Tha Lords Preachings »
I looked high and low for God
But God could not be found
The Bible says the world is flat
But NASA says it’s round
The Bible says man came from dust
Darwin says from chimps
Who are these Bible men you ask?
Frauds, liars, and pimps
Hawking says the world began
from nothing to a bang
Kirk Cameron says his life began
when God called out his name
But what of war and poverty
and death of child unnamed?
God works in mysterious ways?
The work of God is lame
Jesus Christ appears on toast
The Virgin Mary too
Pattern seeking creatures we
Poorly evolved are me and you
Galileo was convicted
Because he thought outside the box.
Covet not your neighbors wife,
his donkey or his ox.
Which of these realities makes sense to me and you?
God created light from scratch, and thus he gave it hue?
or atmosphere refracts our light
And thus our sky is blue
Are we then created sick,
commanded to be well?
Our faults created by the Lord
Who sends us all to Hell?
These preachments are absurd to me
With religion I am through
You say I must believe in this?
To that I say “Fuck You!”
It seems our stroke-ridden charlatan preacher is at it again. When last we left him, we joyously laughed at his failure, which was as certain to us as his revelation was to him. This time, he’s hedging his bets, and he isn’t getting near the press coverage he had last time which was used to bilk people out of their fortunes.
Harold Camping is a man so utterly filled with shit that it could be postulated that he was born in a porcelain bowl. His last failed preachments wrought him a stroke, and by the looks of things he’s about one more aborted prophecy from being put in a pine box, and good riddance.
Tomorrow will pass just as yesterday did, with no miracles, no salvation, and no disappearing acts by Christian windbags.
That’s a prophecy you can count on.
In response to the recent intellectual insurgency and resurgence of atheism among the people, the religious community has widely condemned the trend. It has oft been asked, “Why are atheists so angry?”. A frequent comment is “Atheists are angry at God.” A more appropriate question might be “Why are religious people so angry?”.
Atheists are not angry at God any more than they are angry at sasquatch. A claim of non-existence is not made in anger, it is made in disbelief due to lack of evidence. What atheists are angry about is the encroachment by religion on free society. One can’t live through a full news cycle without hearing about religious terrorism, the newest date of the second coming, or politicians bantering on about the necessity of religious fundamentals in government. At that, we are angry and rightly so.
Why then are religious people so angry? All the inquisitions, book burning, crusades, martyrdom, Jihads, fatwahs, and a continuing cycle of reasons for violence and oppression of everyone that merciful God can reach by his long arm of suffering point to an inner anger and contempt of those that will not subscribe. Religion is simply not capable of happiness and civility until everyone bows the knee. Perhaps it’s an inner confidence issue, a deep yearning for the acceptance of what must be found to any thinking person as absurd. Perhaps there are other reasons, such as:
The prohibition of alcohol is not present in all major religions, but it is notably a sin that will cost you in the afterlife of Islam. Several Christian sects ban the bubbly as well, and evangelicals tend to avoid the stuff, although not strictly forbidden. Jesus was a wino, you know. Anyway, the elimination of the licentious liquid has profound effects on people, most notably the inability to assuage the stressors of everyday life once in a while. Undoubtedly, this dampens sociability and leads to irritability. The Hebrews don’t prohibit alcohol, but would probably rather sell it than drink it. As the comedian Jim Jeffries has said, “If you don’t drink then you’re a boring cunt and all your stories suck!”. Indeed.
Islam and Judaism are strict in their porcophobia, rejecting not only the finest slices of pork belly but everything porcine altogether. The Hindu religion bans meat in totality. This is most curious because their moral treatment of animals far exceeds their moral treatment of their brethren (see: caste system). It can’t be directly said (yet) that a lack of meat in one’s diet leads to an inner blood thirst, but perhaps a study could be undertaken. In the case of bacon itself, however, it has marked one of the higher points of human civilization and the right to partake in it should be lumped in with the right to the pursuit of happiness. Bacon may not stop the violence, but a small dose of sheer joy can go a long way.
The question of what to do with women’s breasts has been pondered since mankind invented clothes. While several answers have been presented, the idea to cover them with a cloth tent was assuredly the worst of them. Most religions have repressed ideas about sexuality and modesty, with Islam leading the pack. Is it mere coincidence that Islam has the most violence and the lowest amount of tit exposure among all religions? As Socrates said, a chest unexplored is not worth having.
Not just specifically blowjobs, but all forms of non-traditional sex. Condemnation of sodomy is common in religion. Depending upon which sect a person adheres to, there are bound to be rules for whom a person may sexually engage with, when, where, why, and in what position. The Middle East is occupied by a quorum of 30 year old virgin males who have never by chance seen breasts or had any sort of injunctive relief. Furthermore, they are promised a plethora of virgins for engaging in violence in the name of God. If anyone sees Ayman al-Zawahiri, buy that man a beer and a hooker. You may just save some lives.
The religious are angry not just because of their lack of confidence, but from a lack of the 4 “B’s” as explained above. Their doctrines when not directly ordering violence are indirectly causing it by repressing what the rest of us call “life”. They are not only angry that they can’t look at bacon-covered breasts whilst drinking ale, they are jealous and spiteful toward those of us that do.
Please support my 4B program for reducing world violence!
After a weekend of mass prayer for political end in Texas led by the governor of the mainland’s most voluminous state, Jesus has not sent any good news as of yet. In fact, the stock market took another turn for the worse. Perhaps God will respond at the appropriate time and lift up Republican politics once again, perhaps it is just all part of his grand scheme to which his mere mortal followers are not yet made privy.
The requisite obsurdity of praying for any end notwithstanding, praying for a political end is by far one of the most inane uses of human time and energy conceived. Let us examine some of the things that have been prayed over by pious Christians in order to secure a political end:
- Abortion – One of the most lurid topics available for discussion within the Christian community. The infamous Roe vs, Wade trial legalized abortion in 1973, and the billions of prayers uttered to reverse this decision have failed miserably.
- Barack Obama – Even as he professes himself a Christian, he cannot possibly be so. Why? The variety of comments on the issue have been unconscious, and any attempt to point out the fallacy of various beliefs about the 44th President has been met with incredulity. He’s both a Muslim and a Socialist (odd combination there), a Kenyan, a black man (under the one-drop darky rule), and the antichrist. Yet, this apparent spawn of Satan was elected over the Vicar of Christ in Arizona, John McCain. Perhaps the right wasn’t praying with the full force necessary.
- Evolution and Prayer in Schools -Christianity has done everything in it’s power to preserve religious ritual and tradition in public, and jumped through every hoop to stop the madness of educating children on the real origins of humanity. Even praying about prayer in schools has lost, seemingly ignored by the man upstairs. Monkey trials have been lost by the monkeys who argue that they are more divine than the monkeys, and the Lord apparently had no qualms with this ruling either.
- Gay marriage – With all the cheating whores popping up in the GOP, you’d think they might be quiet about “traditional values”. Another of the loudest objections by the right, and gaining ground yearly. Someone tell Larry Craig and Ted Haggard that they can finally marry the man of their dreams if they’ll just move to New York.
Even as the evidence of the failure of prayer on all of God’s most important political topics gathers into a mound of dispassionate unanswered telepathy, Christians still pray for the votes and the courts to swing their way. Even as abortion goes on, evolution is taught, homosexuals get married, religion is rended from every corner of public and government, even as elections are lost to the progressive godless swine, they still pray.
All of this begs the question: If God cared so much about his (your) politics, wouldn’t he have installed a theocratic dictatorship at the outset? If he was willing to allow Barack Obama to take office the first time, would he really intervene the second time?
Yet, we will have the pious praying for the end of the Obama regime, even as their prayers went completely unanswered just four years ago.
America is a “Christian Nation” founded on “Christian Values”, or so the majority would have you believe. While the claimed credulity of the majority is not in question, their motivation in considering presidential candidates is definitely questionable.
While atheists overwhelmingly rely on science and the observable, measurable qualities of the universe to define existence, the Christian majority uses the Bible for the same purpose, errant inerrancies aside. While atheists use reason to determine the best course for moral values, Christians use the Bible, immoral moralities aside. Because of these differences, atheists are the most distrusted minority to the Christians, and probably the most loathed in what would be a close contest with homosexuals.
Why then are Christians seemingly undaunted by a Mormon candidate?
Mormonism is not Christianity. Unlike Michele Bachmann, who is basing her campaign on the politics of Yahweh and Jesus, Romney doesn’t seem all that enthused to discuss either the history or the beliefs of Mormons. It is unclear whether Christians either don’t understand Mormon belief or simply don’t care. Considering how Christians feel about atheists and Muslims, the latter inspires doubt. The former falls in line with the general ignorance that Christians have regarding the world outside of their American cocoon.
As Sam Harris so succinctly put it:
“Because whatever probability you assign to Jesus’ coming back, you have to assign a lesser probability to his coming back and keeping a summer home in Jackson County, Missouri. If Mitt Romney wants to be the next President of the United States, he should be made to feel the burden of our incredulity.”
Perhaps if American Christians learned that the Native Americans were “a lost tribe of Israel” or that Joseph Smith was a convicted fraud, or that a Newer New Testament was discovered buried in upstate New York, they might have a problem with this obvious perversion of their faith.
The obvious problem here is not the faith of the majority. The obvious problem is that the faithful majority have not read their own sacred books, let alone the doctrine of other’s beliefs. How this man’s beliefs could manage to slide by the majority when beliefs are so obviously a core issue in politics is beyond rational thought. Our current President is a professed Christian, but has been accused of being an ultra-left-wing socialist and of being a Muslim, in some cases by the same people. These two values systems are so far apart that they are for all intents and purposes mutually exclusive. It would seem that a candidate’s credentials are far less important than their beliefs, but at the same time the voters have no idea what belief systems other than their own entail. In all likelihood, a person’s economic and social policy values dictate what beliefs a voter assigns to a candidate. In this sense, personal feelings are made to be more important than facts, whether in belief about the suitability of a presidential candidate or in belief about the nature of human existence.