As the story goes, God looked down upon his human subjects and was distressed and angered by their sinful ways. As punishment for disobeying his word, God shuttered the gates of Heaven. That meant that no matter how good or virtuous a person lived, when they died they would be barred from entering Heaven. Instead, they would spend the afterlife in a place called Limbo. The evil would still be condemned to Hell, but the good would be denied entrance into Heaven. That hardly seems fair.
At some point God took pity on us poor, weak humans. He decided to send his son, Jesus, down to earth to die for our sins, thus allowing the gates of Heaven to reopen.
It is an interesting story and the cornerstone of Christianity. But let us examine it in greater detail, using our intellectual gifts of reason and logic. This story, like so many bible stories, is rife with implausibility and illogical behavior.
The first implausible aspect is the idea that God would close the gates of Heaven to bar entrance to new souls. Why would He punish the good, the innocent, those who obeyed His commandments? He was upset with the sinful humans, yet all humans were not sinful, so why would He punish the virtuous? What sense does that make?
The second implausibility is the idea of God sending His only begotten son to die for our sins so that Heaven could once again be open. This concept is completely devoid of logic. How does condemning His son to death atone for the sins of humanity? It would be the moral equivalent of having a next door neighbor who is a serial killer. But instead of punishing your neighbor for his crimes, you turn your son over to the authorities so that he will be punished for your neighbor's crimes. Make sense? Of course not, yet that is what the bible would have us believe God did.It is, in fact, a moral abomination.
The third implausibility deals with Jesus and Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples.Since biblical times, one of the worst things a person could be called is a "Judas," a term for someone who betrays a friend. Why Judas? Because the bible tells us Roman authorities were searching for this itinerant preacher named Jesus, and were offering a reward of gold coins for his capture. Judas, being one of his 12 apostles, knew exactly where he was, and informed the Romans in order to obtain the reward. For this act of betrayal, the name of Judas has been vilified for the past 2000 years. But does Judas deserve his shameful reputation?
I would argue that it is totally unjustified. Remember the whole point of Jesus coming down to earth was to die for our sins so that humans could be forgiven,.What Judas did was to set the wheels in motion. For this he should have been lauded throughout history for helping facilitate the reopening of Heaven. I would suggest that Judas was actually a hero.
Like most bible stories, when the spotlight of logic and reason are shone upon them, they are revealed to be totally devoid of reason, logic and plausibility. And for good reason. These ancient stories were created by ancient minds that lacked our knowledge of science and nature. These writers were part of a culture steeped in superstition and myth as a way of explaining the world around them. The real mystery is why these mystical tales are still regarding as unassailable truths in the 20th century.
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
GOOD RIDDANCE TO BAD RUBBISH
Fidel Castro, who ruled Cuba for over a half century, died Friday, November 25, 2016 at the age of ninety.Leaders around the globe responded to his passing. Two of the most egregiously ignorant statements came from President Barack Obama, and Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada.
Withholding any outright condemnation of Castro, Obama said history would ultimately judge the man.Trudeau praised the dead communist's leadership abilities. Those two statements painfully reveal the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the two leaders.
To say that history will be the judge of Fidel Castro indicates either a lack of moral values or crippling naivete.
One does not have to wait for history to evaluate Fidel Castro. Anyone with an ounce of of morality and intelligence can readily make a determination as to the character of Castro.
He ruled like a tyrant. Under his dictatorship, there were no free elections, no freedom of speech, all means of communication--radio, television, newspapers, the internet--were all controlled and censored by Castro. Protests against the government were outlawed, political dissidents were arrested, imprisoned, tortured and often killed. Cubans caught fleeing the island were either shot on the spot or imprisoned. Over the years tens of thousands of Cubans fled the island. Thousands more died trying. For an individual to risk life and limb is clear testament to the cruelty and poverty-level living conditions under the communist regime.
While Fidel and his cronies lived in affluence, comfort and security, the citizens of Cuba lived in poverty, hunger the constant companion of many.Much of Castro's wealth was derived from granting safe haven to drug lords.
You don't need history to make a judgement of this man. His deeds provide ample evidence. Fidel Castro was an immoral human being who used force against his own people to retain power. Anyone who initiates the use of force against others and denies them their basic human rights is, by definition, an immoral individual.
That others refuse to condemn him betray their own ignorance and moral weakness. You don't have to wait for history to Judge Fidel Castro. All you need are moral values.
Withholding any outright condemnation of Castro, Obama said history would ultimately judge the man.Trudeau praised the dead communist's leadership abilities. Those two statements painfully reveal the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the two leaders.
To say that history will be the judge of Fidel Castro indicates either a lack of moral values or crippling naivete.
One does not have to wait for history to evaluate Fidel Castro. Anyone with an ounce of of morality and intelligence can readily make a determination as to the character of Castro.
He ruled like a tyrant. Under his dictatorship, there were no free elections, no freedom of speech, all means of communication--radio, television, newspapers, the internet--were all controlled and censored by Castro. Protests against the government were outlawed, political dissidents were arrested, imprisoned, tortured and often killed. Cubans caught fleeing the island were either shot on the spot or imprisoned. Over the years tens of thousands of Cubans fled the island. Thousands more died trying. For an individual to risk life and limb is clear testament to the cruelty and poverty-level living conditions under the communist regime.
While Fidel and his cronies lived in affluence, comfort and security, the citizens of Cuba lived in poverty, hunger the constant companion of many.Much of Castro's wealth was derived from granting safe haven to drug lords.
You don't need history to make a judgement of this man. His deeds provide ample evidence. Fidel Castro was an immoral human being who used force against his own people to retain power. Anyone who initiates the use of force against others and denies them their basic human rights is, by definition, an immoral individual.
That others refuse to condemn him betray their own ignorance and moral weakness. You don't have to wait for history to Judge Fidel Castro. All you need are moral values.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
REASON VS. PURPOSE
Most of us have heard or may have even used the phrase "Everything happens for a reason."
Usually the line is recited in reaction to a negative event like an auto accident, serious illness or a sudden financial setback.
On one level the phrase certainly is true. Everything does happen for a reason. If I'm sitting in my car at a redlight and my car gets rear ended by another driver, there was clearly a reason for the accident. The driver may have been drunk, distracted by a cellphone, or the car may have had bad breaks. If I slip on ice and incur a concussion, the reason may have been snow covering the ice.
The point is, everything happens for a reason. But that is really not the intent or meaning behind the phrase "Everything happens for a reason." Here is where semantics comes into play. What people really mean to say is "Everything happens for a purpose." That is to say, there is some ulterior motive or plan behind every occurrence. It doesn't happen haphazardly. It implies that a higher power is manipulating events to create a specific outcome.There is a wizard hiding behind the curtain who manipulates every aspect of our lives, like a chess player moving pieces around the board to produce a certain outcome.
Herein lies the emotional struggle for people who are dealing with a crisis in their lives, particularly if it involves the death of a loved one. I recall several years ago speaking with a friend who had a two year old nephew that was killed in an auto accident.Needless to say she was distraught over the untimely death.But not only was she distraught,she was also angry and confused. Why? Because she didn't view the accident as a random event. Rather, she saw it as a deliberately staged event by a higher power for purposes unknown. She raged against God, baffled as to why He would allow an innocent child to die such a brutal death at such a young age. "Why would God want to take the life of such a beautiful child?" she railed. "Why? It doesn't make sense!"
She was right. It doesn't make any sense if you're searching for a purpose, a meaning to the death. The reason for the accident was a drunk driver who ran a stoplight. If you accept it at face value, yes, you're deeply shocked and saddened, and perhaps angry with the drunk driver. But there it ends. No confusion. The facts of the accident are clear and indisputable.
It is only when you believe a higher power pulls our strings as if we were mere puppets that the bewilderment grows and seethes in the heart and mind.
Things happen simply because things happen. There is a reason behind why they happen, but there is no blueprint or grand design behind why random events occur as they do. It is like the flip of a coin. It can only come up heads or tails. Why? Because those are the only two possibilities. There is no specific reason why one side comes up over the other.
It is only when one eliminates the supernatural from one's belief system that you can truly come to grips with reality and gain a fuller understanding of life's vicissitudes.
Things happen. It is the unbendable law of the universe.
Usually the line is recited in reaction to a negative event like an auto accident, serious illness or a sudden financial setback.
On one level the phrase certainly is true. Everything does happen for a reason. If I'm sitting in my car at a redlight and my car gets rear ended by another driver, there was clearly a reason for the accident. The driver may have been drunk, distracted by a cellphone, or the car may have had bad breaks. If I slip on ice and incur a concussion, the reason may have been snow covering the ice.
The point is, everything happens for a reason. But that is really not the intent or meaning behind the phrase "Everything happens for a reason." Here is where semantics comes into play. What people really mean to say is "Everything happens for a purpose." That is to say, there is some ulterior motive or plan behind every occurrence. It doesn't happen haphazardly. It implies that a higher power is manipulating events to create a specific outcome.There is a wizard hiding behind the curtain who manipulates every aspect of our lives, like a chess player moving pieces around the board to produce a certain outcome.
Herein lies the emotional struggle for people who are dealing with a crisis in their lives, particularly if it involves the death of a loved one. I recall several years ago speaking with a friend who had a two year old nephew that was killed in an auto accident.Needless to say she was distraught over the untimely death.But not only was she distraught,she was also angry and confused. Why? Because she didn't view the accident as a random event. Rather, she saw it as a deliberately staged event by a higher power for purposes unknown. She raged against God, baffled as to why He would allow an innocent child to die such a brutal death at such a young age. "Why would God want to take the life of such a beautiful child?" she railed. "Why? It doesn't make sense!"
She was right. It doesn't make any sense if you're searching for a purpose, a meaning to the death. The reason for the accident was a drunk driver who ran a stoplight. If you accept it at face value, yes, you're deeply shocked and saddened, and perhaps angry with the drunk driver. But there it ends. No confusion. The facts of the accident are clear and indisputable.
It is only when you believe a higher power pulls our strings as if we were mere puppets that the bewilderment grows and seethes in the heart and mind.
Things happen simply because things happen. There is a reason behind why they happen, but there is no blueprint or grand design behind why random events occur as they do. It is like the flip of a coin. It can only come up heads or tails. Why? Because those are the only two possibilities. There is no specific reason why one side comes up over the other.
It is only when one eliminates the supernatural from one's belief system that you can truly come to grips with reality and gain a fuller understanding of life's vicissitudes.
Things happen. It is the unbendable law of the universe.
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
INCOME INEQUALITY AND THE FOOLS FIGHTING IT
This is "Elvis Week:" at his Graceland mansion in Memphis, but it isn't only Elvis fans gathering there. Members of Black Lives Matter have demonstrated this week, threatening to shut down the festivities. They are protesting a police shooting of a black man, and they are also protesting income inequality. One can assume they chose Graceland because it represents the millions of dollars earned by Elvis and his estate.
For years leftists have railed against so-called income inequality, thereby revealing their gross ignorance of the subject. Yes, incomes are unequal, but there are valid reasons for it. The primary factors that determine wage levels are skills (or lack of), experience, level of education, degree of difficulty of a job, demand for applicants, and an employer's ability to pay at a certain wage level.
In common sense terms, who would argue that a heart surgeon and a cashier at McDonalds should earn the same pay? But let's suppose for the sake of argument that a law was enacted that mandated equal pay for all workers. First, let us say that this law demands that the surgeon and the fast food cashier both earn 15 dollars an hour.What would be the consequences? That should be obvious. At some point in time we would run out of surgeons because no rational person would go through the required education and expense, and years of training if the end reward is 15 bucks an hour.
Now we will reverse the perspective. Let us suppose a top surgeon can earn 500 thousand dollars a year. This time we will assume the law mandates that all workers earn that five hundred grand, including the McDonalds cashier. How long do you think McDonalds or any other fast food operation would remain in business? And at those wage rates, what do you think a hamburger, fries and Coke would cost?
Wages are at the levels they are at for a reason. Should a busboy earn as much as a police officer or firefighter? Should the CEO of a corporation that employs 50,000 people, and a bus driver earn equal pay?
There is yet one more example of income disparity.The average salary for a player in the NBA is around 4 million dollars, while the average pay of a Chicago public school teacher is around 60,000 dollars.There would be little argument that a teacher is far more important to our society than a guy dribbling a ball up and down a wood floor. So why the outrageous income disparity?
Simple. The basketball player is involved in a business that generates hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from ticket sales, radio and TV contracts, merchandising, etc..
A teacher's income, on the other hand, is derived from taxing the citizens.To make a teacher's salary equivalent to an NBA player, real estate and income taxes would have to be raised to such astronomical levels that no one could afford to own property or run a business. The system would collapse. Therein lies the final factor in terms of salary levels: The employer's ability to pay.
Ultimately if a system of income equality were to be established, it begs three vital questions: Who decides the pay rate? What criteria is used to make that determination? What gives that person or persons the right to determine what all workers should earn?
Like all socialist theories, the idea of income equality is rife with contradictions and reveals complete ignorance of economic laws.
For years leftists have railed against so-called income inequality, thereby revealing their gross ignorance of the subject. Yes, incomes are unequal, but there are valid reasons for it. The primary factors that determine wage levels are skills (or lack of), experience, level of education, degree of difficulty of a job, demand for applicants, and an employer's ability to pay at a certain wage level.
In common sense terms, who would argue that a heart surgeon and a cashier at McDonalds should earn the same pay? But let's suppose for the sake of argument that a law was enacted that mandated equal pay for all workers. First, let us say that this law demands that the surgeon and the fast food cashier both earn 15 dollars an hour.What would be the consequences? That should be obvious. At some point in time we would run out of surgeons because no rational person would go through the required education and expense, and years of training if the end reward is 15 bucks an hour.
Now we will reverse the perspective. Let us suppose a top surgeon can earn 500 thousand dollars a year. This time we will assume the law mandates that all workers earn that five hundred grand, including the McDonalds cashier. How long do you think McDonalds or any other fast food operation would remain in business? And at those wage rates, what do you think a hamburger, fries and Coke would cost?
Wages are at the levels they are at for a reason. Should a busboy earn as much as a police officer or firefighter? Should the CEO of a corporation that employs 50,000 people, and a bus driver earn equal pay?
There is yet one more example of income disparity.The average salary for a player in the NBA is around 4 million dollars, while the average pay of a Chicago public school teacher is around 60,000 dollars.There would be little argument that a teacher is far more important to our society than a guy dribbling a ball up and down a wood floor. So why the outrageous income disparity?
Simple. The basketball player is involved in a business that generates hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from ticket sales, radio and TV contracts, merchandising, etc..
A teacher's income, on the other hand, is derived from taxing the citizens.To make a teacher's salary equivalent to an NBA player, real estate and income taxes would have to be raised to such astronomical levels that no one could afford to own property or run a business. The system would collapse. Therein lies the final factor in terms of salary levels: The employer's ability to pay.
Ultimately if a system of income equality were to be established, it begs three vital questions: Who decides the pay rate? What criteria is used to make that determination? What gives that person or persons the right to determine what all workers should earn?
Like all socialist theories, the idea of income equality is rife with contradictions and reveals complete ignorance of economic laws.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
THE FAILURE OF GUN PROHIBITION
The recent massacre at the Pulse Club in Orlando, Florida has brought out the demand for stricter gun control laws. Such a reaction is expected, but it does not mean it is the proper solution to the problem. Those calling for greater gun controls fall into two camps: One camp is demanding tighter regulations regarding background checks and who should be allowed to purchase weapons. The second camp wants a complete prohibition of all gun sales. Period. Either approach is doomed to failure.
History tells us that prohibition never succeeds. For example, heroin has been prohibited
for the past hundred years, yet we keep hearing about the heroin epidemic infecting this country and that millions of Americans are regular heroin users. How can that be possible when the drug is illegal and prohibited? Likewise, back in the 1920's, the Feds initiated alcohol prohibition.How well did that work? As we know millions of Americans continued to drink, speakeasys flourished, bootleggers grew rich, and mafioso like Al Capone grew powerful, influential and rich.
Why do we think a prohibition on guns would be any more successful than the banning of alcohol and drugs? Let us not forget we have been fighting this "war on drugs" since Nixon was president in the early seventies. Over forty years later we are still fighting it. To emphasize this point we need only to look over at France. They have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet earth, yet in 2015 and 2016 they were victims of two vicious and bloody terrorist attacks in which dozens of innocent people were gunned down.
Even if there was a complete and total ban on all guns, this wouldn't solve the problem because it is estimated that there are already 70 to 100 million weapons in the US.
Denying citizens their constitutional rights is never the proper solution. Someone once said those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. And one more point to remember. Those who seek to commit immoral acts pay no heed to the laws that restrict law abiding citizens, and will always find a way to achieve their ends.
History tells us that prohibition never succeeds. For example, heroin has been prohibited
for the past hundred years, yet we keep hearing about the heroin epidemic infecting this country and that millions of Americans are regular heroin users. How can that be possible when the drug is illegal and prohibited? Likewise, back in the 1920's, the Feds initiated alcohol prohibition.How well did that work? As we know millions of Americans continued to drink, speakeasys flourished, bootleggers grew rich, and mafioso like Al Capone grew powerful, influential and rich.
Why do we think a prohibition on guns would be any more successful than the banning of alcohol and drugs? Let us not forget we have been fighting this "war on drugs" since Nixon was president in the early seventies. Over forty years later we are still fighting it. To emphasize this point we need only to look over at France. They have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet earth, yet in 2015 and 2016 they were victims of two vicious and bloody terrorist attacks in which dozens of innocent people were gunned down.
Even if there was a complete and total ban on all guns, this wouldn't solve the problem because it is estimated that there are already 70 to 100 million weapons in the US.
Denying citizens their constitutional rights is never the proper solution. Someone once said those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. And one more point to remember. Those who seek to commit immoral acts pay no heed to the laws that restrict law abiding citizens, and will always find a way to achieve their ends.
Friday, May 20, 2016
SPACE ALIENS AND DEMOCRATS
In 1947 in Roswell, New Mexico, the first sightings of flying saucers and space aliens were reported. It must also be noted that the following people were born in 1947:
Hillary Rodham
William Clinton
Al Gore Jr.
John Kerry
Nancy Pelosi
Joe Biden
Charles Schumer
Coincidence??? It must also be noted that every one of those Democrats are in favor of bringing more aliens into this country. Just saying...
Hillary Rodham
William Clinton
Al Gore Jr.
John Kerry
Nancy Pelosi
Joe Biden
Charles Schumer
Coincidence??? It must also be noted that every one of those Democrats are in favor of bringing more aliens into this country. Just saying...
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
TSA; THE SLOWDOWN AGENCY
Have you traveled by plane recently? The TSA suggests you arrive at the airport 2 hours prior to departure to give you adequate time to go through the airport security check line. But if you were to follow the TSA advice in recent weeks you would have missed your flight. It is now taking 2 to 3 hours to get through the security lines. This past week hundreds of passengers at Ohare Airport missed their flights because of security delays, and dozens of flights were delayed while waiting for passengers to process. Nationwide, some 4500 passengers have missed their flights over the past 2 months because of long check lines.
So what's going on? In the past 5 years, airline passengers and flights have markedly increased, and the number of TSA employees has decreased by almost 5 thousand. In addition 1200 to 1500 employees are lost monthly due to attrition. The Reason Foundation has estimated that since 9/11, people are collectively spending 300 million extra hours per year at airports because of screening delays. Reason analysts say this translates to 8 billion dollars a year in hidden costs to the economy.
To date, the TSA has received 70 billion dollars of our tax money, and for what? Seventy thousand passengers have filed complaints against the TSA for stolen or damaged property, and 500 agents have been fired for stealing.
After 9/11, airport security was taken away from the private sector and given to the Feds, who then created the TSA. Its purpose was to provide us with better protection from terrorism than the private sector could provide. And like virtually everything else the government touches, the service has turned into a crap fest. It is incompetent, inefficient and is bleeding the American taxpayers dry.
The next time you are stuck in a 2 hour line at the airport, ask yourself why a government agency is preferable to private sector efficiency.
So what's going on? In the past 5 years, airline passengers and flights have markedly increased, and the number of TSA employees has decreased by almost 5 thousand. In addition 1200 to 1500 employees are lost monthly due to attrition. The Reason Foundation has estimated that since 9/11, people are collectively spending 300 million extra hours per year at airports because of screening delays. Reason analysts say this translates to 8 billion dollars a year in hidden costs to the economy.
To date, the TSA has received 70 billion dollars of our tax money, and for what? Seventy thousand passengers have filed complaints against the TSA for stolen or damaged property, and 500 agents have been fired for stealing.
After 9/11, airport security was taken away from the private sector and given to the Feds, who then created the TSA. Its purpose was to provide us with better protection from terrorism than the private sector could provide. And like virtually everything else the government touches, the service has turned into a crap fest. It is incompetent, inefficient and is bleeding the American taxpayers dry.
The next time you are stuck in a 2 hour line at the airport, ask yourself why a government agency is preferable to private sector efficiency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)