Reformed morons

The more I read stuff from these reformed apologists, the more suspicious of them I become. For instance, when they ask questions like, "why is it immoral or wrong to hurt someone," or, "how do you know that it's immoral or wrong to hurt someone else for no reason," or questions to that effect, could it be that they are truly, genuinely in the dark on this? Could it be that these people are actually lacking in sympathy, empathy, or what we call a "conscience"?

Based on a passage from his "Professional Morons" (which is in a pdf document and I couldn't figure out how to quote from it, but I can link to it), I gather that Mr. Vincent Cheung really doesn't have any idea why a non-believer might consider it to be morally wrong to hurt another person for no reason. Cheung, and people like him, cannot seem to fathom why an atheist would be compelled to treat his fellow human being with decency and care, because the atheist isn't getting anything out of the deal, at least nothing that the religious fanatic can see or understand.

Maybe it doesn't bother the religious fanatic to observe a fellow human being in pain, causes him no unease whatsoever? This would go a long way in explaining why some of the extremely zealous theists, such as the Dominionists or Christian Reconstructionists, have no problem whatsoever with biblical atrocities. It doesn't bother them to think of millions of people being drowned in a flood, or of God's armies ruthlessly slaughtering their enemies, or of babies' heads being dashed against the stones, or of people having excrement spread on their faces, or of millions of people being damned for eternity; and it could also explain why some of these extremists would have no problem with executing people for various infractions, or why a few of them even advocate stonings.

What rational person with a healthy conscience could condone lobbing rocks at human beings until they die? For whatever reason? I wouldn't be able to kill someone by throwing rocks at them even if they had murdered my wife and children. I might want them to die, but not that way. I wouldn't even kill a toad that way, let alone a human being.

I think that maybe we need to come to terms with what we might be dealing with: intelligent people with no conscience, people who do not intuitively or instinctively know right from wrong, but whose idea of right and wrong, or moral and immoral, comes purely from a book. Maybe for this kind of religious zealot, killing an innocent person isn't wrong because it's repugnant to his conscience, to his basic sensitivities as a human being, it's wrong because it's an offense to God, and that's the only reason he needs; moreover, it's the only reason he feels entitled to have.

It's really no wonder, in light of this, that religious fanatics through out the ages have been capable of such brutality and cruelty. Perhaps because, in large part, they have no moral sense, they have no conscience? Because all they understand is obedience and force? And perhaps all of of their arguments are essentially grounded in one simple, scriptural premise: that everyone else is just as morally bankrupt as they are?

Requiescat in pace

I never thought I'd hear myself say this to myself, but I'm actually glad to see that there are so many Catholics in the world, for these vast droves of people will eventually prove to be instrumental in stemming the tide of Theonomy which at present is not a tsunami in force, rather a creepy little wavelet, which will grow.

And I therefore hereby this electronic digital transcription whereby I stand hereabouts do solemnly proclaim this thing verily, even a prophecy, which have come forth from my mouth, even from my tongue on this day: the God-botherers will grow mightier, yea, but not unto mightiness wherein they shall wreak their rigid Rightness upon us,

but unto forthwith and sooth a large body of sycophantic psychopathic mules or fowls of the air that droppeth stuff nor cheweth their cud, or them from which we reap our share of wool sheared, the sheep; and this body of some but not nigh unto mighty might shall fuck with freedom at every turn.

So let us be pleased that the old church is still kicking, and I think apologetic in a good way, and sincere, in the main. The heavier pots that are damaged lurk on the other side. Reformation my ask you this: as a rebellion it was wonderful, for like what, five minutes? Luther and Calvin were both knucking phuts.

I wish the Pope a very restful sleep, and peace, sincerely.

Ex-Christian.net

Last night as I was doing my usual reading online, occupied as I very often am in looking up information regarding the Christian Reconstructionist movement, or Dominionism, or Theonomy (these labels are commonly used interchangeably, but there are distinctions between them which I haven't quite worked out), and I wound up at a site called Ex-Christian net.

The site is run by an Ex-Christian named Dave Van Allen. It started small, but has grown considerably. Being inspired by Mr. Allen's testimony regarding his deconversion from the Christian faith, I wrote him a small letter of appreciation. Mr. Allen graciously responded, and quite promptly I might add, given the high rate of traffic at his website, and given that he must receive quite a large volume of personal messages and email. He thanked me for my message and asked to post it on his site in a letters-to-webmaster section, which he says consists predominantly of negative messages from Christians seeking to re-convert him. I was happy to ask him to go ahead and post my letter.

I also responded to a letter from a Christian posted recently at ExChristian.net, which prompted a rather lengthy thread. This person had coyly introduced the TAG into one of his posts. This argument will rear its ugly head everywhere, and it won't only be used by Christians arguing from a Reformed perspective. The best refutation I've read so far is this one, by Objectivist Anton Thorn. I know that many people, probably even most people, think of Objectivists as secular cultists, no better, and in fact similar in many ways, to fundamentalist theists. I will say that Objectivism has indeed generated a certain number of block-headed sycophants and "fundies". I encountered a few at more than one Objectivist forum, and I even met one Objectivist author via email whose responses to me were such that I immediately discontinued correspondence with him; but there are also those who are extremely bright and fiercely independent, and I believe that Anton Thorn is one of those.

One should consider that the biggest gun in the TAGist's arsenal is the fact that modern philosophy offers precious little by way of any firmly grounded epistemological standpoint, with Objectivism being one of the few, and certainly the most noticeable, exception. TAGists love to pick on people like Bertrand Russell, for example, first for his famous book on why he was not a Christian (guess the title?), and second, because his epistemological views changed through-out his career. Now, most people would say that that was a good thing, because, and I'm paraphrasing Nietzsche here, 'convictions are a no-no.'

Just don't be too sure of that.

waiting for echoes, archy

Was it Don Marquis, the journalist slash poet who said something like:

"Publishing a book of poetry is like dropping a [??] into the Grand Canyon and waiting for the echo." ?

It was either him or someone else, of that I'm sure. As for what goes between the brackets, it could be a feather, or a penny. I don't remember. I could look it up, but I don't feel like it, and neither will anyone else. I've been saying that a lot in this blog, haven't I, he asked himself. And no one was watching, and no one pointed his finger and laughed.

And it was all the same to him, he thought, examining the underside of the left side of his chin as he faced himself. I was reminded today of a line from a poem I've always liked: which went something like, "his carnation preceded him like a small explosion...". Does one need a full stop (period, he said, adjusting his glasses) after an ellipsis? Are there two ells in ellipsis? Well naturally there were two that time.

Well, archy, having looked through a sickeningly narrow yet noisy slice of Blogdom, I see that Andy Warhol was dead wrong. We cannot possibly all have fifteen minutes, each. And that wouldn't make us happy anyway. So God has rendered unto us all an infinity for the splatterings of our vanity. He has given every fool, including myself, his own mountain, her own village square, her own shiny and dazzling printing press of many-colors. We will hoist ourselves up and over our own petards, show ourselves naked (some of us quite literally) in front of the entire world, free of charge.

God has seen Andy's bluff and raised him a trillionfold, archy. The greatest libraries in the world pale to this blinking box next to my socks. The poet Kenneth Patchen once wrote, with a pen, presumably: "The impatient explorer invents a box in which all journeys may be kept."

That box is this box. Windows are boxes. Morrison was right, too, we're all voyeurs. The really sickening thing is, though, the person whose private parts we peer at through our little windows on the world is us, is you, is me, he said.

But no one was listening.