On sow's ears and silk purses - an examination of 'Christian theology'

On the existence of God

A person would expect something from a god. We would prefer it to be god like, so that therefore there would be no controversy and everyone could agree that it was in deed a god for its deeds were god like. A parting of the Red Sea from time to time would do nicely. As we all know the Red Sea only parts in movies, or perhaps someone could read a very ancient story about a Red Sea parting, and it would have to be a very, very old story, since no sea, Red or otherwise, has been seen to part throughout our recorded history, nor do such seas part today. For this reason we require apologetics, for we must be convinced by argument, since we cannot be convinced by a god, because there is no god here to convince us, therefore some preacher of some doctrine must attempt to convince us. The words of some apologist are a poor substitute for the deeds of a god, and we must wonder why we should be expected to take the word of an apologist as good credit when it is also true that the apologist does not know any god, since apologists live in the same world as everyone else, and no one else knows of any god here, and neither does the apologist. If the apologist claims to know a god, and they do claim to have personal relationships with gods, then it would be better by far if everyone else also experienced such a god rather than having only an apologist experience such a god in private, and then appear like some shaman returning from a solitary vision quest to talk to us about this god rather than having that god speak for itself, which would be better. This never happens, which is why we have apologists and a lot of talk instead.

It is important to make this point, that no god is here, because we cannot properly interpret what is known as ‘theology', which is supposedly the study of such a god, without knowing whether or not such a god really is a god, and it turns out that only if gods do such deeds as parting seas, which are the deeds only gods can do, there really is know way to know if there is a god which actually exists and therefore merits study. When gods only do what people can do for themselves we are told that ‘the gods are working through people, for this was the will of the gods.' It must be the will of the gods, one might assume, since we only see people doing things and then giving the glory to gods, but we never see gods doing things for themselves. An alternative explanation would be that there are no gods, and therefore people are delusional. A third explanation is also possible, which is that there is indeed a god but that there is no god here, which people would then refer to as one of the ‘divine mysteries'.

Now if God exists and yet the matter is debatable, we could insist that since God exists and the matter is debatable therefore it must be the case that it was the Divine Will of God to keep everyone guessing, and since it would be disgraceful to question the Divine Order of Things, we should not be critical of the ways of God, but rather we should ‘embrace the mystery'. I have noticed that this is what many Christians typically do - they ‘embrace the mystery' and they also stand in awe of the great mystery, being in wonder at the mysterious nature of it all, which is good, because that must be what God wants since that is the way things are.

The alternative would be to conclude that there is no god, and most Christians just don't want to go there, so they embrace mysteries instead, for since the Christian God is well known for being very cruel, distant and unapproachably remote, Christians must embrace mysteries or they must become atheists, or so it would seem. So then God is very mysterious, which is the Christian position, or there is no god and Christians are just deluded and can't deal with their own mortality, which is the atheist position, and it would seem that most people stop there and assume that these are the two choices. There is a third choice, which is that there is a God but that God does not attend church, a pattern of behavior which would be interpreted by a Christian as being very mysterious, and which would be interpreted by an atheist as the evidence that there are no gods, since apparently while atheists do not attend church they expect God to attend church, and they then insist that since God does not attend church, or part Red Seas for churches, that means there is no God, when actually what it really meant was that God did not attend church and therefore God did not part the Red Sea for some church.

Do two people travel down the road together, unless they have agreed beforehand to do so. Does it not require two to tango. If someone chooses to dance and their chosen dance partner rejects them, will they be seen together on the dance floor?

Now the more one studies such documents as gospels, the more one becomes convinced that there must have been ‘an historical Jesus'. This is true not because gospels are such trustworthy documents, but rather because they are not trustworthy, and the more untrustworthy a gospel is revealed to be, the more convincing an argument a gospel becomes for the existence of ‘the historical Jesus'. We know from gospels that this ‘historical Jesus' was a scandalous character, and because he was so scandalous it was required that gospel writers make up excuses for the conduct of Jesus. He broke the Sabbath as a matter of habit, and this was scandalous. Even the gospel writer agrees that Sabbath breaking was scandalous, for to break the Sabbath was to reject the Ten Commandments, and to reject these commandments was to call into question the validity of those stories of Moses going up the mountain and bringing down the law code of priestly Levitical religion. We know the gospel writer was scandalized for the gospel writer demanded obedience to ‘the law of Moses', and even made the laws more severe, since Moses apparently gave everyone a little to much slack rope, and the noose therefore required a tightening. We know that the gospel writer was also scandalized by Sabbath breaking, for it turns out that there was always a very good excuse each time, even though those excuses are not very good, they are ridiculous, but apparently an excuse, even a ridiculous excuse was required, for you see our gospels writers disapproved of Jesus just as much as critics at the time did, which then explains why our gospel writers did not accept Sabbath breaking, but instead insisted that keeping the Sabbath was correct except for those rare occasions when a person would break the Sabbath, having a very good excuse for doing so, which made it alright, but only on those exceptional occasions. Besides, Jesus was ‘Lord of the Sabbath', and thus a kind of patriarchal overlord, and therefore he could do whatever the hell he wanted on the Sabbath, but that rule did not apply to everyone else, such people being just ordinary people and not Lords, and so therefore they would have to keep the laws of Moses, for it turns out that the moral lesson taught by the Jesus of the gospel writer can be summarized as, ‘do as I say, not as I do.'

Gospels are evidence for the historical Jesus, simply because they are such dreadfully unfaithful and very bad documents, written by evangelists who disagreed with the positions Jesus took on the issues, but because of the controversy that existed, they were forced to address the controversy, before making up ridiculous excuses, thus telling us in the process who this historical Jesus really was. This was something the gospel writers would have preferred that we did not know, but because this Jesus was so controversial and his critics were attacking the early Christian movement by reminding everyone of the scandals of Jesus, the gospel writers were forced to address some very scandalous behavior and then attempt a white wash by cooking up what would hopefully be accepted by listeners at the time as plausible sounding excuses. Some of these scandals, such as the time this Jesus was caught getting his foot kissed by a prostitute might seem like tough scandals to spin doctor, but our gospels writers came up with something (he was a tyrant and she wanted to escape hell, so she kissed his feet). Then there were all those drinking parties during Lent (it was a wedding, and we all know how people carry on at weddings, but that was then and this is now, and it is a funeral, the funeral of Jesus, the endless funeral of Jesus, so from now on the Church will exist in a state of perpetual Lent).

I find this ‘historical Jesus' to be much more interesting than the Jesus of those church writers and the church itself. Are two people found walking down the road together, unless they have both agreed beforehand to journey together. Does it not take two to tango? We have noticed the church dancing alone, which an atheist would insist proves that there never was any Jesus, and that there are no gods, just deluded types who dance with their invisible friends, but when you consider that the church Jesus does not exist, or so a gospel writer would tell us if we knew how to listen correctly to what they were saying, and so therefore if the church is found dancing with a phantom friend that is really no surprise, since no such person existed in history, and thus it would be unlikely that such a person would still exist today. The historical Jesus would not dance with a church, for this would require him to reverse all of his previously held positions on the issues, and so therefore if there was a Jesus today, he would not be found dancing with churches. Therefore the fact that Jesus is not dancing with churches does not prove that there is no Jesus, but rather is evidence that Jesus is not dancing with churches and that would be about it.

If it was true that there was a God and if it was true that God did not attend churches or part seas for churches or do any other thing that would be the unmistakable deed of a god, thus rendering apologetics obsolete, then it must be the case that this was, as churches claim, a Divine Mystery, and therefore something to be embraced with the humble and reverent awe so characteristic of the profoundly grateful and the very pious, or it could also be true that God did not attend church because God was not a church going God, which would not be very mysterious after all. For this the church could not be found to feel grateful, nor would it be the case that a church was pious, since you have to feel a fondness of some sort for God to be pious, and when you just don't like God, and therefore are found to reject God, that is not pious. It also not very mysterious, since such mysteries are only mysterious for churches because churches prefer to be baffled, or at least they once did long ago, when they first choose to reject God by rejecting that Jesus, demonstrating this when they canonized gospels which were not gospels, but rather works of rejection which then somehow everyone began to confuse with gospels later, after enough time had passed and no one remembered what actually had happened.

When we study the positions taken by this Jesus, by isolating the controversies and doing the wise thing, by ignoring those gospel writers and their erroneous and tortured attempts at reinterpretation, what we discover is that this Jesus was a Jewish Prophet. As example of this we have Jeremiah, who said, in the seventh chapter, ‘Burn your whole offerings and eat the flesh yourselves, because when I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I gave them no instructions or commands concerning whole offerings and sacrifices. But they did not listen, but rather they persisted in their own plans with the most stubbornly evil and rebellious hearts. Now truth has perished from their lips and it is no longer heard in this land..' Jeremiah then goes on to condemn the laws in Leviticus concerning burning at the stake (the supposed sins here were sexual).' ‘That was no command of God's' Jeremiah wrote of these burning laws, which suggests that everyone else was insisting that these laws were God's laws, just as the animal sacrifice laws were supposedly God's laws. Jeremiah's attack on the validity of the so called ‘Law of Moses' continues in chapter eight, where he then makes the point explicit, by damning the Torah as a forgery. ‘How can you say, ‘We are wise for we have the Torah (the law of God), when, actually, the lying pen of the scribes has made into a lie.'

So then we know that Jeremiah had no use for those forgers, the religious scribes, who cooked up false documents which were then foisted on the populace as being ‘the Word of God.' We also know how little use that Jesus had for ‘scribes' and for the Pharisees, who loaded religious laws onto the backs of humanity like heavy boulders, and refused to lift one finger to lighten the load. Thje fact that Jesus was an habitual Sabbath breaker was a symbolic rejection of the validity of the so called ‘Law of Moses', and therefore we know that in truth this Jesus was no Christian, for Christians accept the ‘law of Moses', because their gospel writers accepted the validity of that law, and it turns out that when you have a gospel you have an excuse. You can tell that church fathers canonized certain gospels, while burning up all the rest, because they knew churches required a book of excuses, and they were correct, for I have noticed that no church ever sins without backing up that sin of theirs with a quote from some supposed scripture which had been canonized for that specific purpose by a church father.

It turns out that just as the Law of Moses was a forgery, so the gospels are forgeries as well, but they are interesting forgeries in that what we have here is a buried pearl, and when a pearl is only buried, by shoveling dirt onto that pearl, it still remains possible to unearth the pearl later. For in churches pearls are not found in grand mausoleums or in ornate museums, but rather are found buried under a pile of dirt, that pile of dirt then given the Orwellian designation of ‘gospel' since it would be ineffective to call a pile of dirt a pile of dirt and so therefore piles of dirt must be dignified by calling them gospels.

It is important that these points be made, for we must understand first that the fact that God does not attend church is not ‘proof' that there no gods exist, but rather given all that dirt that was shoveled, we can know for certain that there certainly was an historical Jesus, for it does not make sense for forgers to invent a fictional character who was going to give them nothing but trouble, thus requiring them to bury their own troublesome creation under a big pile of dirt to fix the problem those forgers created for themselves and then had to fix by shoveling. We know therefore, that when someone has been buried in a grave a second time, and was the intended victim of a second homicide attempt by the church, since some people cannot become the victims of attempted murder enough times, their doctrine just being that disturbingly radical, it just logically follows that such a victim of attempted homicide would not be found anywhere near a church, and if we can know for certain that Jesus would never attend church, but rather would be giving churches as hard a time as he gave scribes and Pharisees in his own time, we can conclude that it must also be true that God wouldn't attend church. What this means is that if Jesus did not attend church, that would in no way prove that there was no Jesus, since we would not expect to find Jesus darkening the doorstep of some church, for very obvious reasons. Nothing is proved here except that Jesus does not attend church, and if an atheist wishes to make an argument that there is no God such an argument could never be based upon non-attendance at church since you would expect that. No atheist would attend church and it would be hypocritical for an atheist to then demand church attendance as some kind of litmus test for the existence of God.

Everything I have said here is not what you would hear from a church, and that is why a church can never have credibility, for it becomes the task of a church to convince people to accept the incredible and that is never very credible. A church must rely upon apologetics, for she cannot rely upon a god, because she has no god to rely upon, and therefore she relies upon apologetics, since that is all the remains for her. The fact that she still manages to convince a shrinking proportion of the population to attend church is not evidence for the persuasive power of her apologetic polemics, but rather is the result of mortality salience, for since church people cannot deal with mortality, and since she seems to be the only one with some kind of god on offer, they are able to become deluded and desperate enough to become dogmatic, thus allowing them to forget that there is no god at church. For this reason alone there remain people who attend church, and while it is true that many people who do not attend church, having found no god there, continue to place some hope in the idea that perhaps there might still be a god after all, they do so outside of church, which is an indication that they have become convinced that if God existed God would not be found at church, and so therefore they no longer bother attending church themselves.

One quick way to turn this situation around would be for churches to prove everyone wrong in their conclusions, by having that church god make at least a brief appearance, and part the Red Sea. This would be far more convincing than apologetics, which no longer work, as you can tell, because only those who are truly desperate and thus become very dogmatic, continue to attend church. There is also increasing fundamentalism in religion, which is a sign of just how desperately hard up church people have become, but then it has been a very, very, very long time since there has been any sign of a god of any sort anywhere on this planet, and when that process continues for a long enough time, some people will become very desperate and quite hard up and not having a reason to believe will become fundamentalist instead so that they can at least pretend that they believe by being so very adamant in proclaiming that they do believe. This convinces no one, since most people avoid fundamentalists, but then the one who needs convincing the most is the fundamentalist, and since even fundamentalists cannot convince themselves therefore they will damn everyone else to fiery infernos, for you see they would rather not be reminded that other people find good reason not to believe for it reminds them that they do not believe, their vociferous claims to holding such beliefs just being one more piece of evidence of how doubtful a fundamentalist finds fundamentalist religion to be.

There are a number of possible explanations for what we have experienced here. The first is the official church doctrine, which is that there is a church god, but that such a god is very mysterious. The second is that there is no god, and therefore what a church calls a mystery is just a delusional inability to deal with reality. The third is that there is a God, but God does not attend church for very obvious reasons. I say obvious reasons, for if you analyze gospels, and if you recall certain equally scandalous teachings found in books of Jewish prophets, you would understand that the Christian church attempted to build her mausoleums on a foundation which she rejected, which is curious behavior, and since she rejected those foundations, and teaches otherwise to this very day, we can say for certain that the church is not the original source of the doctrines she rejected, for she rejected those doctrines, and she continues to reject them to this very day. The church could never be the source of a pearl, because she rejects pearls. The church was only the original source of the dirt that was shoveled on top of the pearl, and so therefore since it is unlikely that anyone would want to bless a pile of dirt, we can understand then why it would be the case that God rejected the church for the reasons are obvious. There are those who say, based upon the bitterness of their own life experience to this point, that the argument of the atheist is most convincing. This is an argument made on the basis of emotion, for anyone can see that the evidence of the buried pearl is also quite convincing and provides a reasonable and quite rational explanation for what we have seen and for what we have experienced, and if people reject such an argument out of hand it is only for emotional reasons that they do so..(I have noticed just how deeply emotional atheists sometimes become as they express their rejection, which is understandable, since their life experience has left them emotionally incapable of accepting such a logical argument as being reasonable or rational, even though it is both quite reasonable and really very rational).

Sows ears into silk purses

I felt that it would first be good to lay out before the reader the three possible explanations for our experiences as far as it concerns the question of God, and there are three explanations, not the two which are typically debated by atheists and churches. For atheists and churches debate whether or not there are or are not gods that exist. The general population retains some hope in God, while rejecting the church, and here we find the third position, which is that God does not attend church, which is the position held by the majority of the population, since both atheists and churches are found to be in the minority.

I have already briefly touched upon the matter of untrustworthy gospels which, because they are so untrustworthy, being piles of dirt shoveled on top of a pearl, are very convincing evidence for the existence of ‘the historical Jesus'. In the same way what is known as ‘Christian theology' can also be seen as very convincing evidence that God does not attend church, and therefore the suspicions of the majority of the population, those who still claim to hold some belief in God, but reject church, are well founded.

I offer the following definition of theology - the process of turning sows ears into silk purses.

Now if one had a silk purse one would not have a problem. For example, if a god would part a Red Sea from time to time, no one would be found pondering the mystery, or doubting the existence of God, for the church would be the holder of the silk purse. You only find people doubting the existence of God when there is some doubt in the matter, and there could only be such doubt if God allowed such doubt to exist, and in this case a church would be found to be in possession of a sow's ear. Since no church can ever be found in possession of a sow's ear we will notice, as we study ‘Christian theology', that theology is the process by which a church, which has a sow's ear, invents doctrines which supposedly prove that what is very obviously a sow's ear (it is unmistakable) is not a sow's ear but is rather a silk purse. Since a sow's ear is a sow's ear, and not a silk purse at all, one can then understand why there is so much suspicion in the population as to the veracity of the claims made by some church, for those who are found to be peddling false goods employing false advertising to do so can never be found credible by anyone ever again. Such also is the fate of those who attempt to peddle a purse made out of a sow's ear as being a silk purse, when it is obvious that this is not true.

So then let us examine Christian doctrine, and we will find ourselves examining a sow's ear. It will be obvious that we are examining a sow's ear, and we have only the claim of the church that the sow's ear is a silk purse, which is certainly not enough to transmute that sow's ear into an actual silk purse. It remains a sow's ear, and the claim made by the church that it is silken is just a claim made by some church which does not want to attempt to sell that sow's ear, but still wishes to make sales, and therefore advertises a silk purse and then when a customer is found the sow's ear is sold because it turns out that no silk purse is available after all, and therefore since a church has to sell something or go out of business, that sow's ear will go on the market.

Let us consider one example. Chief among that Christian theological doctrines is that crown jewel of the church - the doctrine of Salvation. If the church had a silk purse certainly this, the greatest and most important of all church doctrines should be found to be silken and not sowish.

Now we all know, in general, the way this is supposed to work. This life, the one we have right now, is just a dry run, and the true life comes later on after people are dead, when, if they received some sacrament, called baptism, and accepted Jesus, a ghost will come out of their body and go up to a place called heaven, which is even now populated by the ghosts of the dead relatives of everyone, or at least those who got saved before they dropped dead. The way this works is that God told Moses to order those people to slit the throat of a cow and sacrifice various animals. It turns out, that, according to the Christian doctrine of Salvation, the prophets in the Bible were false prophets, and therefore we can know that the Bible is not God's Word, or at least not the whole Bible. The part of the Bible that is God's Word is that Law of Moses stuff, which the prophets said was not, but that doesn't matter, because you can just ignore prophets because they were not. As for Jesus breaking the Sabbath and thus rejecting the Ten Commandments, that would be suggesting that Moses did not go up the mountain to bring down those laws about sacrificing animals, but this is not a problem for the salvation of humanity, because it turns out that Jesus was not a Jewish prophet, which is good, since Jewish prophets were false prophets, according to theologians, and we wouldn't Jesus lumped in with them. It turns out that Jesus had a good excuse for each time he broke the Sabbath and was not some kind of role model for rebellion against religion.

Now the animal sacrifice is very important, for you see those animals were ‘dying for your sins'. You see, they had not yet murdered Jesus, thus causing him to bleed, and so therefore they had to make do with animals. As that lovely letter to the Hebrews explains, animal blood was not an effective detergent when it came to washing off sins. This explains why people sacrificed animals for their sins over and over again every week, since what was required was a detergent with more bleach, which then explains why they needed to sacrifice a god instead, and given how powerful god blood can be as a washing agent for sinners, this would only have to be done the one single time. When you accept Jesus you get your sins washed by the blood of the lamb so you can then become pure of the sin of Adam and go to heaven instead of frying ni hell. For when Jesus hung on the cross he was paying for your sin, since torturing people to death is how God punishes sinners, and since Jesus had no sin himself, being a god, he therefore took your place and paid the price for you, thus making it unnecessary for people to sacrifice a cow like Moses told them to before they had the chance to kill a god instead of killing off their livestock every time they sinned in the past.

This is my synopsis of that doctrine of Salavation. We might note here that if the Bible is very infallible, and therefore without any errors at all (which would be impossible) that would mean that prophets were prophets, and if prophets were prophets and if Jesus broke the Sabbath because he was breaking the Sabbath, and thus didn't make excuses for himself since that would be the job of someone else who didn't approve of breaking the Sabbath, therefore we must conclude that the doctrine of Salvation was based upon forged documents, and therefore the church has never saved even one soul or sent even so much as one person to ghost heaven, since forged doctrines cannot be the source of the salvation of souls. If it turns out that the bible is just riddled with errors, false prophets being the source of nothing but error by definition, then perhaps it might yet prove to be true that the church saves.

We have made note of one very obvious sow's ear which can be found in this alleged doctrine of salvation, but that is only the start. The doctrine of Salvation is the crown jewel of that church and so therefore it is no great surprise to locate multiple sow's ears, and not just the one sow's ear already mentioned above.

As we all know, from very bitter experience, the Christian god is a cold, distant, ruthless prick. For you see it turns out that the Christian god decided to make salvation into a very cruel guessing game. This god decided to leave the planet for a very long time, and abandon the church for a very long time, and in place of god we would get books like gospels, and perhaps a few letters, but that would be about it. We would also get lots of apologists, who would keep busy trying to convince people that the Christian god was a god and that this supposed god actually did exist, this job being necessary since that Christian god decided to make the matter very doubtful by refusing to attend church and just leaving behind a few very old letters and some rather far fetched stories to go along with those letters. There would be no parting of the Red Sea for that church. It was said that the Church was a real miracle working wonder in her youth, but once that church got started that was the end of all that miracle working business. For you see, salvation was planned by that very tough minded Christian god to be a very ruthless guessing game, and if that church was going around doing miracles all the time that would be to easy. It would ruin the divine plan of making salvation into a very ruthless guessing game.

The rules of this guessing game are that sometime in between birth and death every human would have to listen to a preacher or some evangelist or apologist and then make their own decision as to whether or not they believed in Jesus and that Christian god. They would have to read over a slim volume of very old documents canonized for that church for the express purposes of having documents at church as a substitute for having god at church, since it was the Divine Plan of the Mysterious Christian God to make salvation into a guessing game based upon reading a few very old letters and some rather far fetched sounding story books. This was the way things were and since the church cannot be wrong, being a divine church by definition, therefore it was the Divine Will of God that it be so, and even though it was true that the Christian god was being a real tough bastard, no one could complain since it was very unpious to question the Divine Order of Things. People would just have to take their chances and roll the dice in the hopes of winning at that gambling game, for the Christian Salvation is a very iffy gamble. This is what the Christian god wanted, which then explains why that Christian god would not part the Red Sea for that church, for if that happened then it would be like cheating for everyone would already know the answer instead of being forced by evangelists to take a wild guess like they were supposed to as ordained by the Christian god.

Now it turns out that when you get a sow's ear from God, and you are a church, since no church will ever accept a sow's ear from God, some way must be found to turn a sow's ear into what will be marketed as being the Divine Silk Purse of Salvation of Souls. Since God has rejected the church, and would not go near that church with a ten thousand foot pole all throughout history, it would not be possible for the church to save the world the easy way, and so some damned hard way would have to be invented, something that matched the sow's ear. One might think such a task impossible, but that would be underestimating the considerable obstinacy of that church, and as we can see, she always managed to come up with something.

If ‘salvation' is just a very obvious sow's ear, and based upon a notoriously damned forgery as well, this might leave some confused soul wondering just what the Divine Will of God might have been, for if it is not true that God wanted everyone to wash off in the blood of some divine sacrificed cow, well what purpose was there in a crucifixion?

We have already made note of how that church washed out the mouths of Jesus and the prophets with a big bar of soap, for she rejected their doctrines and chose the forgeries of the scribes and the Pharisees instead. This bad behavior on the part of that church would have been more than enough to justify the giving of that sow's ear to the church, which then was placed at the very center of her theology in the hope that no one would notice that she received a sow's ear from God, as we have just noted above. However things get even more interesting when we take a moment to examine the cross, for there may be those who think it rather severe to so punish a church so ruthlessly for so many long ages of time just because she washed out the mouth of Jesus or some prophet, but consideration of her abominations concerning that crucifix more than justify every single sow's ear she ever received from God, for in this matter he conduct was beneath contempt.

It turns out that the purpose of the doctrine of salvation and the importation of all that forged nonsense about bleeding cows for your sins was to hide from humanity the meaning of a crucifix. Not only did the church get stuck with that rebellious Jesus and his rebellious doctrine, she got stuck with something even worse than that when she inherited a crucifix after that rebel was nailed to the crucifix and tortured to death for all his Sabbath breaking and drinking parties and other rebellious acts and revolutionary doctrines.

Christian theology causes blindness, and it has this curious effect of making people forget about a crucifix and what a crucifix might mean. This is handy if you happen to be the type who was planning to make use a crucifix later and thus didn't want people thinking that maybe that might be something that just should not be done anymore. You see, Caesar used the crucifix to torture to death rebellious slaves. After the slave rebellion led by Spartacus, five thousand of these slaves were tortured to death on crosses lining all the roads leading into Rome in a gruesome spectacle intended to inspire terror and consequently obedience. Such tactics worked quite well since the riches of wealthy Romans were based upon slave labor, since you cannot build great mansions of stone and acquire piles of gold by yourself, but rather you will need slaves to build and slaves to mine and quarry, for you see there are only 16 hours available in each day for doing all that work, and even if one person worked at that all their life, they probably still wouldn't get done in time so that they could die rich. Since wealthy Romans had not intention of dying rich, but rather wanted to live rich, they had slaves, and since slaves must be terrorized they had Caesar and Caesar had the cross which was where anyone who broke the rules would hang as a symbol to inspire terror. This tactic worked, since Romans drove slaves like the Egyptians before them for many centuries without having any real problems while they were doing so, because when they did have a problem, they committed mass murder.

The thing to remember about a crucifix is that is an instrument of terror, used by the powerful against the weak, and its purpose is to protect money as well as ensuring the acquisition of even more money in the future. It would be possible to hit a rebellious slave over the head with a mallet and just get it over with, but Romans employed a cross because crucifixion was an agonizing torturous lingering death and the purpose of such gruesome and demented behavior was to inspire the terror required to keep unruly slaves working so that rich Romans could get rich and stay rich.. For you see, they just couldn't do it themselves, and since no one was volunteering, they required terrorism and employed force.

I will now draw the readers attention to that twaddle which passes for salvation as it has been peddled by that church, which I described above. You will note that when you listen to that cow sacrifice twaddle and all that nonsense about saving souls with the cleansing bleach of a sinless god's blood, that makes you forget about what a crucifix represents.

Now what would motivate those church fathers, who were obviously a collection of right wing religious hawks, to obfusticate, by putting their filthy hooves into the drinking pool and stirring things up so as to muddy the waters as they so obviously attempted to do? The answer is that the Christian symbol was a symbol of political revolution against the Roman Empire. You can find an analogy in the story of Moses freeing the slaves from Egypt and overthrowing Pharaoh. Symbolically, the Christian symbol calls for the freeing of the slaves of Rome and it calls for the disgracing of the wealthy Roman Elite and for the overthrow of Caesar. Now if you are against these policies, as was true of the church fathers, who eventually rose to power and shared the throne with Caesar, you would need to invent some religious mumbo jumbo so that the church could then go throughout history representing the forces of reaction and oppression, while at the same time dragging that cross around with her without having a cross cause any trouble for Caesar or for Kings and Aristocrats and Feudal Landlords and the others with whom that church would share the throne throughout history, all this having been made possible by the church fathers, who invented some twaddle she could use a religion of the cross, so that people would always be certain to forget about YAHWEH and forget about Moses and forget about Pharaoh and forget about Jesus as well.

There is a symbolic political message embedded within the symbol of the crucifix found in the very center of the Christian religion. It can be put into words in the following way : ‘Caesar crucifies slaves but our God raises his victims from the dead.' You see, it is not possible to have Caesar going around torturing people to death, and then have YAHWEH following behind Caesar undoing his filthy work, without that being a disgrace to Caesar, not to mention a call to revolution against that slave driving system known as the Roman Empire. This is obvious, but the fact that it is obvious, and no one ever sees it, is a testimony to the devious power of religion. It also explains why the church dances alone, and why she has been found claiming that sow's ears are silk purses, for a church like that one gets no silk, and can expect nothing but sow's ears, sow's ears for thousands of years, and yes even sow's ears right to the very, very, bitter bitter end, for she will be found still carrying her sow's ears with her right to the very last moment, when she keeps her date with destiny, or so it would seem.

What is quite clear here is that ‘Christian theology', and in particular the crown jewel of such a theology, the so called ‘doctrine of salvation', is the doctrine of right wing hawks, which then explains why the social organism known as the religious right is so vociferous in its insistence on preaching ‘the one true faith', the contradictory, forged nonsense which was first cooked up by the church fathers. Now no one can become the partner of Caesar if they are going to be humiliating Caesar with a cross, but once the crucifix has been destroyed by ridiculous twaddle, then the way would be open for the church fathers to rise to power in Rome, which students of history will recall, is just what happened. Let us make note that the job of ruinous destruction was so complete that there was nothing remaining in Christianity that would humiliate Caesar, or some King in later years, and this was so true that Caesar even made that weird cross religion the official doctrine of the empire, since it was not embarrassing and thus not a problem anymore.

We can make note of the fact that there is a line of continuity in right wing religion, from the forgery passed off as the law of Moses, and that quack doctrine passed off as salvation by that church throughout the centuries, since the latter is based upon the forgeries of the former, both of these doctrines being obvious forgeries. Now the fact that the Christian doctrine is a piece of reactionary twaddle designed to hide the truth about crosses and instead deceive people into becoming religious, we can know that the church did not invent the cross, but rather we can say for certain that not only was there ‘an historical Jesus' but he most certainly was crucified, for that embarrassing story did not originate with the church, for she really had to cook up some of the most idiotic and hypocritically obvious twaddle to hide that thing, and people don't invent problems for themselves which they then need to spend four centuries fixing before they can finally climb to power, having after four centuries of persecution of so called ‘heretics' invented a religion so thoroughly disgusting that even Caesar could approve.

There is also a line of continuity running from the story of Moses saving the slaves while overthrowing Pharaoh of Egypt, the Jewish prophets, who tried to destroy the religious twaddle about that cow sacrifice which was invented to make people stupid enough to become religious ni those days, and then on to the cross of Jesus, who also tried to make people smart enough to not accept religion anymore, and who, like Moses, was originally a symbol of freedom for slaves while being ruinous destruction to the powerful oppressor.

If God is Holy, then we would expect God to rescue slaves, and we would not expect God to work with Caesar while protecting every slave driving system of oppression that ever appeared on the planet over the course of thousands of years. One of the consequences of rejecting such a God, which the church has clearly done, is that she will need a new god. She cannot invent a god of her own which is a god who oppresses slaves and supports the aristocracy, because that would not look good, and she required a god which did at least look good, even if that god she invented could not be good, for she had already rejected the good God, which was the reason why she was then required to go shopping for another god which looked good, so that it would appear that she had not rejected but rather embraced the Holy God.

It is for this reason that the church god is a lovely god. Yes the church god is very nice to everyone and just like a lovely grandpa. The church god wants to love upon you, and cradle you, and rock you in warm, comforting arms. For you see, it is the church god, and it is a very nice and very good god.

The church god wants to rock you and cradle you and just love upon you all day long, unless you happen to be in some desperate trouble, in which case you are on your own. Here we can see how the church, because of her long history of really dirty rebellion, revealed as it is in her doctrine and her sow's ears, wound up being stuck with one more of those sow's ears, for that good god of hers is not very credible, and she sounds foolish preaching about it, but preach about it she must or otherwise she would be short one good god, and she can't be short a good god, so she preaches.

Yes, that church god is very nice and just full of warm love and hugs and kisses, unless you are being gassed at Auschwitz, in which case that god proves to be not quite so good. Faced with a tough theological nut like that one which requires cracking, we will then be told by a church that ‘god is weeping'. Yes god weeps, and then god looks for people who will work with that lovely weeping god to make the world a better place. Apparently that god really isn't much good for anything, other than sermons, for when the going gets tough that god gets desperate and starts looking around to see if maybe someone else might be able to do something about that dreadful problem. I have also noticed that the good god wants to make the world a better place, but not directly, for as we know, this is the Christian god, and that god still needs to remain distant and remote at the same time as it is lovely and very nice, so as not to ruin that guessing game of salvation by giving out to many hints. Therefore that nice god is hamstrung when it comes to making the world a better place itself, and must weep and hope that perhaps it can find some people to work on that dreadful problem, because it can't do much itself without ruining the Divine Plan of Salvation by making it to easy for people to guess the right answer.

I have also noticed that this very good and extra nice god wants to make the world a better place, but not to much better, perhaps just slightly improved compared to the way it is right now. As an example of this, that god would make moral appeals to Pharaoh to send more straw to the slaves when they are making mud bricks. A slighter short mud brick day would be nice, and perhaps a day off for religion on Sunday. That god would also want the slaves to be good, for to quote those lovely Christian letters in the Bible, ‘slaves, obey your masters, with fear and trembling, just as you learn to obey Christ, and not only when you are being watched...Slaves must obey their masters, and not only those who are good and kind but also those are brutal and oppressive.' These quotes from that church bible give us the gist of the agenda of that new church god, which is a god which keeps slaves making mud bricks, but you might hear a moral appeal to Caesar or the Pharaoh or the Feudal Landlord to send more straw and make life perhaps a little easier for the slaves. You won't hear that god, or that church, calling for the liberation of slaves, for it turns out that the church god always diligently avoids root causes and is only concerned with treating symptoms, because it is not a revolutionary god, and hardly even qualifies as a reforming god, given its constant agenda of sending more straw which hardly qualifies as a reform.

Keep everything stable. Maintain patriarchy and hierarchy, says that Christian god, for it is a nice god, and being very nice it is concerned about making good citizens and maintaining an orderly society where slaves are happy slaves and slave drivers are even happier, being real rich after all, and no apple carts get upset, for upsetting apple carts isn't very nice, but actually rather rude, and nice gods are not rude.

As I consider all this I find myself wondering what could ever have convinced people that ‘there was no God' simply because God did not attend church for a couple of thousand years. The fact the church wound up with problem of trying to make a silk purse out of so many sow's ears would indicate that she herself was not the source of those many sow's ears that were giving all the problems, nor was she the original source of those embarrassing silk purses, which are embarrassing, because she rejected them in exchange for some transitory social stability, and in exchange for being nice and stable for a few brief years she opened up before herself and before the rest of the human race a yawning black bottomless pit, the pit of eternal nothingness, which is where people go when there are no gods. Now no doubt she will want to make a s ilk purse out of that particularly horrific sow's ear as well, and I will leave her to her work.

A Unified Field Theory

The Unified Field Theory
is also available as a zip file -> unified.zip

Introduction :The Pioneer Effect and the New Physics. A brief description of the new physics required to explain the 'Pioneer Effect', which is the constant deceleration of space craft as they fly through space.

Principles of Evolution: A Study in the Evolution of Bedbugs