes? Maybe a discontinued item? Who knows, and I don’t care to be dogmatic on things otherwise ambiguous.

            Like

          8. As usual, CS, while you’re patting yourself on the back related to your vast knowledge of your god’s capabilities, you totally missed the point … it had NOTHING to do with the actual fruit.

            Like

          9. Ha funny. I talked to u so many times about such things- I know full well how to answer. Buts Tkx for saying hey and hope all’s well.

            Like

          10. What, no clever retort john to defend your assertion of a Heavenly “do as I say, not as I do” ? If a God is no at least as “moral” as mankind… He isn’t a moral God at all.

            Like

          11. Until you can make a man using a pile of dirt……I’m going with a perfect God who reckons with imperfect men.

            His creation was ‘very good,’ to repeat. Gee, I wonder what happened.

            Like

          12. I guess the part about us not being able to “perfectly” tell good from evil as concerns God’s actions is what doesn’t make sense. If we can’t tell… tell” if He’s or His actions are bad, then how can we possibly tell that He or His actions are good at all either? Wouldn’t that “perfect” judgment also be required to tell Good in God as well as telling Bad?
            Can’t tell the one without also being able to tell the other as well. As for His “creation” starting off good but being mucked up by a couple of puny, finite and powerless humans? I’m sure we didn’t have the ability to affect changes in nature and corrupt His “Perfect creation”. As Romans 8 says clearly, “he subjected creation to futility” all on His own. We didn’t do that. He did, according to scripture.

            Like

          13. And john… Just so we’re clear, you Believe that God, the God of the bible, created man using a pile of dirt. You don’t Know, nor can you give any Evidence that it was the case… other than what is written in genesis. So until there is a way to Demonstrate that to have been the case… I’m under no obligation to Repeat something that hasn’t been demonstrated to have actually happened. Have a great day.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. Sooooo, to be clear, there is NO connection between iron in the earth’s soil……..and iron in blood??????

            You should find this very unsettling, to me, it is settled . Hope others reading find it enlightening. Yep, God’s word is perfectly scientific as well.

            Like

          15. Tyebissue isn’t the biology, the iron in the blood, but how it got there. Natural processes or Divine Creation, the latter of which you cannot just assert as fact.

            Like

          16. As Genesis was written to be understood as allegory the idea of biblical literalism is a relatively new idea, found mostly( but not exclusively) in Protestantism, and more often that not in fundamentalist sects in the US and, would you believe, some sects in the Netherlands. This surprised me!
            For most of this period, the Word (sic) was transmitted orally or by those few who could read.
            It wasn’t until Guttenberg arrived that texts were widely available. And again, when I use the term ‘widely’ I am being circumspect as reading was still not the norm among the vast majority of Christians, and certainly not among those of conquered nations across the waters – South America, Australia, Africa etc where missionary work often went hand in hand with forced conversions.
            ”I bring the sword!” took on a literal understanding in some communities.

            Also, the creation story and other parts of Genesis were ”borrowed ” from other similar stories/myths – Babylonian for example.
            Noah’s tale is a perfect example.

            Anyway, to believe that an omniscient deity, the Creator of the entire universe would need to remove the rib of a ”created” human male to make a female is absurd.

            Everyone who is anyone knows that Yahweh made Eve like so …

            350g/12oz plain flour, plus extra for rolling out.
            1 tsp bicarbonate of soda.
            2 tsp ground ginger.
            1 tsp ground cinnamon.
            125g/4½oz butter.
            175g/6oz light soft brown sugar.
            1 free-range egg.
            4 tbsp golden syrup.

            Clap hands twice, one Abracadabra, one shazzam and one Hey Presto!

            Liked by 1 person

          17. Being The fair person that I am, I will happily admit style points for creativity regarding your eggs/ syrup concoction.

            Per the rib, don’t you ever wonder why women are inherently weaker? That the Olympic woman gold medalist in the 500m is easily beaten by 500 high school males?

            However, cannot agree with anything else you have said, as all other takes on Genesis are opinion, or borrowed; if something is true there naturally must be an imposter.

            As to God’s original ‘recipe,’ rest assured that is the Baker’s secret.

            Like

          18. Weaker? Genetics, probably. What that has to do with one less rib is baffling.
            And I remind you. Allegory was the name of the game.
            Yes, plagiarism and or borrowing was always part of the bible, as has been pointed out by far more qualified people than me.
            Only one indoctrinated to believe otherwise would reject this

            Liked by 1 person

  2. There may not be an invisible anus in the sky, but OT Yahweh certainly behaves like a complete asshole at times.
    Cue R. Zimmerman:

    Aw, God said to Abraham, “kill me a son”
    Abe says, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on…”

    Like

  3. I don’t think we can definitively say whether or not there is a ‘God’ or supernatural beings of some type. However what we can definitively say is that the Bible is not a reliable book and thus unlikely to be of supernatural origin.

    The evidence against the Bible is overwhelming. Just one book, Daniel, can be categorically shown to be wrong. Then there is the failed prophecy of Ezekiel and even the failed prophecy of Jesus. The barbaric morality of Numbers and Judges. The Genocide of 1 Samuel. The false history of Exodus and Joshua. God being unable to defeat iron chariots in Joshua.

    I think folk who are wedded to the Bible as divine book are unable to take the blinkers off their eyes to see it for what it is.

    Personally, I am not a fan of the Patton Oswalt approach.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Then you probably don’t like Jim Jeffries either, yes?

      Lewis Black is one of my favourite anti religious comics and, of course Ricky Gervais.

      Like

  4. @CanneryRow says: “I can always count on you…”

    Yes, and we can always count on you to rationalize away what the Bible got wrong.

    Apologetics 101:

    Good things — Praise god!
    Bad things — Blame Man (or woman, or Lucifer, or whoever)

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s