Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins

This evening I watched Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed documentary. It's a look at how evolutionists(Darwinists) have placed a stranglehold on academic discussion on intelligent design. Their reasoning? If you allow intelligent design discussion then we'll end up back in the Dark Ages where science is lost to religion.

Here's the full length movie on YouTube.


The academics Ben Stein speaks with on Darwinism make a valid point while getting to the meat of the argument itself: Darwin never explained the ORIGIN of man at all, just what he thought happened after the atoms were already arranged! And that is the place there Darwinists and Creationists painfully collide. Midway between them, leaning a little more right than left, you have intelligent design. "Something awfully smart created those first atoms! So intelligent that we're unraveling layers upon layers of mysteries within the atom itself every year!" 

The sentiment expressed continually throughout the film is that the continued study of Darwinism for scientists eventually leads to atheism. I want to say that I can see this would be true for at least those academics and scientists who don't have a backbone and/or only want to climb the academic ladder to stardom and money. Or at least tenure and a somewhat comfortable retirement plan. However, I have also personally known many teachers, scientists, and those who began as scientists but left the field who have said that the further they looked at science overall then the more religious they became-- not the reverse. But if they had only the confines of Darwinism to use as a template for all their accepted work then yes, they'd have suffered a crisis of faith or just seen their curiosity wither and die. I think perhaps this may be the intent of the establishment.  Those teachers I knew who became more spiritual at the end did leave the field for other private studies. They knew their career was at stake because they could not in good conscience teach something they knew was false.

One of the highlights of the film came at 1:27(that's one hour and twenty-seven minutes) Richard Dawkins explains why he believes in intelligent design! It's a riot because afterwards Ben Stein asks him to clearly state that he does not believe in any god or God of any religion whatsoever. However Richard Dawkins doesn't even hear what he'd previously admitted. He wasn't tricked into anything. There was no slick sophistry involved. Here's part of the conversation. To see the full thing you'd have to watch the movie : 




Richard: "So it couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously." 

Whoooahhh! Wait. Isn't that what the anti-creationists aka. DARWINISTS are trying to shove down everyone's throats including the Big Bang Theory?! That somehow this... thing... just happened and there was nothing intelligent about it?!  But a so-called hard core atheist thinks that someone super smart(elsewhere in the universe, of course) designed us(is he hearing himself?!), planted our genome here on this planet and then ...... sped off back to whatever lovely world they came from. But of course that race of super smart beings or being evolved by some Darwinian process themselves, because you know Darwinism has to play into our genesis at some point right?

Chicken and egg, Richard. I'm calling bullshit on that, my friend. Who made that first race of beings who supposedly made us? ... if they did indeed evolve Darwinian style and were not spontaneously sprouted from some God's head fully formed.

The logistics of this argument make my head spin! It seems quite obvious to me at this point that the most obvious questions are not being asked in the classroom and unfortunately for the child who does want to ask .... I think their teacher may be inclined to not engage the child in conversation at all because they fear for their job.

An idea I've been pondering and refining for some time now: Man created religion as a way to explain the mysteries of God Science. Within gnosis we're able to see the forest(we live in it) AND the trees(we dream them) because we soar above it through his eyes to see what it is he wants to share. That intrinsic and basic connection we share with him is what gives us our sense of wonder, our sense of awe about the universe and even the trees and butterflies. Being the body of the All itself, how can we not be amazed?

Einstein's Religion

"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written these books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, not two separate things."

G.S. Viereck, Glimpses of the Great(Macauley, New York, 1930)

In April of 1929, Cardinal O'Connell, Archbishop of Boston, admonished the members of the New England Catholic Club of America not to read anything on relativity because it "befogged speculation producing universal doubt about God and his Creation... cloaking the ghastly apparition of atheism."

New York Times, 25 April 1929, p.60


Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue in New York cabled Einstein simply, "Do you believe in God?"

Einstein replied: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

So Einstein was, in fact, a deist. Not an atheist. Not even a "practical atheist" as so many atheists try to claim.

Einstein always fought the label of atheism and made a sharp distinction between his disbelief in a personal god and atheism:

"Speaking of the spirit that informs modern scientific investigations, I am of the opinion that all the finer speculations in the realm of science spring from a deep religious feeling, and that without such feeling they would not be fruitful. I also believe that, this kind of religiousness, which makes itself felt today in scientific investigations, is the only creative religious activity of our time. The art of today can hardly be looked upon at all as expressive of our religious instincts."

Einstein's theory of relativity was, as we now see in hindsight by biographical scholars, based on religious concepts. For example, in Spinoza's Ethics he declared, "God is immutable or all his attributes are immutable[like space]," and "an extended thing are God's attributes." In accordance with Spinoza, Einstein interpreted the term "endure" in the verse "the Heavens endure from everlasting to everlasting" in the sense of immutable existence.

What happened next? Einstein made what he called the "biggest blunder" of his career. In 1917 he modified the relativity field equation by introducing an additional term, the so-called "cosmological constant," in order to obtain a static unchanging universe. He essentially ruled out Big Bang 'spread' stating that the universe was somehow made and is stationary, excluding the orbits of galactic masses.

Steady expansion of the universe was only discovered in the late 1920's at the Mount Wilson Observatory. Nevertheless, Einstein was still kicking himself. Instead of trusting his gut instinct he tinkered with the formula to allow for religious ideas from his beloved Spinoza.

See what not trusting your instincts will do?

Dawkins and the "Banana Man"

*~~~*~~~Note~~~*~~~ *

I am posting this article fairly soon after the last. Make sure you scroll down to read the last post as it ties in with this one.

One can see an awful lot of militant atheism on YouTube. Thankfully, there are a handful of people out there who aren't afraid to jump into the fight. Both sides are hardly even in number, what with the DMCA's getting slapped on people left and right. It's cowardly, for sure. If you can't think of a good counterargument- scream copyright violation, right?!

This video of Dawkins is a puzzling piece of work. I mean, what exactly is a "cousin" if not an ancestor, anyway? A cousin is still part of the family construct, is it not? Last I checked it was. So is he saying that these "cousins" all-- every single one of them!! -- suddenly up and disappeared in EVERY genetic way and there is no hope of ever reconstructing what their DNA may look like?!! That does not make any kind of logical sense. Why would an entire branch of a family DNA sequence disappear? Under what circumstances could/would this occur? (maybe GOD?!! No, I'm not giving this idea serious consideration. Just giving you an idea of the dead ends Dawkins doesn't like to think about.)

The man seems to tremble at being called on to give an example of the very hypothesis he shouts so loudly about and tries to convince us of. But then again, this flaky interview didn't garner him any book sales so.... I suppose this only makes him a propagandist. And a bad one at that.

Oh, and here's a point to ask your friendly neighborhood biologist: aren't alligators and crocodiles considered "cousins" of dinosaurs? These two beasts are modern and yet haven't changed much since the last evolutionary era. And what about the mighty cockroach?!! In all it's shapes and sizes over the millennia surely the cockroach can be studied as one of those amazing scavengers(like crocodiles!) which has the genetic heartiness to trace its origins back to whatever evolutionary era scientists might like to examine.

But in Dawkins' mind, that just doesn't work. We can't study something from the past, says he. We have to look at what we have NOW in front of us to give us the answer about if there is a God. *shakes head* Man, you can't have it both ways. You scream that science will prove there is no god and then proceed to preach exactly what ways we shouldn't use science to find answers. Confused much? I know I am. I keep hoping for a straight answer from this guy but I haven't heard one from him yet.

And this next video is just an example of the way Dawkins wiggles out of debating. Yes, Kirk Cameron is strange little puppet. Yes, the debate would have been excruciating and this is probably why Kirk dropped out. But it appears as though Dawkins would rather be a stand up comic than a serious scientist. I just can't take anyone seriously when they're so busy slapping names on their opponents like, "banana man." Honestly, it just makes me hungry. Or want to go to the zoo. Not listen to a supposed "serious scientist" blather on and on about bananas and monkeys.

Pay careful attention to the expression on his face and the nervous twitch of his hands. He's a bit unsure of himself and how his stand up act will be received. I imagine this to be about the same level of nervousness a white man showed the first time using the term "African American" instead of the more profane descriptive used in the past to denote color or race.

So you have to ask yourself- what do militant atheists think of everyone else who does not share in their disbelief?

On Atheism

When I first wrote the review on Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" a little more than a week ago I had no idea the pain I would feel so soon afterward concerning atheism. I feel like I have had my heart literally ripped out of my chest. Why? Because I have now had to revise my theory concerning atheism in regards to walking a path toward gnosis.

For some time now I've been following an atheist blogger by the pseudonym of Dromedary Hump(Dromedary is a breed of camel, btw) who owns the Atheist Camel blog. Bart(his real name), also wrote a book called The Atheist Camel Chronicles. It's very well received on Amazon.

Bart, who more fondly goes by the nickname "Hump" on his blog produces at least four articles a month; each article has always been a well organized attack on literalist religion. Which, as a gnostic, I'm pretty accepting of to a certain extent. Pointing out and learning from the irrational behavior and idiosyncrasies of literalists is important in growth toward gnosis. If you can't figure out where you've been then how can you identify where you want to go? Identifying those speed bumps is essential.

In Hump's blog articles I have always tried to nudge my two-cents in wherever I can as long as the topic allowed me to point out the differences between literalist and non-literalist religions. He has been shocked at times at how much I agree with him on certain topics. He has educated me on atheism and so all in all I have to say that it was a copacetic relationship up until now. Mutual teaching and learning going on between us and mutual respect concerning our difference of opinion on whether or not there is a divine presence in the universe worth revering. Until last week.

There has always been a certain ruthlessness and volatility in Hump's friend, NewEnglandBob's posted comments. This proved to be an excellent way to watch, in action, two atheists who don't necessarily agree with one another one hundred percent of the time. I considered Hump to be the more moderate atheist and NEBob to the angry militant variety-- until something snapped in Hump's head sometime last week and that last shred of sanity which was holding him back from becoming a full fledged pissed off militant atheist- left the building. It is gone. Au revoir. Never to be seen again, I fear.

The blog post titled "Those Damnable New Atheists!" was the sad train wreck which broke my heart.

During my original reading of the post I was nodding my head and agreeing with Hump right up until the last paragraph of: "But careful examination of the contributions of theists in real world terms: i.e. science and medicine by notible theists like Gregor Mendel, Christian Barnard, Jonas Salk, Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon and other personages of faith were made INSPITE of their theistic superstition, not BECAUSE of it. Had they not extended themselves beyond the precepts of their religious indoctrination and the ignorant falsehoods of scripture, they’d have contributed nothing."

A red flag went up in my mind at his presumption of the brainlessness of all theists. I wrote:

Angel said...

Quote: "INSPITE of their theistic superstition, not BECAUSE of it. Had they not extended themselves beyond the precepts of their religious indoctrination and the ignorant falsehoods of scripture, they’d have contributed nothing."

Sorry, Hump, but I have to disagree with you on that part. Yes, 75% of literalist theists claw at real science like kicking and screaming jackals with nothing else to do. HOWEVER, there is something to be said about the wonderful spark of intuitive reasoning which comes from the All(Not Yahweh-remember?). This isn't in spite of anything. If the person is not listening they wont hear a damn thing and just blithely go on their merry way. But if they ARE listening then real progress can be made in all areas of science a person is working in.

Even some gnostics get deaf from time to time, because of all the material responsibilities of their lives. So we're not completely immune to this.

Granted, our republic has been twisted now to the opposite side of the spectrum, but I wonder what would have happened if Plato had not been so inspired to write on the gnostic principles he did, among other things....

Be careful who you point your finger at. Not all theists are brainless because not all theists are literalists.

A theist with the pseudonym of DSJulian began an email war with Hump and posted their dialogue in the blog post's comment area. It was vicious. I could only watch in horror as Hump and NEBob proved that atheists are just as guilty of lacking rationality and good judgment as literalists. There were gross errors in historical information being bandied about and then misinterpreted to heap more ignorance on top of everything. Like I said- train wreck.

In the end, I said good-bye. I just couldn't watch any longer. It was obvious nobody was grasping the differences between literalist and non-literalist religion. I tried, I really did. But I failed in making these distinctions clear the past few months.

"Congratulations, Hump. You have now graduated to being a militant atheist in my book.

Apres tu, Julian.

I'll let myself(and my reasoning and rational mind) out; no need to show me the door."

Hump replied:

Angel, Hmmm.. I have always been a militant atheist. Ithought you understood that.

I hate to see you go. But I will not attribute to a god, a supernatural force, or a thinking senitinel being anything having to do with life, the universe, creation etal; nor will I allow disinofrmation to go unchallenged.

It was such a door-slam-in-the-face that I didn't reply. But DSJulian did after a while. He said,

"Angel, like me, thought you were a rational, reasonable person. Obviously you are not because once you are pressed with the facts, you have to resort to name calling. And as the Hump-God gets challenged, you have to respond by getting angry and accusing others of being angry. In the meantime your anger is being clearly demonstrated by your increasingly frequent spelling and other errors. You are becoming more and more like the God you say you reject, except you don't have the power to create anything..."

The melodrama went on for a total of sixty comments before finally dying down. Hump began deleting all of DSJulian's comments around post number forty-five or so.

In the end, I have revised my theory concerning atheism on being a possible stepping stone toward gnosis. Before this whole blogstorm I thought that any atheist was capable of using their rational rejection of literalism as a catapult toward gnosis when they were ready. I stand corrected. Now I have to say that I believe only 25% moderate/calm atheists stand a chance of gnosis and under 5% of the militant atheists will ever come around. They can't get rid of their hate long enough to see through, around, or under the blindfold which is holding them captive.

Debating with atheists isn't useless or pointless. I mean, this is a person's soul we're talking about here! It's important stuff! But with what I've found so far debating with atheists is tedious and more often than not, fruitless.

Coincidentally, I picked up the book "The Dawkins Delusion?" from the library a day or so prior to this blogstorm. Once my temper settled I dug into it and attempted to make some sense out of what had happened. Finally, I would be able to read a theist's deconstruction of Dawkins's argument against God!

For the most part I was disappointed. "The Dawkins Delusion?" was a fairly superficial engagement of the numerous arguments Dawkins proposed, however it did make one valid point: you cannot keep rehashing the same old arguments over and over again with nothing new to contribute if you are a SCIENTIST and want to be taken seriously as a SCIENTIST. And no, making up new theories of "memes" and "God viruses" aren't real science. That requires lab work.

Believing in evolution does not make me a disingenuous theist, contrary to what Dawkins would have me and everyone else believe. I don't feel disingenuous. I feel pretty darn confident, actually! It is possible to be a theist and believe in the good work of science. So why does Dawkins lump all theists into the same creationist camp??? Because otherwise he'd have to admit that there is a gray area and that not all theists are "mentally deficient!" And Dawkins can't stand gray. It's either his way or nothing.

A scientist taking the pulpit seems disingenuous to me.

And on the real science front..... {This news video} about British scientists solving the "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" mystery says something quite remarkable about our quest for answers. With every answer we receive from science it appears that our final answer concerning divinity is a long way off. We need to be patient and in the meantime not tear each other apart.

From how I look at the conclusion to this test it was a stalemate. The chicken could have dropped from the sky or it could have evolved. It's really kinda ironic, when you think about it! The poor creationists and evolutionist are looking at each other like, "well... crap. Now what do we do?!!"

Long story short, folks, either the divine is proven to exist or not. Science appears to be able to assist with the ongoing debate, however it seem quite hilarious to me that so far both sides have been slamming their heads into walls with the conclusion of their tests. The results are conclusive but... not. Answering one question only leads to ten more. Such is life.

Book Review

The God Delusion
By: Richard Dawkins

As much as I loathed picking this book up after already seeing Dawkins argument shredded by other people, I decided that I at least had to further educate myself on exactly what I was up against when talking to the man's disciples.

I discovered something not too terribly surprising from a gnostic stance- I agreed with him the majority of the time.

Those of you who are semi-gnostic or semi-literalist theist may gasp and say, "oh my gosh, but why?!! He's an atheist. He is the antithesis of what I believe in!" Au contraire, my friends. Atheists are not the boogieman they are made out to be(EXCLUDING the militant atheist type! They are truly scary.). In terms of the evolution of gnosis atheists are, in fact, potential infant gnostics. Tabula rasa of an adult nature. A kind of resolve the adult makes to revert back to being blank slates before the world attempted to indoctrinate them. The adult states: I see no reason to believe therefore I do not.

The God Delusion has been used as a sort of vindicating "guidebook" for atheists to explain their decision. With as much as atheists are hated(therefore rarely elected into office), spit upon, and used as pulpit scapegoats for the ills of the world, I think that the book deserves a bit more care and examination. Dawkins' job was hardly and easy one. He has well over two thousand years of religion to talk about in regards to Why He Doesn't Agree With It. It's not enough to point at a religion and say, "It promotes hatred therefore I refuse to believe in it." We have to dig deeper than that.

In the preface, Dawkins tells a short story about his wife's childhood education. She was so miserable, he said, that she wished she could leave. Years later when she told her parents about this they exclaimed, "But darling, why didn't you tell us?" The wife's reply was, "Because I didn't know that I could."

I believe this one sentence lays the foundation for exactly what atheists use as fuel. They have discovered they do have a choice and this propels them forward to question everything and everyone. In a gnostic perspective- isn't this exactly what the Good God wants us to do?!! Absolutely! To not question is to be a blank faced sheep, led to the slaughter by whoever holds our leash. This is the very reason why I state atheists are potential infant gnostics. They have turned their back on literalism as the world has promoted it and this is a major stepping stone toward (potential)spiritual growth. Some never do grow and that is their choice.

"I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."

Dawkins' attack of Jehovah, Allah, and other literalist deities is typical. He calls them misogynists, angry murderers, and he can in no way, shape, or form condone revering such deities without proof of their existence. The problem with his attempt at disproving God's existence is that he falls short. His argument is that he wants God to walk up and shake his hand and since He hasn't done so then obviously He doesn't exist. This is a cop out to real discourse on the nature of the soul and the divine. He is begging for literalism and pouts when he doesn't get it.

He is attacking literalism only because he knows of no other religion or concept(like gnosis). Now, he does acknowledge that Buddhism and Confucianism and a few others are "ethical systems or philosophies of life," but he does not recognize them as also being atheist. He does not look further within them to explore the solid cornerstone of gnosis at their core. Since he dismisses eastern 'ethical systems and philosophies' he completely misses the point- that he is in fact only pointing out one branch of religion he does not believe in: literalism. But by not acknowledging and researching non-literalist religions he is not only doing himself a disservice but atheists everywhere.

This book is a 350+ page rant against literalism. And yet a literal handshake is the only thing which would appease him.

Since a literalist's endgame is pointing at their holy book and exclaiming in a loud voice that all the answers are within and if you don't believe it then you are going to a Very Hot Place after death then you can see why Dawkins would react with the arguments he does. He claims to be an empiricist who needs proof. I say that he is a hopeful agnostic as opposed to pure atheist. The summary of the book is a rather passionate plea for God to show Himself either in intuition or science and math:

"... Could we, by training and practice, emancipate ourselves from Middle World, tear off our black burka, and achieve some sort of intuitive- as well as just mathematical- understanding of the very small, the very large, and the very fast? I genuinely don't know the answer, but I am thrilled to be alive at a time when humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding. Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits."

Losing Faith vs. Atheism

This question is open to anyone and everyone who'd like to share(rant/rave/etc) in the comment area:

Do you think that becoming an atheist is better than simply stating that you have lost your faith in your current religion?

Do you think atheism could be a stepping stone toward gnosis?

Do you feel that atheists are a shorter distance from gnosis than those in a literalist interpretative faith BECAUSE at least they are using their reasoning and logic to state: "I don't see a reason to believe in God because there is no proof."

Consider this: If a person has only been exposed to literalist interpretation and faith religions then they can only see what Jehovah has done, not Pleroma. They cannot quantify what Jehovah does compared to what He cannot do. If they have no knowledge of the distinction between the two entities then they are metaphorical infants.

The following is a video posted by Steve from TrueBlueHealer.com concerning the atheist of all atheists, Richard Dawkins, essentially bowing out of the argument of theism. Coincidentally(??) I just picked up Dawkin's book The God Delusion the other day at the library and was about to begin reading it. My heart really isn't in it now that I know what a cop-out it is.

Somebody's running for the office of God...

Gnostics and atheists have one thing in common: appreciation for comedy. And lack of reverence for the deity who created our material world because we see plainly just how jacked up it is. We hold Him accountable for His mistakes- we don't worship him because of it or make grand assumptions that There Is A Deeper Purpose behind those mistakes, because we know there's not.

When I read the latest blog post of my favorite atheist I knew(blog author Dromedary Hump) I had to share it with you. Keep the convoluted laws of the Old Testament in mind as you read.

*********************************************

Hump Considers Running For God:
Here's My Resume

Over coffee this morning I was thinking that I have all the necessary qualifications to establish my own godliness, even have people pray to me and worship me. So I have been pulling my resume together. Here’s what I have so far:

June 2007: My eldest son and his wife disobeyed me when I told them not to touch the bowl of dried banana chips. I threw them out of the house and told them they are cursed for life. They didn’t take it well.

September 2007: I decided I didn’t like the way things were going in my town. I blew up the damn which flooded the entire region killing every man, woman, child and animal in the county except for my friend Gary, his wife and child and their three Boston Terriers. They’re the only folks I liked.

January 2008: I convinced this “mentally challenged” guy that unless he killed his own son with an axe that I was going to heap some bad mojo on him. He was just about to lower the boom on the kid, when I stopped him at the last second. I was just testing him. He may have soiled his pants, I know his kid did. It was a hoot.

March 2008: My followers and friends needed some rules, so I came up with my "Top Ten List of Stuff Hump Wants You to Do.” I made sure the first four rules were all about me. Hey, I have a fragile ego.

May 2008 - August 2008: Lots of little things were pissing me off during this period. Maybe it was the heat, maybe I was just cranky, I dunno. Things like folks wearing their damn polyester/cotton blend clothes; people eating lobster with butter and lemon; farmers cross breeding cattle to get more milk production; men giving other men hand jobs, same with women; lots of other stuff like that that had no rhyme or reason … hundreds of them. So I decided those things are illegal around here. I’ve directed my followers to kill those who do the stuff that really irks me. No Damn Gleaning Fields on Thursdays During Baseball Season if you value your life, damn it!!!

November 2008: This big extended family down the road didn’t think much of me and my followers. They practiced some strange ways, ya know? I think they are Asians. Probably pagans. Some of them actually ate lobster salad with mayo on hot dog buns! Disgusting!!

So I told my friends and followers to set their house on fire and kill every one of them; their dogs, cats and farm animals too! I told them it’s ok to make an exception for the little girls. Hey, my friends like ‘em young. I tried to get my friends to wipe out the Town of Bellows Falls, Vermont too, but the town’s two cops had those aluminum meter maid electric carts, so they were too powerful for us.

March 2009: I decided to have another son. Mrs. Hump became hysterical at the idea and threatened me with a knife. I had no idea how to find myself a wife of child bearing age on short notice -- and my inflatable Mary doll wasn’t in any position to reproduce. So I snuck up on some stoner chick, gave her some Ruffies and nailed her. She never knew what happened. Late in December she gave birth to our son. She figured it was a virgin birth. Hey… I wasn’t about to confess to anything, so I let her think that.

January 2010: I was thinking my young bastard son is gay. I wasn’t sure, but he was spending all his free time with this group of a dozen or so effeminate guys with long hair and playing his X-Box. (I’ll admit he has remarkable control of that thing for a 13 month old, damn miraculous!)

So to make him prove his manhood I told him to get himself all worked up and pissed off, and inject some neighbor’s goats with anti-freeze and have them jump off a cliff. He did and they did. Then, to have him prove he’s no pantie waist tree hugger, I told him to kill a pear tree for not having pears on them. He babbled something at first about my being an idiot because there are no pear baring trees in January in New Hampshire. But he killed the tree anyway. He’s a good boy, bit of a smart ass and given to hissy fits though.

Spring 2010: I plan to have my little bastard son tortured to death, to show what a compassionate and caring guy I am to my followers. No doubt he’ll get a little rattled toward the end, but he’s a skinny kid and probably won’t last too long… three or four hours, max. He’s resilient though so who knows -- some defibrillator shocks and he might come back. “CLEAR!!”

***********************************

Here are a few of the funny comments to the blog post so far.

Dannette said...

Dear God. Hump is goin' to hell. The End. Let the outrage begin!

P.S. What is wrong with butter and lemon with lobster? Have I been doing it wrong all these years?

March 1, 2010 1:02 PM

said...

Dannette,
Gasp!!!

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

Thus, god hates crabs, lobsters, shrimp, clams, etc. Lemon good, Butter good, shell fish.. ABOMMINATION UNTO THE LARD!!!

Now go, my child and sin no more.

March 1, 2010 1:19 PM

zarton said...

Hump,
For one, if you want to be my new god, you're going to have to come up with some pretty good circular argumentation. Secondly, what kind of afterlife benefits do you have?
Here's what I'm looking for in a deity. You're going to have to beat beer volcanoes and a stripper factory just to outdo the FSM, and let me tell you 72 camel toes won't cut it. Also, you're gonna need some chosen people. If I happen to be one of those chosen ones I might consider it (I love feeling better than everyone else).
You might also have to convince me that you have healed my diabetes, and a new guitar would really sweeten the deal, but maybe I am pushing it a little.
zar
p.s. what happens if I say Drome Dammit(!) ?

March 1, 2010 4:27 PM

said...

Holy Mother of ME, Zar!!! ..
You sure make alot of demands.

I'm not even ready to launch my campaign and already you're nailing my hump to the wall.

Remember, once made God, I get that 100 day honeymoon period to get my act together.

March 1, 2010 4:31 PM

Dannette said...

Why did the lard make shellfish if he hates them? I can get why the lard would be into butter, though. I'm all confoozled again.

March 1, 2010 4:45 PM

said...

Hey, why'd he make pigs if he hates them? There's no accounting for the crazy stuff the ancients decided their god hates.

I mean, their god hates people wearing cotton and flax blend garments. What's up with that? Is he worried about the dry cleaning bills?

March 1, 2010 5:21 PM

NewEnglandBob said...

"Remember, once made God, I get that 100 day honeymoon period to get my act together."

Wait-a-hump-damn-minute! 100 days - are those the millennial long days each? Or are the epochal days? Ya know, we ain't gonna wait 'round no 2 billion years while you vacation.

March 1, 2010 6:46 PM

said...

Mixter,
Thanks. You may be Disciple material :)

NEBob...
you and Zar are putting too much pressure on me. I was planning to ease into the deity thing.

As a Camelian Biblical Literalist, the 100 days are of the 24 hour variety. None of that liberal theist "100 days = 2 billion years" crappola for me.

March 1, 2010 7:38 PM

Tracey said...

Amateur. You haven't done that 10 plagues thing yet. And if you want to be my chosen deity, what's in it for me. FSM has a stripper factory, which is alright for dudes and lesbians, but what about us hetero females? What's in it for us? Do I get an endless supply of the Old Spice dude? Eat bonbons and drink cokes all day and still maintain a smokin' hot bod? Seriously. You've only appealed to my sense of fear thus far. What's in it for my sense of greed?

March 2, 2010 9:57 AM

Enrico S said...

In danger is thee who angers The Hump!

How dare one question his Humpness or make demands thereof.

Do ye knoweth not that the Hump works in mysterious ways?

You shall receive that which is right in the Humps eyes.

The Hump is all knowing! The hump reviseth his soul contracts as he wishes. Again, how dare you question!

The Hump knows that which is right for thee.

You are all in danger of eternal damnation, suffering the never ending line of Starbucks! Forever and ever, even for ever and ever.

-------------------
BTW: Lord Hump,
As things go wrong for people, not understanding your infinite wisdom, they will become angry with you when they do not approve of your proscribed outcome to their prayer request. This could lead to a drop in your overall approval rating.

Might I suggest you play the game of good supernatural being / bad supernatural being. Create a new cabinet position and office. The office might be titled: "Sorry All Things Ain't Nice" or SATAN for short. To this office you divert blame when people get pissy about your divine plan.

That's all for now...I'll be back later

March 2, 2010 11:16 AM

Blogs of Note

Is it any wonder that with as freedom loving as gnostics are that I would find a home-away-from-home in an atheist's blog? I'm not kidding! The Atheist Camel is exactly what it claims to be: "...an oasis airing his perspective on theists, religion and politics, beliefs, God, gods, the supernatural; science, reality, reason, logic, ethics, morality...and the lack thereof." I find myself positively commenting on just about every updated post there. "Hump" is the most cogent and eloquent atheist I have ever had the pleasure to meet. Gnostics do have a great deal in common with atheists if you squint and tilt your head the right way... I'll speak more in depth about this in a future article. It will surprise you.

I have discovered a number of blogs which are havens of freedom and free thinking and I'd like to share them with you. On the side column you will find a list of links titled Blogging For Freedom. Naturally, it is a work in progress. If you have a blog you'd like to nominate to be added to that section simply comment or email me directly at gnosticunrest@hotmail.com.