Of this I am sore well aware.
There's nothing that fails like prayer.
The "good" Lord could afford
to see one limb restored.
Either that, or he just doesn't care.
By a Christian man I was once told
"Just pray, and your wish you'll behold!"
When it failed to work,
I replied with a smirk,
It appears I've been left in the cold.
Don't think me aloof or unfair,
To ask for some proof that He's there.
Wanting me to believe,
Without means to perceive,
Some invisible dude in the air.
They say cover your bets, and believe,
Or end up in a place you can't leave.
But which faith to choose?
The odds are you'll lose.
Think a god won't see what's up your sleeve?
"All are welcome! Come join us!" They cry.
In fact, you had better, or fry!
God's love accepts all
Whether fat, short or tall.
But GAY, then you need not apply.
©Wesley J Koster 2012
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Friday, July 13, 2012
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Only In America
You'd think this would go without saying. That's right, here in the good U.S. of A., it has to be stipulated.
..Also, No Raping of Children, No Poisoning of the Elderly and No Stabbing of the Mentally Disabled.
Monday, July 2, 2012
The Loving Jesus: Fig Tree Hater
Tweet: I often wonder how #Christians tout a loving #Jesus in light of these verses: Matt 10:34, Luke 14:26, Luke 19:27, Mark 11:12-14. #atheism
For those apologists, -and you know they'll jump- here is clarification. No amount of "context", "hidden meaning", or "revelation" alleviates the clarity of the non-love message.
'But but, There are other verses where Jesus talks about peace! (Mark 9:50, John 14:27, John 16:33 etc.).'
You may notice that the character always wishes or bestows peace on his followers, but never claims to bring peace to the world. His aim is to disrupt, not to promote understanding or quell conflict.
Matt 10:34
Jesus is not just referencing division and strife, or referencing the OT. He is ascribing that strife to himself, as cause with intent.
It cannot be claimed that it was not his "wish" to do so, as an omnipotent god, he can do whatever he wishes, and if he brings war and strife, then that's what he obviously wishes. Quite typical of his supposed alter-ego, the war god Yahweh.
Luke 14:26
The Greek word 'misou' cannot be claimed used in the same ordinal/prioritising sense as the Hebrew word /shin/-/nun/-/alef/.
The authors of the NT gospels show themselves not to really understand the Hebrew of the OT when referencing it. This is also the cause for the mistaken translation of Isaiah, which gave rise to the "virgin birth" concept.
Luke 19:27
Though within a parable, this is no excuse. The words of the Jesus character clearly depict a greedy, unforgiving, graceless in-story tyrant, who not only "reaps what he doesn't sow", but pronounces reward for the "haves" over the "have nots", and calls for the execution of those who deny his reign. That tyrant is also clearly an analogy for himself/God.
That's not a parable of love in the slightest sense.
Mark 11:12-14
Jesus doesn't know that the fig tree, having leaves on it, will not have figs yet. It's not in season. He should not expect figs. Yet he does. His omniscience is on the fritz, it would seem, the entire time he's on Earth as his own son. A hole in omniscience would, by definition, counter the entire notion.
Though a fig tree cannot possibly bear fault, or benefit from punishment, Jesus curses the fig tree, that it would bear no fruit/ edible fruit/ or that its fruit would not be eaten. This is a clear over-reaction on his part. An infinite punishment for a finite disappointment, that was not the tree's fault in the first place.
What kind of loving god does such impetuously human things?
There are sooooo many "deeper meaning","mysterious ways","context", "reference" apologetics excuses for this one, they number as figs on a tree.. until Jesus gets ahold of it. After all the rationalisation, the question is left. Why would a god character do such a thing, then leave it so unclear, and so as to make it appear he's just an unreasonable hot-head?
For those apologists, -and you know they'll jump- here is clarification. No amount of "context", "hidden meaning", or "revelation" alleviates the clarity of the non-love message.
'But but, There are other verses where Jesus talks about peace! (Mark 9:50, John 14:27, John 16:33 etc.).'
You may notice that the character always wishes or bestows peace on his followers, but never claims to bring peace to the world. His aim is to disrupt, not to promote understanding or quell conflict.
Matt 10:34
Jesus is not just referencing division and strife, or referencing the OT. He is ascribing that strife to himself, as cause with intent.
It cannot be claimed that it was not his "wish" to do so, as an omnipotent god, he can do whatever he wishes, and if he brings war and strife, then that's what he obviously wishes. Quite typical of his supposed alter-ego, the war god Yahweh.
Luke 14:26
The Greek word 'misou' cannot be claimed used in the same ordinal/prioritising sense as the Hebrew word /shin/-/nun/-/alef/.
The authors of the NT gospels show themselves not to really understand the Hebrew of the OT when referencing it. This is also the cause for the mistaken translation of Isaiah, which gave rise to the "virgin birth" concept.
Luke 19:27
Though within a parable, this is no excuse. The words of the Jesus character clearly depict a greedy, unforgiving, graceless in-story tyrant, who not only "reaps what he doesn't sow", but pronounces reward for the "haves" over the "have nots", and calls for the execution of those who deny his reign. That tyrant is also clearly an analogy for himself/God.
That's not a parable of love in the slightest sense.
Mark 11:12-14
Jesus doesn't know that the fig tree, having leaves on it, will not have figs yet. It's not in season. He should not expect figs. Yet he does. His omniscience is on the fritz, it would seem, the entire time he's on Earth as his own son. A hole in omniscience would, by definition, counter the entire notion.
Though a fig tree cannot possibly bear fault, or benefit from punishment, Jesus curses the fig tree, that it would bear no fruit/ edible fruit/ or that its fruit would not be eaten. This is a clear over-reaction on his part. An infinite punishment for a finite disappointment, that was not the tree's fault in the first place.
What kind of loving god does such impetuously human things?
There are sooooo many "deeper meaning","mysterious ways","context", "reference" apologetics excuses for this one, they number as figs on a tree.. until Jesus gets ahold of it. After all the rationalisation, the question is left. Why would a god character do such a thing, then leave it so unclear, and so as to make it appear he's just an unreasonable hot-head?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)