fitzroyalbert1-blog

[fitzroyalbert1-blog]

zombiejesus’flesh&blood/?.2

But, someone is saying, Didn’t Jesus say at the first communion, of the bread which all would partake, “This is My body which is given for you. …” ? To this I say, Yes he did, but he said this to those to whom he had previously said that the flesh of which he spoke and the blood of which he spoke was not his literal body nor his literal blood, but these were his Word. So no, none  of these disciples envisioned himself as ingesting and consuming their Lord’s flesh though it looked as if it were bread,  or his blood, though it looked as if it were wine.

 Here, Christ created a new paradigm by applying the meaning of the Passover meal which was partaken of at this time by the whole Jewish nation to Himself. Before it was thought of as being primarily about to what was done in Egypt. This excerpt, tells the tale:

21 Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Pick out and take lambs for yourselves according to your families, and kill the Passover lamb. 22 And you shall take a bunch of hyssop, dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood that is in the basin. And none of you shall go out of the door of his house until morning. 23 For the Lord will pass through to strike the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel  and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door and not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to strike you.  24 And you shall observe this thing as an ordinance for you and your sons forever. / exodus 12:21-24 / nkjv /  1

  In Egypt, through the slaying of the Passover lamb, through the striking of the lintel and two doorposts of every house with the blood from each family’s slain lamb, and the roasting and eating of these lambs, it was made known to the angel of death that, this or that particular home should be passed over, that death should not enter. And, pertaining to the eating of the lamb, and all the other facets of this Passover meal, this, was to be observed forever. And yes, it was the Passover meal of which Christ partook of with his disciples, for we see:

13 … “Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him. 14 Wherever he goes in, say to the master of the house, ‘The teacher says, “Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?” ’. … / mark 14:13-14 / nkjv / 2

  Yes, Christ brought a new meaning for eating of the Passover meal to the fore -- though I should say that he brought to bear its true meaning -- when he declared,

 26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. . matthew 26: 26-28 / nkjv / 3

  Moving on,

  Hm .. He died for your sins .... Then He came back for your brains? Interesting. Firstly, yielding to Christ does not lead to the inability to later .. reject .. Christ.  HE Christ, does not devour your will .. that is, your free-will. You can take Him, if you choose, and you can leave Him, if you so desire. The wise will take Him; the wise will not leave Him. But for those who are like Cain who slew his brother Abel, because Abel did what God wanted, yielding to God is to have the brain devoured. Yielding is detestable. And, it’s nothing new. Same old; Same old. Just ask Kim Jong Un. America, the global community, will not tell him what to do. Worse yet, they are carriers of a “virulent virus” which will be resisted.

 Of course those who are determined to live by the dictates of their own fallen human nature will see yielding to Christ as some kind of Zombie assault upon them to secure human brains. But while zombies -- any talk of zombies is derived from all the movies that have been made in their honor -- may indeed attack their victims to chow down upon them, to devour them alive, or to just take a bite for keepsakes, is this how Christ operates? Who has he attacked? What part of their anatomy pray tell, did he forcibly take from them?

 Again, to those determined to live by the dictates of fallen human nature, for those determined to live for “wine, women, and song,” the thought of giving these up to yield to Christ, brings to the fore, a reality that must be aggressively resisted, as one would an all out Zombie attack; a Zombie attack in which the target were human brains. It would not surprise me to learn that Kim Jong Un had such a dream, in which America, and the other members of the global community, spurned on by their “virulent viruses,” carried out a Zombie attack for brains, upon his nation.

 Out of resistance to Christ comes all manner of foolish attacks -- but considered well thought out -- against the institutions established by Him, and also those erected in his honor.

[fitzroyalbert1-blog]

zombiejesus’flesh&blood/?.1

 In regard to the Eucharist -- why this poster speaks of “some cosmic Jewish Zombie who gives eternal life if you symbolically eat his flesh. …” -- or the Holy Communion, this is seen:

  Transubstantiation (from Latin transsubstantiatio) is the change of the substance of bread and wine into that of the body and blood of Christ, the change that, according to the belief of the Catholic Church, occurs in the Eucharist. It concerns what is changed (the substance of the bread and wine), not how the change is brought about.

"Substance" here means what something is in itself. (For more on the philosophical concept, see Substance theory.) A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour the hat, nor is its size, nor its softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape, the colour, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them. Whereas the appearances, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.

When at his Last Suppers Jesu said: "This is my body", what he held in his hands had all the appearances of bread. However, the Catholic Church teaches that the underlying reality was changed in accordance with what Jesus said, that the "substance" of the bread was converted to that of his body. In other words, it actually was his body, while all the appearances open to the senses or to scientific investigation were still those of bread, exactly as before. The Church believes that the same change of the substance of the bread and of the wine occurs at every Catholic Mass throughout the world. / eucharist in the catholic church / wikipedia / 1

  Yes, this is why our poster-in-question, spoke of a Cosmic Jewish Zombie who gives life to all those who “symbolically” consume his offered up body which manifests itself in the appearance of the “bread and wine” of the Holy Communion. The Cosmic Zombie depiction, lead me to conclude that the person behind this was at some point Catholic. The idea that the bread and the wine actually become the body / and the blood of Christ in whichever way that is meant is not a Protestant concept. But didn’t Jesus himself say that his body was bread that should be eaten, and his blood, drink that should be drunk? Let’s look at this. We see:

53 Jesus answered: I tell you for certain that you won’t live unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man. 54 But if you do eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will have eternal life, and I will raise you to life on the last day. 55 My flesh is the true food, and my blood is the true drink. 56 If you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you are one with me, and I am one with you. / john 6:53-56 /cev / 2

  Was Christ here saying that when he spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, he was literally speaking of himself personally? Was he here saying that when the communion would be engaged in, this at some later time than this discourse,  that he would in whatever way this is carried out, be found literally in the bread and the wine?

Verse 52, gets to this point, when we see: They started arguing with each other and asked, “How can he give us his flesh to eat”?

In answering this question in regard to this literal consumption of his flesh and his blood, and this from, many of Jesus’ disciples who had heard him, and had said, “This is too hard for anyone to understand,” Jesus made this known:

61 … He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before. 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” / john 6:61-64 / nkjv / 3

  All right. And Jesus said, What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before… ? In other words, Christ was here saying, How can you conclude that I was speaking of my literal flesh, and my literal blood? Since a time will come when I will no longer be found among you physically, then it is not of my physical body that I speak. And as I said, all must eat my flesh and drink my blood. Then He made this even more clear when He said, I am speaking about my Words; my words are spirit; my words give life. In verse 57 of this chapter, this meaning was communicated. We see,

 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. / john 6:57 / nkjv / 4

  And, how did Christ live by the “living Father”? Did he have some secret stash of “Father’s Flesh” which to the eye, looked as if it were some loaf of bread, or some bag of fruit, this or these, always carried around by him? In John 4:32-34, this answer is given. It is:

32 But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” 33 Therefore the disciples said to one another, “Has anyone brought Him anything to eat?” 34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work. …” / john 4:32-34 / 5

  Again, Christ said this, As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. Therefore, I asked how did Christ feed on the father, or live by Him. He “fed on the living Father,” by “doing what the living Father wanted”. To live by what the living Father wanted was to know what He wanted; it was to know His word. There was no secret stash of fruit or bread, which was literally the Father, but guised, upon which Christ regularly feasted. To live by what Christ wants, is to know what He wants. It is to know His word.

[fitzroyalbert1-blog]

thepointhereiswhatexactly/?

I found myself wondering if whether or not the point of this poster was to put forth, that at its core, religion, faith in God -- or so-called faith in God -- was worthless, and demonstrated this by the fact that a “Christian group” during the Civil Rights Movement Era, more numerous and power than another “Christian group,” used these factors to oppress the other, with a case-in-point being that of turning their dogs, in the hands of their “law-enforcement officers,” upon defenseless members of the minority. Despicable.

  While the poster did acknowledge that religion gave a nearly powerless, relatively small group of Christians the ability to peacefully overcome the violent oppression inflicted upon them, that it also called the “violent oppressors” Christians, and they quite committed to “religion” themselves, seemed to me to be an overall statement in denouncement of religion. Clever. But, my atheist friends, the tree is known by its fruit. Christian .. is .. as Christian .. does.

 During the Civil Rights Movement Era, the quote / unquote “Christians,” who did not actively and wholeheartedly support this effort with its goal of producing justice, equity, and righteousness -- For All --were “Christians” in mere talk only. They were not adherents to the teachings of the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible. For these so-called “Christians,” their hearts were not moved by, Christ’s power, but by, oh no, White power. In regard to those who were merely “Christian in talk only,” -- if the record is an accurate one -- this is seen:

 As a historian who is also a Southern Baptist, I am in something of a perpetual quandary. In all of my research on the long history of racial justice and the black freedom movement, I find that my fellow churchmen who supported the cause of justice were more often the exception, not the rule. Instead, my research--and that of historians far more accomplished than me--makes quite clear that white evangelicals throughout the South were overwhelmingly opposed to the civil rights movement. They may have couched their opposition in more genteel ways than the Klan--yes, the White Citizens Councils would do the job--but oppose it they did nonetheless.

A couple caveats here. First, it's worth noting that the evangelical canopy has always been a broad and unwieldy one. Broad enough to include Anabaptists and Campbellites, Wesleyans and Presbyterians, Pentecostals and Lutherans--we should be leery of speaking of it in monolithic terms. But it does seem that in its most traditional forms, regardless of geography, evangelicals were often those not only skeptically removed from the civil rights movement, but directly opposed to it. There were notable exceptions, of course. And, as noted by historians such as David Swartz and Brantley Gasaway, there has always been a stream within the broader evangelical river that has prioritized social action and justice. / a conversation with four historians on the response of white evangelicals to the civil rights movement / tgc / 1

 The only thing needed for oppression to succeed is for “good men” to do nothing, or to be opposed to the cessation there of - huh? Therefore, as the law-enforcement officers of the dominant group turned their dogs and fire hydrants, as the case might have been, upon peaceful protesters, why wouldn’t that continue? But it didn’t. This tells me that in the manner that really counted -- Black oppression came to an end -- America was indeed a Christian nation. The “notable exceptions” mentioned above, did not pertain to just a “handful of real-Christians” who could be found here and there, with Billy Graham, for example,  being such a one.

 America could have been comprised of a 10% racist-Christian minority possessing a great deal of power, and if that were the case,  racism could have continued. But, America could not have been 90% racist-Christian, and 10% true-Christian, and yet the Civil Rights Movement was successful. The lion’s share of Americans had to have been on board for this to take hold, and these at the highest level of government. If those who “acted” Christian want to attach to themselves the label of Atheist, for example, to this I say again, Christian is, as Christian, does.

[fitzroyalbert1-blog]

is there a problem/?

This is stated in regard to God: O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

  Yes .. his ways are past finding out. His judgments are unsearchable. And, O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God. To not accept this on quote / unquote, “blind faith,” would mean that one concluded what? I suppose that it would mean that one would conclude that his ways are .. not .. past finding out, hence some system of logic could then be assumed to pertain to him. Nevertheless, let us apply this logic.

 And yes, “the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God; and the three are One God. But the Father is not the Son; the Father is not the Holy Spirit; and all the other “is not” permutations that can be derived from this. But, does the apprehension of this require “blind faith,” meaning that the “sense” of its efficacy could only be a product of the breakdown of the human capacity for rationality and commonsense? Absolutely not. Consider this:

 The human body is everything that makes up, well, you. The basic parts of the human body are the head, neck, torso, arms and legs. / life science- the human body: anatomy, facts, and functions / 1    

  Well, what do we have here? Alright .. we were shown that the head of a human body pertains to a human body. We were shown that the neck of a human body pertains to a human body. We were shown that the torso of a human body pertains to a human body. We were shown that the arms and legs of a human body pertain to a human body. That’s .. one .. body. Many parts; one body. The understanding that a thing is .. one .. thing, although it has many parts it quite rudimentary. It is a simple and true fact of life.

 No one in his or her right mind would present this argument: The head of a human body pertains to a human body. The neck of a human body pertains to a human body. The torso of a human body pertains to a human body. … Now, here it comes: Because the head is not the neck, because the head is not the torso, because the neck is not the head, because the neck is not the torso, because the torso is not the head, because the torso is not the neck, .. therefore all of these do not pertain to a human body.

 So, here I go again in saying this: The father pertains to God; the Son pertains to God; the Holy Spirit pertains to God. However, because the Father is not the Son, because the Father is not the Holy Spirit, because the Son is not the Father, because the Son is not the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is not the Father, because the Holy Spirit is not the Son, therefore, all of them are not God.

Is a human body one giant floating eye, possessing somehow the ability to think, possessing somehow the ability to communicate its thoughts? Is a human body one giant floating ear? Is a human body one giant floating nose? No. This is not what is required for one human body to be One human body. Must God be one giant floating Father? Must God be one giant floating Son? Must God be one giant floating Holy Spirit? No. This is not what is required for God to be One God.

 It is interesting that many cannot come to terms with the fact the (3), the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit pertain to One God, yet at the same time a rudimentary course in human anatomy and physiology will inform us as to the trillions of cells that  make up One human body, to say the least. But uh oh, here comes that one giant floating heart again.

[fitzroyalbert1-blog]

terrifying and vile/?

My first inclination was to show understanding for the atheist whose position I was inclined to assume, was based upon the pathetic examples of faith demonstrated by many so-called believers, who by their conduct, bring reproach upon the one whom they claim to serve, but then I changed my thinking. There are too many examples of “real faith,” for one to consider, and thus, I changed my mind.

 Now, is there a sweet miracle of unquestioning faith from a Biblical perspective that is? Well, let’s find out. This is seen:

 11 Now faith is the assurance (title deed, confirmation) of things hoped for (divinely guaranteed), and the evidence of things not seen [the conviction of their reality—faith comprehends as fact what cannot be experienced by the physical senses]. / hebrews 11:1 / amp / 1

  From the Biblical definition of faith we were given, and not the assumed one, as imagined by an unbeliever, we can see that rather than being unquestioned, therefore blind, faith in the God of the Judeo-Christian text is pregnant with that which is just as tangible, in its own right, to some article of physical evidence. Therefore, it was compared to being in possession of a title deed to some particular thing. A title deed is:

 Legal document (instrument) executed and acknowledged under the seal and in the presence of a notary, evidencing the right of ownership to a property described therein. / business dictionary / 2

  Real faith begs to be questioned. It pertains to what God has made clear about himself in regard to what he will and will not do, and what he wants and does not want. So the question therefore becomes why should one trust himself or herself to this God. For instance, many of the encounters in the Judeo-Christian text pertain to those to whom God revealed himself. It was hard to be blind in regard to what to do or not do after God revealed himself with a loud and clear, “Hello.” It was hard to not know what he wanted or did not want.

 With this “Hello,” he made it known, he made it clear that he was the God who had created the heavens and the earth. And so, why would one in the face of this -- one who was intellectually honest -- offer up debate. Also, Do not think that resistance could not be, or was not given in response to God’s revelation of himself. Yes, from the beginning, God’s revelation of himself in regard to his right to ask for this thing or that thing, was either met with determined resistance or with resolute faith. Therefore, this seen:

 3 And in the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground. 4 And Abel brought of the firstborn of his flock and of the fat portions. And the Lord had respect and regard for Abel and for his offering, 5 But for Cain and his offering He had no respect or regard. So Cain was exceedingly angry and indignant, and he looked sad and depressed. 6 And the Lord said to Cain, Why are you angry? And why do you look sad and depressed and dejected? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin crouches at your door; its desire is for you, but you must master it. 8 And Cain said to his brother, Let us go out to the field. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. / genesis 4:3-8 / amp / 4

  Yes, here, God revealed what it was that he wanted; he was known to be the author of life; it was known that all life proceeded from him and was upheld by him, and is; but for one of the above mentioned brothers, this made no difference. And to this intent, and to its extent, he murdered his brother.

 Yes, first, God revealed / reveals himself, and upon that revelation, he expected / expects trust. The capacity to trust a God who first reveals himself giving reasons to believe, and then upon this revelation calls for faith, is not terrifying in the least, and especially, needless to say, not vile.

[fitzroyalbert1-blog]

pissing God off since 1 BC/?

I wonder what truly as it is put here, has been, Pissing Off God, Since 1 BC? Well, not confining myself to the parameters of 1 BC, I will delve into this issue. This is seen:

  47 “The servant who knows what his master wants him to do, but does not get himself ready and do it, will be punished with a heavy whipping. 48 But the servant who does know what his master wants, and yet does something for which he deserves a whipping, will be punished with a light whipping. Much is required from the person to whom much is given; much more is required from the person to whom much more is given. …” / luke 12:47-48 / tev / 1

  In regard to the existence of a Creator -- God/gods -- it is said that the fool has said in his heart that there is no God. And, if one is a fool, then he cannot, then he will not grasp the simple logic that things must be created (anything and everything), and hence, there must be a Creator and or, creators. This is simplicity itself. If denial of God is something for which one will receive a whipping, then such a one will receive a light whipping. No, it is not the atheist who truly pisses God off, though he imagines proudly that this is the case. Who is it that pisses God off? This is seen:

 2 The Lord has said, “Listen, heaven and earth! The children I raised have turned against me. 3 Oxen and donkeys know who owns them, but my people won’t ever learn.” 4 Israel, you are a sinful nation loaded down with guilt. You are wicked and corrupt and have turned from the Lord, the holy God of Israel. …” / isaiah 1:2-4 / cev / 2

  The children I have raised have turned against me. There is no more bitter an enemy than one was before a, “dear friend”. Who does God disdain the most? He reserves a special place for those to whom he showed the abundance of his goodness and favor, who then choose to become the enemies of truth.

Think about it: You are an employer; you vouched for someone; you got them in, and then they turn around to do something within that setting which even a “common rat” would not readily do. That’s gonna piss you off. That’s going to anger you more than when the “common rat” behaves like a “common rat”. And, so to the issue of denying the existence of God, there is nothing special about denying the existence of things we cannot see. That’s commonplace. But to have seen, and then show contempt. … These words were also spoken:

 10 You are no better than the leaders and people of Sodom and Gomorrah! So listen to the Lord God: 11 “Your sacrifices mean nothing to me. I am sick of your offerings of rams and choice cattle; I don’t like the blood of bulls or lambs or goats. / isaiah 1:10-11 / cev / 3

  Now, these whom God had raised from their childhood were no better than the people of Sodom and Gomorrah? This was a very disturbing reality; a very disturbing one indeed, because this is the record in regard to Sodom and Gomorrah:

 4 Before Lot and his guests could go to bed, every man in Sodom, young and old, came and stood outside his house [lot’s house] 5 and started shouting, “Where are your visitors? Send them out, so we can have sex with them  [gang-rape]!” / genesis 19:4-5 / cev / 4

  All right. So the people of Sodom who had gathered at lot’s house to call out his honored guests to be gang-raped, were better than these people whom God had raised from childhood? To whom much is given a greater standard of righteousness is applied. They did not have to sink as low as “gang-rape” to become more detestable to God. And, no, denying the existence of God is not on the same level as “gang-rape”. The people of sodom and Gomorrah were not those who had personally received blessings from God; they were not those who had experienced the vast bounty of his goodness. God was “unknown” to them, at least a God who would destroy them in the end for their wicked deeds. For them, hence their conduct, “God did not exist”. In this, the similarity lies.

 Hm .. the people who were raised by God from childhood, seemed to acknowledge him; they seemed to worship him, yet he said of them, “Your sacrifices mean nothing to me. I am sick of your offerings of rams and choice cattle; I don’t like the blood of bulls or lambs or goats.” What were their wicked deeds? This is seen,

 15 “No matter how much you pray, I won’t listen. You are too violent. …”  21 “Once your judges were honest and your people lived right; now you are a city full of murderers.” / isaiah 1:15; 21 / cev / 4

  Ok .. They were violent. They were a city full of murderers. So were the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, and this with the complication of “gang-rape”. However, violence with the knowledge of God is a far greater evil than violence in ignorance of God. And both polarities, if you will, were guilty of denying God, the one solely because of their deeds, the other, notwithstanding their words. This was also recorded:

 23 “Your leaders have rejected me to become friends of crooks; your rulers are looking for gifts and bribes. Widows and orphans never get a fair trial. …” / isaiah 1:23 / cev / 5

  Here, the honest, but common citizen, could not receive justice. The judges were the friends of crooks; the rulers were looking for gifts and bribes. The same was probably true in Sodom and Gomorrah, but there, the leaders had not firstly, rejected God, to become friends with crooks. In Sodom and Gomorrah, the judges were corrupt from beginning to end.

 Who “pisses” God off the most? The one who was with God, but then turns against him; the one whose actions and words declared, “God is Lord; honor him,” but then becomes his enemy; the one whose actions notwithstanding his words declare denial of the Almighty, such a one is most offensive to God than someone who had consistently declared the utter and undeniable stupidity of acknowledging a Creator. Hm .. evil done in God’s name, or after acknowledging his name, angers God the most.

[fitzroyalbert1-blog]

the bottom-feeders/?

All right .. so Christianity is comprised of low-level, weak-minded, bottom-feeders, in search of nursery-like institution, to provide for them, as it were, a safe-space of protection and comfort for a world in which they cannot cope. Like sniveling children, they cling to the garment of Jesus. Yes, like a child on his or her’s first day of kindergarten, they refuse to leave their Lord’s side. Yes, how pathetic; yes, how weak. How weak indeed.

It is interesting to me that these words followed the false depiction of Christianity, when we see: That’s insulting, inaccurate and completely unsupported by any facts - quote / unquote. Truer words, were never spoken.  How interesting indeed that the attack was unconsciously as it were, followed up by an acknowledgment of its falsity.

 While Christianity might indeed have its low-level, weak-minded, bottom-feeders, who are not adherent to its call to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, who cling to it not for the hard work in which they must engage, but for their own personal advancement and protection as God works this miracle and that miracle on their behalf -- they are seeking some sort of magical existence; they are spiritual grifters, if you will, clinging to the hem of Christ’s garment -- Biblical Christianity paints quite another picture.

Christianity, as its commencement, Christianity at its beginning .. was it a sanctuary for low-level, weak-minded, bottom-feeders, in search of a nursery-like institution? The record shows:

13 The officials were amazed to see how brave Peter and John were, and they knew that these two apostles were only ordinary men and not well educated. … / acts 4:13 / cev /

 The officials were amazed to see how brave these two men were. Hm. But, perhaps this bravery of theirs was nothing more than a fluke since they were nothing more than weak-minded, bottom-feeding seekers after a nursery-like institution. How could this boldness of theirs be anything more than a momentary impulse that would never pass the test of time in that they were loosers filled with a deep longing for a safe-space of protection and comfort to hide from a world in which they could not cope. Did they not like sniveling children yearn to cling to the garment of Jesus? Yes, like a child on his or her’s first day of kindergarten, did they not refuse to leave their Lord’s side?

Yes, perhaps this was a one-time deal, an expression of courage which would never be seen again, a courage that would be quickly swallowed up in a crushing wave of defeat, a defeat born of cowardice. However, continuing on in this account, we see,

18 So they called the two apostles back in and told them that they must never, for any reason, teach anything about the name of Jesus. 19 Peter and John answered, “Do you think God wants us to obey you or to obey him? 20 We cannot keep quiet about what we have seen and heard.” / acts 4:18-20 / cev / 3

  Ok .. they answered and said, “... We cannot keep quiet about what we have seen and heard.” This, we cannot keep quiet, could have been rightly stated, “We will not keep quiet.” that was big-talk for two cowards, for two bottom-feeders, for two weak-minded, low-level seekers after a nursery-like institution. Is this how such men would have behaved? Wouldn’t they have in sniveling cowardice promised to never, ever, rock the boat again? Wouldn’t they have sworn to let sleeping dogs lie? But they said, “We will not keep quiet.” They said, “We will rock the boat.” They said, “We will turn the boat over.” To not put words in these men’s mouth -- but I am -- they said, “We’re gonna turn this mother out!” I smell cowardice here, don’t you?

[fitzroyalbert1-blog]

the real ghostbusters/?

Because  I have a sense of humor, I can see how this poster would be funny to an atheist. It must be due to the agnostic in me. But, funny or not, it has no application in the “real world”. It has none because, what are ghosts?  And hence, in what way are atheists ghostbusters? Is God a ghost? Is Christ a ghost? Are Christians ghosts? To answer the question as to what are ghosts, this is seen:

  In folklore, a ghost (sometimes known as an apparition, haunt, phantom, poltergeist, shade, specter or spectre, spirit, spook, and wraith) is the soul or spirit of a dead person or animal that can appear to the living. Descriptions of ghosts vary widely from an invisible presence to translucent or barely visible wispy shapes, to realistic, lifelike visions. The deliberate attempt to contact the spirit of a deceased person is known as necromancy, or in spiritism as a séance.

The belief in the existence of an afterlife, as well as manifestations of the spirits of the dead is widespread, dating back to animism or ancestor worship in pre-literate cultures. Certain religious practices—funeral rites, exorcisms, and some practices of spiritualism and ritual magic—are specifically designed to rest the spirits of the dead. Ghosts are generally described as solitary, human-like essences, though stories of ghostly armies and the ghosts of animals rather than humans have also been recounted.[2][3] They are believed to haunt particular locations, objects, or people they were associated with in life. Ghosts exist as a concept only; despite centuries of investigation, there is no credible scientific evidence that any location is inhabited by spirits of the dead. [4][5] / ghost / wikipedia / 1

 Ok, with our description in hand, if you will, we can now definitively state that a ghost / or ghosts are: the soul(s) or spirit of a dead person or animal that can appear to the living.

 If we are going to apply the term ghost to God, then we are grossly misinformed as to who God is. God is not someone who .. was .. alive but is now dead and in this state of death, can make appearances to the living. Therefore, God is not a ghost. And who best to .. haunt .. if you will, but the unbelieving. And, hello, denying him is not, busting him. And what is a ghostbuster / and or, ghostbusters? We see,

 Ghostbusters is a 1984 American supernatural comedy film directed and produced by Ivan Reitman and written by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis. The film stars Bill Murray, Aykroyd and Ramis as three eccentric parapsychologists who start a ghost-catching business in New York City. Sigourney Weaver and Rick Moranis co-star as a client and her neighbor, and Ernie Hudson as the Ghostbusters' first recruit. / wikipedia / ghostbusters / 2  

  So, a ghostbuster is someone who is able to catch ghosts. If a place is being haunted by such a creature -- someone who was alive but is now dead and in this state of death, can make appearances to the living -- the ghostbuster or ghostbusters can drive it or them out. The ghostbuster deals with the supernatural and is able to master the supernatural.

 All right. But as I said, the term ghost cannot be applied to, 1- Christ, the one specifically represented in the poster -- or God -- nor, 2- can it be applied to He who is called .. the Holy Ghost .. as when it is heard spoken, “ … in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” I am sure that the most secular among us have heard this saying.

 Christ, firstly, is not someone who was alive and died, remained dead, and in this state of death, made / or makes appearances to the living. Again, a ghost .. is someone who was alive but is now dead and in this state of death, can make appearances to the living.  In regard to Christ and this issue of being a ghost to be busted up by atheists who  are “the real ghostbusters,” this is the record:

 1 Very early on Sunday morning the women went to the tomb, carrying the spices they had prepared. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the entrance to the tomb, 3 so they went in; but they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 They stood there puzzled about this, when suddenly two men [angels in the guise of men] in bright shining appearance stood by them. 5 Full of fear, the women bowed down to the ground, as the [men] said to them, “Why are you looking among the dead for one who is alive?” / luke 24:1-5 / tev / 3

  And they asked, “Why are you looking among the dead for one who is alive?” Again, if you were dead and are now alive, and not were alive, but are now dead, you cannot be .. a ghost, at least not in the sense that ghostbusters means it. Look, Albert Einstein is known for formulating the equation, “E=mc2”. He is not known for presenting the concept, “E=emp2”. E=emp2 is a misrepresentation of what he declared. To say that Christ is a ghost when ghost pertains to one who was alive but is now dead and in this state of death, can  make appearances to the living, is to misrepresent who Christ is and was, and what a ghost is. No, atheists are not ghostbusters.

 As for the Holy Ghost, or Eternal Spirit of life, or Spirit of the Almighty, or Spirit of Christ, or Spirit of grace, or Spirit of inspiration, or Spirit of truth, since Christ is the only member of the Godhead -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- who was dead, but is now alive, how could the Eternal Spirit of life, be a ghost (one who was alive and is now dead, and in this state of death, can make appearances to the living)?

[fitzroyalbert1-blog]

child abuse/?

Teaching a child to uncritically accept your religious lies is teaching them not to think. You are teaching them that belief, without evidence, is acceptable. This damages the child’s ability to reason.

 Now, are there religious lies? Are there religious false-teachings? Not to give the opposition any advantage, but absolutely there are. For instance, this is seen:

Shortly after this, I had a home Bible study, with just four of us. During worship, I felt the Holy Spirit rising inside of me. Again, this wasn’t tongues. I felt myself about to break into laughter and there was nothing in the natural which I found to laugh about. I thought to myself that if I wanted to do this, this was going to be the safest public time to do it, so I let it go and started laughing. At the Bible study they asked me, “Why are you laughing?” I laughed and said, “I don’t know! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.” and kept laughing. This happened continually to me for about two weeks where I had episodes of laughing. It did happen during some awkward times such as driving home. I had to try to with great effort stay quiet during quite inopportune moments. / maverick christian / holy laughter and animal noises / by theodor wright / 1

  Call it what you want -- “work of the spirit” -- when this accompanies it, and I quote, “It did happen during awkward times such as driving home. I had to try to with great effort stay quiet during inopportune moments. You don’t say. Inopportune moments? I see. Inopportune moments as in being stopped by a police officer for some traffic infraction?

 Inopportune moments as in at a job interview? Inopportune moments as in being a pharmacist in the middle of a patient consultation? What are we talking about here? It was either opportune or it was inopportune. We were told the latter. Work of the spirit is it? And for you “religious ones,” what happened at Pentecost, as the Spirit gave them utterance, was not inopportune. It was the right thing at, the right time. It is what was needed to “kickstart,” if you will, the spread of the good news of God’s love for mankind, and the saving work that Christ had accomplished upon the cross.

 And yes, yes, the children of those involved in some false-teaching, are pretty much subjugated to that teaching until they at some point discover that the truth is otherwise. Do we say the same for those brought up as atheist and then become believers in the Bible? Aha. Nevertheless, children always have the power to come to a point of view that is different from their religious indoctrination. Opposing opinions are everywhere. Also, a child might simply find religiosity quite boring, hence distasteful. I wouldn’t know anyone personally like that of course.

 But, is “faith,” belief without evidence? Is it? Okay, so Monday I drove to work safely without a hitch; there were no close calls. Nothing happened to spook me about driving my car. Therefore Tuesday all will be well? How do I know this? What’s the evidence about what Tuesday will bring? Yet I do not refuse to leave my house, jump in my car, and drive it on that busy freeway to work. I sure acted with a lot of confidence in expectation of a given outcome. But again, I acted without “evidence”. Oh, my evidence is what happened on Monday, and perhaps that I deserve to receive the same on Tuesday. Ok. I see.

 The reason for “faith/without evidence” in the God of the Judeo-Christian account -- evidence meaning: Oh, there goes God, all 1500 lbs of him, 11ft tall, quite muscular, tanned, and  with the flowing white beard -- is that it powerfully appeals to the commonsense of anyone, and everyone, who has not been indoctrinated by whatever means, to conclude that there is no Creator.

 And so, because the fabric of reality makes known, over and over again that, “things must be created,” and since the atheist point of view is that “things were not created; things created themselves/starting with the singularity out of which was birthed the Big Bang,” this Biblical account, because of the truth about life that it communicates, is perceived to be clear evidence, and upon this evidence, faith is brought to rest. From the excerpt we see:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. ¶ genesis 1:1-8 /kjv / 2

   If we accept the life-affirmed logic that things “must be created,” then what is left is for us to examine the Biblical account to see if its sequence of events are supported by some basic facts of science, such as that, before plant life appears, a light source would be in place; or before there was talk of plant life, there would be an atmosphere in place; or before there was talk about solar systems, galaxies, and stars, there would be  the space into which they would appear. If one had the intelligence to dissect and analyze the text, how much knowledge could one attain?

[fitzroyalbert1-blog]

religion simply illogical/?

Conventional logic: I has a baseball (child #1); Oh yeah! Prove it! (child #2); Here! (child #1); Ok! You’re right! (child #2)

 Religious logic: I has a baseball (child #1); Oh yeah! Prove it! (child #2); You can’t prove that I don’t (responds child #1 with rage)

                                             Then followed the caption:

                                           Religion- It’s Simply Illogical

While the response of child #1, in this scenario / religious logic, might indeed be evasive, while it might be indirect to the issue of showing proof that one possessed a baseball or not -- does child #2 habitually demand proof only to deny the efficacy of the proof -- it is not essentially illogical. Why demand proof of a baseball? What was illogical however, was the rage with which the answer was given. That I will readily admit.

 But moving on, is child #1 an habitual liar? Are baseballs so rare that the existence of one must be verified? Is child #1 so impoverished that ownership of said baseball would be very unlikely? Yes, it might indeed be logical of child #2 to ask for proof, and it might indeed be very reasonable for child #1 to be evasive, declaring, “You can’t prove that I don’t.” As I said, child #2 might be an habitual denier of the efficacy of proof upon receiving said proof.

 Yes, perhaps child #1 stated, “You can’t prove that I don’t,” because if the baseball were produced, child #2 would then assert that the baseball was stolen. If the baseball were indeed stolen, then child #1 does not, as the depiction stated, “has a baseball.” The next round of proofs would then be proving that the baseball had not been stolen.

 It is not necessarily a noble thing to be incapable of understanding and accepting true information, hence reality, independent of proof. It could be a sign of pathology -- a sign of that -- when the sick mind makes an accusation here, and an innuendo there, out of the deep well of a diseased imagination, all the while asking for proof of their falsity. And, here it comes, “I know that you are cheating on me.” This could only be resolved in one way and one way only, that being, the enslavement of the one to the other.

 Everything that is true, or that is false, cannot always be seen to be true or false. And yes, in this case just mentioned, someone is saying that some unseen thing (infidelity) is real. In the other -- our primary focus -- it is being stated that the unseen is not real. In that vein, another way of looking at this some unseen thing is real issue (cheating), is to say that something that is not seen (fidelity away from the accuser), is not real. Good old seeing is believing.

 Someone told me back in the 1990s, “know who you are for yourself.” That is, that was, excellent advice. It would be a shame -- a crying shame -- if I felt compelled to be “understood,” if I felt compelled to make myself known to every detracted that could possibly come my way.

 Here it comes again, “Does God give a care about our denial of him?” - right. Our acknowledgment adds nothing to him. Our denial subtracts nothing from him. God, God the Creator of all things -- all things seen / all things unseen; things that cannot be proven to exist -- is not a fool. He will never be an unbeliever’s puppet-on-a-string, made to manifest himself here, and to reveal himself there. He will not, prove his existence today, only to have to, prove it tomorrow, and then the next day, and then the day after. Acknowledgment of God by us -- the God of the Judeo-Christian text -- transforms us; it is for our embetterment.

 And fyi - God is not a baseball. For the most part, only an idiot would have one and then bellow, “You can’t prove I don’t.” Hm .. if in my mind, God is to be compared to a baseball -- this round, solid object, pitched by a pitcher to a batter, with the objective being that said ball lands up in a catcher’s mitt, and not struck effectively by the batter’s bat -- that could be pulled out of a child’s backpack or pocket, and then tossed to and fro between children here and there, I suppose that then, I would think that God could be proven by the presentation of some tangible 3 dimensional -- or 4, or 5 -- object, and by that, settle the whole argument.

 But here is the logic: If it is understood that “things must be created,” then it will be understood that there “must be a creator” -- a creator on the grand scale of the known creation.

[fitzroyalbert1-blog]

devil meets child/?

“Satan will look for your child’s weakest area and attack at that point. He will attempt to fill your child with worry, reasoning, fear, depression and discouraging thoughts.” - joyce meyer / “Battlefield of the mind for teens”

  Then the mockery followed, in that Joyce is pictured with a big red clown’s nose affixed: Reasoning - How children meet the Devil.

 If one is arguing that there is no devil, then so be it. One cannot disprove or prove the existence of “the devil”. One can only receive the instruction of Sacred text, and then choose to believe or to disbelieve. There is no scientific methodology that can be used to make “the devil” know for all to see. There is also no such method that can render dark matter, a scientifically declared fact of nature, visible for all to see, and therefore by seeing, believing. This is stated in regard to it,

 Dark matter, however, only interacts through gravity. This is why we see its effects on the motions of galaxies and stars, but why we can't see it directly; it does not emit or absorb light. / dark matter / www.cfhtlens.org / 1

Yes, dark matter is understood in terms of how it reacts with gravity. We see its effects on the motions of galaxies and stars only. The devil is understood to be as much an unseen fact of reality in how the demonic interacts with humankind. And this is not saying that the devil made me do it. Human beings do what they choose to do, but to be ignorant of the role of an instigator to the committance of evil acts is sorely naive. No, it is not the devil made me do it, but it is the devil / or devils work to push these urges to the fore. And, so, why would he not look for areas of weakness?

 Yes, we cannot disprove or prove the devil, we can only ask does the Biblical description make sense. He is called in Scripture, the adversary; he is called, the accuser; he is called, the tempter.

Now, let us take a look at the word reasoning. What does it entail? How could an “invisible foe” -- to human eyes that is -- utilize this as a means of bringing calamity?

 Definition of reasoning for English Language Learners. : the process of thinking about something in a logical way in order to form a conclusion or judgment. : the ability of the mind to think and understand things in a logical way. / www.merriam-webster.com / 3

  Let us now apply this definition to the our subject at hand. Ok, by reasoning, we are lead to the conclusion that if a thing cannot be seen, if it cannot be tested “scientifically,” if it cannot be prodded and probed, then it is not real. But this is dangerous thinking. We have always been in the “scientific-sense” / seeing is believing, limited in what we were / and are able to “prove” exist or does not exist. Look at this for example:

Anton Van Leeuwenhoek (1670s) discovered "protozoa" - the single-celled organisms and he called them "animalcules". He also improved the microscope and laid foundation for microbiology. He is often cited as the first microbiologist to study muscle fibers, bacteria, spermatozoa and blood flow in capillaries. Although, he did not have much education or a scientific background, yet he defied all odds to be reckoned as a great scientist through his skillful observations, insight and unmatched curiosity. He revolutionized biological science by exposing microscopic life to the world.  / explorable.com/discovery-of-bacteria / 4

 But prior to the 1670s, did not this organism exists (unless of course it is a recent creation)? But prior to this, prior to this particular advancement in science, organisms such as this could not be seen, hence, did not exist -- right? Absolutely not. Again, it is a very dangerous business to cling to the “reasoning” that “seeing is believing”.

 So, an invisible-foe-to-human eyes, does not exist? Really? Is the Biblical account of his activities / he and his hosts, inaccurate in its description? Again, he is a tempter (people find themselves with urges they can hardly resist); he is the adversary (he works feverishly to counteract the influence of good religion); he is an accuser (after one succumbs to temptation, next comes “the fierce accusing of conscience”). Joyce Meyer has made all the sense in the world. Where does that clown’s nose belong?

[fitzroyalbert1-blog]

primitive; childish/?

The word of God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive legends which are pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me, for me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. - Albert Einstein

 As in the case of Samuel Clemens, I found myself wondering if whether or not Albert Einstein said these things. But, assuming that he did, I will address my response according. So be it.

Yes, I found myself thinking that when Albert Einstein said that the Bible was no more than a collection of honorable yet primitive legends, that this declaration was oxymoronic. Primitive and honorable are not made of the same cloth, no more than are backwards and enlightened. Can a book firstly intended for adult consumption and understanding, with this then passed on by them to their children, be considered honorable, if it is rightly considered primitive and childish?

I sensed a conflict in Mr. Einstein. I sensed one because changing his words, he could have as easily said that the Bible was no more than a collection of backwards yet enlightened legends. Excuse me. Huh? The correct combination of words would have been, primitive and backwards; it would have been honorable and enlightened. Is there any sense in saying that the bloodthirsty savage was a man of good character? Either make the tree good, and its fruit .. good.

  And, what pray you, makes the Bible a primitive and childish book, to say the least? Bypassing its account deeply anchored in the bedrock of reality in making it known to us that there was a creator because things .. must .. be created, let us go on to the story of Cain and Abel, a story that I have examined on another occasion, and might indeed again examine. We see,

 3 One day, Cain gave part of his harvest to the LORD, 4 and Abel also gave an offering to the LORD. He killed the first-born lamb from one of his sheep and gave the LORD the best parts of it. The LORD was pleased with Abel and his offering, 5 but not with Cain and his offering. This made Cain so angry that he could not hide his feelings. 6 The LORD said to Cain: What's wrong with you? Why do you have such an angry look on your face? 7 If you had done the right thing, you would be smiling. [c] But you did the wrong thing, and now sin is waiting to attack you like a lion. Sin wants to destroy you, but don't let it! / genesis 4:3-7 / cev / 1

  Now, what does verses 3 through 7 of this chapter tell us? 1- It tells us that there was a lawgiver and hence, there were laws. The law here was this: Bring to me the first of what you have, be it of your sheep -- this for a certainty -- and pemissively, of the harvest of your crops. Give to me the best parts of these.

 2- It tells us that where there is lawgiving, there will also be found lawkeepers and lawbreakers. Therefore we were told that the Lord was pleased with Abel and his offering, but not with Cain and his offering.

 3- It shows us that lawbreakers are not just content to be noncompliant with said laws, but also want to be affirmed in their defiance. They demand that their conduct be given a stamp of approval. Hence we were shown that Cain was so angry that he could not hide his feelings.

 4-It shows us that a good lawgiver will intervene; he will challenge the lawbreaker to examine himself. He will remind the lawbreaker as to what it takes to be on the right footing.

 This is childish? This is primitive? This information about life that we were given is not worthy of our deepest contemplation? The mind is weakened as it takes hold upon this teaching? Really? Point #3 is particularly interesting. Yes, lawbreakers are not just content to be noncompliant with said laws, but also want to be affirmed in their defiance. They demand that their conduct be given a stamp of approval. And, when it is not, then fury follows .. with murder en tow.

 Assuming that Abel being a lawkeeper, himself shared in this spirit of intervention, then he also spoke with Cain in regard to the just nature of the law in question, and this was the consequence of that action, when we see,

 8 Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go for a walk." [d] And when they were out in a field, Cain killed him. / genesis 4:8 / cev / 2

  5- When an intervention is embarked upon by a lawkeeper, or by a lawgiver, as the case might be, such a one should be very watchful in expectation of some sort of retaliatory action. Remember point #3. Yes, lawbreakers are not just content to be noncompliant with said laws, but also want to be affirmed in their defiance. They demand that their conduct be given a stamp of approval. And, when it is not, then fury follows .. with murder en tow.

 Ps: I do not personally know of anyone to whom this applies, and needless to say, do not wish to know of anyone.

[fitzroyalbert1-blog]

take no action/?

Religion: Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day; give a man a net, he will eat for a lifetime. Give a man religion, he will die praying for a fish …

  The sad thing is that someone actually believes this. But, clearly, this is believed because of one’s total and complete ignorance of the Bible, the source from which Judeo-Christian practices flow. And, I would not be surprised to hear someone who believed this speak of rich Jewish bankers, and about how televangelists fleece their flock, who apparently must know to do more than just pray, unless of course, their money that makes all the televangelists rich .. filthy rich .. comes from bank robberies or from other nefarious enterprises. Christians work. Observant Jews work. A true practitioner of Judeo-Christian ideals will diligently apply himself or herself to the task of gainful employment.

 Give a person religion and he will die praying for a fish? Really? Does religion, Biblical religion, Judeo-Christian religion, that is, cause the stupidity of dying while waiting for a fish to be produced by God I suppose, instead of fishing, or learning how to do so, figuratively or literally? No it does not! Those actuated by Judeo-Christian ethics, diligently, and intelligently apply themselves to the responsibility of work. Speaking on the importance of work, in Psalm 90:17 this is seen:

 May the favor of the Lord our God rest on us; establish the work of our hands -- yes, establish the work of our hands. / niv / 1

  The text did not say may the Lord our God establish the words of our mouth while we do nothing. It said, May the favor of the Lord our God rest on us, and may it establish the work of our hands -- yes, establish the work of our hands.

 This was no call to indolence, or to the stupidity of substituting prayer for needed action. It was even a call to action times 2, in that the “establish the work of our hands” of the words spoken, was repeated twice. But speaking on indolence, and on the stupidity of substituting prayer for needed action, this is seen,

Anyone who does provide for their relatives, and especially for those of their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. / 1 timothy 5:8 / niv / 2

  Now, the text did not say that anyone who refused to work and thereby not provide for his relatives and family -- especially those of his own household -- had fulfilled the Lord’s will and in eventually starving to death, had made them all faithful martyrs of the Lord. but, this is the claim that was made when it was stated, “give a man religion, and he will die praying for a fish.” Yes, such a man would die indeed, but not from a religion derived from the Bible.

If it was not Judeo-Christian religion that was being addressed, then the statement-maker should have said, “Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day; give a man a net, he will eat for a lifetime. Give a man false-religion, or false religious teaching, he will die praying for a fish …”

 But to be thorough, a religious perspective that could have fostered dying while praying for fish -- giving up gainful employment -- supposedly derived from the Bible, and supposedly based upon faith in God, was this:

 Camping predicted that Jesus Christ would return to Earth on May 21, 2011, whereupon the saved would be taken up to heaven in the rapture, and that there would follow five months of fire, brimstone and plagues on Earth, with millions of people dying each day, culminating on October 21, 2011, with the final destruction of the world.[7][8] He had previously predicted that Judgment Day would occur on or about September 6, 1994.[9][10][11]

His prediction for May 21, 2011, was widely reported, in part because of a large-scale publicity campaign by Family Radio, and it prompted ridicule from atheist organizations[12] and rebuttals from Christian organizations.[13] After May 21 passed without the predicted incidents, Camping said he believed that a "spiritual" judgment had occurred on that date, and that the physical Rapture would occur on October 21, 2011, simultaneously with the final destruction of the universe by God.[14] Except for one press appearance on May 23, 2011, Camping largely avoided press interviews after May 21, particularly after he suffered a stroke in June 2011.[15]After October 21, 2011 passed without the predicted apocalypse, the mainstream media labeled Camping a "false prophet" and commented that his ministry would collapse after the "failed 'Doomsday' prediction".[16][17] / Harold Egbert Camping (July 19, 1921 – December 15, 2013)

  Yes, if you believed this; if you believed that the world would come to an end  October 21st, 2011, leading up to this, why would you maintain yourself in the responsibility of work? If you had savings, why would you preserve such savings?

[fitzroyalbert1-blog]

it’s another year closer/?1.3

Yes, it is after the passing of 1 million years that stars and galaxies could begin to form / processing helium and hydrogen to make heavier elements .. then us. We see,

By the time the universe cooled to 10 billion k, [down from 1,000 billion k] 1.1 seconds after time zero [t.z.= when all the matter and energy of the universe emerged from a point of zero size / a singularity] its density was down to just 380,000 times the density of water, neutrons had coupled, and the balance between protons and neutrons had shifted further, with 24 neutrons for every 76 protons.

By the time the universe had cooled to 3 billion k, 13.8 seconds after time zero, nuclei of deuterium [heavy hydrogen], each containing one proton and one neutron, began to form, but they were soon knocked apart by collisions with other particles. Only 17 percent of nucleons were left in the form of neutrons.

Three minutes and two seconds after time zero, the universe had cooled to 1 billion k, only 70 times hotter than the center of the sun is today. The proportion of neutrons was down to 14 percent, but they were saved from disappearing entirely from the scene because the temperature had at last fallen to the point where nuclei of deuterium and helium could be formed and stick together in spite of collisions with other particles. / john gribbin / companion to the cosmos / 7

Let’s look at some laws of nature (or are they accidental byproducts of said laws?).

1- The universe must cool from 1,000 billion k to 10 billion k 1.1 seconds after time zero. 2- Its density must drop down to being just 380,000 times that of the density of water. 3- Neutrons must couple and the balance between protons and neutrons must shift even further to being 24 neutrons and 76 protons.

4- The universe must cool to 3 billion k 13.8 seconds after time zero. 5- Nuclei of deuterium [heavy hydrogen] must begin to form. 6- Each must contain one proton and one neutron. 7- They must be quickly knocked apart by collisions with other particles. 8- Only 17 percent of nucleons must be left in the form of neutrons. 9- Three minutes and two seconds after time zero the universe must cool to 1 billion k. 10- The proportion of neutrons must drop down to 14 percent. 11- At this juncture, the temperature of the universe must also fall to the point where nuclei of deuterium and helium can form and stick together in spite of collisions with other particles.

I’ll say this for the, laws of nature: It took this opening act of the creation of hydrogen right up next to and almost over the cliff. That was a CliffHanger! But why go there? Why did this creative power choose to risk so much? Firstly, consider number 3. Why have an excess of protons, which in my thinking helped to facilitate number 7? With number 7, the one proton and one neutron of heavy hydrogen are quickly knocked apart. Then there was number 10, where we saw neutrons fall to being only 14 percent. But fortuitously, so did the temperature of the universe, and so, the future of hydrogen (the combination of deuterium and helium nuclei) was secured. Nature, the laws of nature, was something else.

An additional point: 24 neutrons to 76 protons = 31 percent neutrons. 17 percent neutrons = 13 neutrons to 76 protons. 14 percent = 11 neutrons to 76 protons. This was the case if the number of protons remained constant.

Yes, how fortuitous for the future of hydrogen that it kept cooling, and so, the proportion of neutrons to protons which was down to 14 percent for neutrons, did not further decrease, securing the future of hydrogen. It escaped total eradication. This facilitated the next stage’s manifestation - stars and galaxies; the creation of heavier elements; humanity.

But since we are just dealing with laws, and laws were made to be broken (often sadly true), and Murphy’s law is as much a law as any other law, could it have remained hotter than that which was required for the above named process (creation of hydrogen) to take hold? Sometimes a thing is of normal temperature, and then it suddenly heats up spontaneously to the point of that thing’s destruction. Therefore what we have here is nature that needed cooling, and nature that produced cooling. Life hung in the balance as it were, on the thinnest strand of string. I’ll continue:

At the fourth minute after time zero, the process was complete with just under 25 percent of nuclear matter converted into helium, and the rest left behind as lone protons - hydrogen nuclei. It was about 1 million years after time zero that stars and galaxies could begin to form, processing hydrogen and helium inside stars to make heavier elements and eventually giving rise to the sun, the earth and ourselves. / john gribbin / companion to the cosmos / 8

Indeed. Uhu .. yes, nature needed cooling, and nature .. produced cooling; nature needed hydrogen and helium, and nature, produced hydrogen and helium. Yup, nature, was something else.

break time

Keep it locked to KPFPG/AM-930; we will be right back.

Come on, tell your story - morning glory - all about the serpentine fire

Come on, tell your story - morning glory - all about the serpentine fire

5-4-3-2-1

[fitzroyalbert1-blog]

it’s another year closer/?1.2

Two descriptions in regard to the sun that I found interesting and would like to elaborate on, to the extent that I am able, are these, 1- apparent magnitude, and, 2- absolute magnitude. The definition of, 1 - apparent magnitude is this,

The apparent magnitude of an astronomical object is a measure of how bright that object appears to be, irrespective of its intrinsic (or absolute) magnitude. / pg 59 / wbeofscience / 3

All right. What I am hearing here, is that the celestial body that appears to be the brightest, isn’t necessarily the most luminous in actuality. The closer an object is to the observer, the brighter it might seem. The farther away it is, the more faint that might appear to be. So, one star seems brighter because it is closer, and another more faint, because it is farther away (the two might seem to be in the same locale against the backdrop of the distant sky), but the more faint, is in actuality, far, far brighter.

Yes, the celestial body that seems to be the brightest, is not necessarily the most luminous in actuality. It seems to me that this insight could be applied to quite a lot of things, such as for example, the biblical utterance that, the first will be last, and the last, first. Having said that, I am sure that the, competition, is going to use this one against me. However, truth, is truth. There I go again. Ok. Ok. Number 2- absolute or intrinsic brightness pertains to:

The absolute, or intrinsic brightness of a star can be determined only when its apparent brightness and distance are known. / pg 57 / wbeofscience / 4

Mhm .. what I am hearing  here, is that, if  a star appears  to be very  bright, and its distance away is very great, we may know that we are dealing with quite a star indeed. Everyone, I’m almost certain that my explanation of these two concepts, was oversimplified. But I gave it the, old college try - right? It is, what it is. ha ha

Ok, let’s get some more information on this, fireball of life-sustaining power, that is ours, shall we. In the book, Astronomy / A Visual Guide- by Mark A. Garlick, we see,

A giant ball of hydrogen and helium, the sun makes up 99.9 percent of the solar system’s mass. This medium-size, middle-aged star is fueled by nuclear reactions in its core, where hydrogen atoms fuse together to make heavier helium atoms. The fusion process releases an enormous amount of energy that slowly travels through the sun’s layers to the surface. Here, it escapes into space and adds the heat and light that allows life to exist on earth. / mark a. garlick / astronomy / a visual guide / 5

And .. so it is. Yes, it is a giant ball of hydrogen and helium, and takes up 99.9 percent of the solar system’s mass. That is a lot of mass. All of the other planets, these being Pluto and its satellite (moon), Mercury (no moon), Mars and its satellites, Venus (no satellite), Earth and its moon, Neptune and its satellites, Uranus and its satellites, Saturn and its satellites, and Jupiter and its satellites, make up only 1.1 percent of the mass in our solar system. Yup, that is a lot of mass. All right. Now let’s look at the role of hydrogen and helium in regard to the sun. We see,

Hydrogen is by far the most common element in the universe, making up 75 percent of the mass of all visible matter in stars and galaxies. Like helium, it was produced in the big bang in which the universe was born. Hydrogen is the simplest element; symbol H. Each atom of ordinary hydrogen consists of a single proton (the nucleus) and a single electron. / john gribbin / companion to the cosmos / 6

All right. So why is our sun comprised of hydrogen? Yes, why is it? I’m just thinking. Must it  be, because, it must be? Again, it makes up 75 percent of the mass of all the visible matter in stars and galaxies. Hm .. why is hydrogen the most abundant element? Why not something else? Did hydrogen have to make its way into existence? And, if it did, how did it? Did hydrogen have self-awareness? I jest. No, this was determined by the, laws of nature. Again I jest. I say this because when I think of this, laws of nature proposition, I find myself concluding that a law(s) that pertain to the initial creation of something or someone, is only efficacious after being set in motion, or after being utilized.

These laws cannot put their own selves in play if you will. For instance, potent male + fertile female = new human being, is a law of nature. This law of nature is meaningless however if not put into action, and is done thus by a male person and a female person, or a medical professional or scientist whose speciality it is to combine these parts. Our equation then, shows itself to be that, 1- this law of nature must be set in motion, and, 2- is done thus when it comes in contact with, and is utilized by mind, intellect, and reason. After a thing has been created (back to the laws of nature), it can then demonstrate self-propagation. For me, hydrogen did not come into being simply because of the laws of nature at work. The question that I ask is by whom were the laws set in motion?

An additional point that I should have made is that the stated law of nature, potent male + fertile female = new human being, only exists because human beings exist; there is no law of nature of which I am aware that necessitates the existence of mankind.  

Again, hydrogen makes up 75 percent of the mass of all the visible matter in stars and galaxies. Is  this profusion of  hydrogen in  stars and  galaxies, more  advantageous to their functioning as such entities than any other element in nature?  Does nature need hydrogen? And if nature needs this, how is it that nature has what it iii- needs? Is nature itself and its laws, mind, intellect, and reason, because hydrogen so necessary for the efficient functioning of stars and galaxies was produced in the big bang? Life has shown me this however, and it is  that we often cannot or will not get what we want, no matter how much intellect is committed to the given enterprise.

[fitzroyalbert1-blog]

it’s another year closer/?1.1

Come on, tell your story - morning glory - all about the serpentine fire

Come on, tell your story - morning glory - all about the serpentine fire

Oh Yeah .. Oh Yeah! This is, - It’s Another Year Closer - coming to you live from beautiful, sunny, Morro Bay, California, station KPFPG/AM-930, telephone numbers, 555-333-0930 and 555-363-WARD, to take on yet another topic of discussion, that being: The evidence shows, mind, intellect, and reason. That’s, the evidence shows, mind, intellect and reason. Now, it’s another year closer to what? The answer is this: It’s another year closer to that pesky promised second coming of Christ, for some, and that utterly ridiculous fairytale that Christians blather about, for others.

Uhu .. Yeah, with this, with this return (which seems as true, and I will admit, as Santa Clause’s return at Christmas time, year after year, from his north pole retreat), this world as we know it will come to a sudden end. There will be no morning after. For the, unrepentant, this day will be like a, WaroftheWorlds moment, or like an Independence Day explosion of unstoppable alien power, but without the wishful we win in the end against the insurmountable odds. Yes, it’s another year closer. Yet, right here, right now, any minute could be one’s last minute. That was true for many today. Therefore, with this in mind, I’ll proceed with the hope that each will take seriously what each should take seriously. Yes, since any moment could be one’s last, every discussion about God, goodness, and character, should be mindful of this. Preparation, preparation, preparation.

Looking at an issue that pertains to the, any moment(s) of life, and contemplating our serpentine fire intro, the fire to be put out at this time, the contention to be squashed, the subject matter to be addressed is this proposition: In regard to the universe and all that is in it, they are there because they are there. There is no Creator. And, it is so, because we say that it is so. Is it so? Hey, I am your host R. McNichol- Ward. Thanks for joining us; thanks for being there. Let’s get started.

In talking about the, serpentine fire to be put out at this time, in talking about a contention to be squashed, I am, to borrow a concept, speaking of a Matrix in its own right. A central idea of the Matrix was that the Artificial Intelligence that had come to totally crush humankind, turned us into their energy source (as biological batteries), and kept us content as such by creating a computer generated False Reality for our minds. It was, sweet dreams, if you will. Ignorance was bliss. Falsehood kept us enslaved. Falsehoods had their Agents that promulgated and defended them. Falsehoods are dangerous.

The falsehood of which I am speaking, pertains to well thought out constructs and theorems, weighty in their language, profound in their vision, yet, what you see is not, what you get. To these however, diverse minds turn; some latching unto this lie, and others to some other. The consequence of falsehood in the Matrix was to live and die being no more than a, biological energy source. The consequence of falsehood in our real world, that I am addressing, is to live and die declaring, “There is no God; no afterlife as a consequence, and no day of reckoning.”

To help me develop my stated subject matter, I am going to turn to this information found in the book, The Heavens / The World Book Encyclopedia of Science. It shows,

As far as life on earth is concerned, the sun is the most important star in the sky. For centuries astronomers have studied its appearance and behavior in an attempt to discover how it functions. But it is not only the sun’s physical properties that have been the subject of study: The determination of the earth-sun distance has also long been a  focus of attention. The  currently accepted value  of 93,000,000 miles (150,000,000km) for this distance is known as an astronomical unit. Such accuracy is essential for astronomers to determine the scale of the solar system and for space scientists to guide spacecraft to other planets. / pg 82 / twbeofscience / 1

Indeed. For those of you judging this host’s, scientific credentials, for those of you judging his intellectual rigor, I will state this: Yes, to prove certain theorem, to substantiate the accuracy of particular theories, to gather the evidence needed to formulate such, mathematics of a specialized, advanced nature, such as, calculus, such as, trigonometry, to say the least, is implemented; it is skillfully utilized. To thoroughly understand the language of science, to have mastery over its vocabulary (astronomy, physics for example), years of study must be engaged in. There is no denying that. But there is a prose, so to speak; there is a common, everyday meaning to science that anyone should be able to understand. It is to this prose, that I affix my mind. Yes, as far as life on earth is concerned, the sun is the most important star in the sky.

Yes, as far as life on earth is concerned, the sun is the most important star in the sky. The earth/sun determination, its ramifications, for most of us, is where the rubber meets the road. Where the sun is in the sky in regards to the earth, is what indeed affects us in our, day-to-day lives. Yes, let’s look at our sun. Go:

Its equatorial diameter: 865,000 miles (1,392,000 kilometers). Its mass: 333,400 (earth=1). Its mean relative density: 1.41. Its escape velocity: 384 miles (618 kilometers) per second. Its distance from the earth / the farthest: 94,500,000 (152,100,000 kilometers). Its nearest point: 91,400,000 miles (147,100.100 kilometers). Its mean: 93,000,000 miles (150,000,000 kilometers). Its mean rotation period: about 1 month. Its mean surface temperature: 10,000 degrees/f (5,000 degrees/c). Its apparent magnitude: -27. Its absolute magnitude: 4.8 / pg 82 / wbeofscience / 2

[fitzroyalbert1-blog]

it’s a virus/?

It spreads to the children of theists, without the child having a say or knowing better, essentially brainwashing them. It teaches people to ignore logic, that it is ok to accept something with no evidence, as truth. It triggers irrational emotions of anger and superiority, while allowing them to be protected from people calling the virus of their beliefs ludicrously stupid. It harms people the same way verbal abuse does, in the constant threat of hell if you’re “bad,” which is ingrained into the person’s thinking, using fear to control them -- Religion is a devastating virus.

Ok, don’t hold back; tell us how you really feel. Yes indeed. Well, I have so much liberty in my faith; I am so not bound up in dread, in fear and trembling due to God, that I must frequently examine myself whether or not I am in the faith. And so the Text states this: God has not given to us a “spirit of fear”. He doesn’t give it. He doesn’t inspire it. I examine myself, not by all the things that I do, but by things that I do not do, and these on an account of God. I don’t think of hell much.

I know that “Religion is poisonous,” is addressing Christianity in that it brought up the issue of “going to hell”. In some other cases -- ok, most other cases -- this is the conclusion that I drew. But in this case, as in others, the object of the denunciation is quite clear. Therefore, more to the point, “Religion is poisonous,” could also be titled, “Christianity is poisonous”. It is?

It can be. If you are acquainted with my writing, then you know that I have been honest about quote/unquote “Christianity” and its atrocities of the past. But if you are not familiar with anything I might have, or might not have said, here is an excerpt for your consideration. We see:

“Under these bloody maxims … those persecutions were carried on, from the eleventh and twelfth centuries almost to the present day, which stand out on the page of history. After the signal of open martyrdom had been given in the canons of Orleans, there followed the extirpation of the Albigenses, under the form of a crusade, the establishment of the inquisition, the cruel attempts to extinguish the Waldenes, the martyrdoms of the Lollard, the cruel wars to exterminate the Bohemians, the burning of Huss and Jerome, and the multitudes of other confessor, before the Reformation. …” / T.R. Birks, The Four Prophetic Empires, and the Kingdom of Messiah  (1845 ed.), pp. 248, 249  / 1

Clearly, any one who took the time to look into this matter, found out some things about “Christianity” that they either loved to hear, or, were ashamed to learn of. But, Christianity, moved on, or in a sense, returned to what it was intended to be, not an oppressive force in the world, but an influence for good, based upon the power of persuasion / meaning to reason with in hopes of convincing. In regard to this emphasis on persuasion of which I spoke, the record shows:

“Condemn no man for not thinking as you think : Let everyone enjoy the full and free liberty of thinking for himself : Let every man use his own judgment, since every man must give an account of himself to God. Abhor every approach, in any kind or degree, to the spirit of persecution. If you cannot reason or persuade a man into the truth, never attempt to force him into it. If love will not compel him to come, leave him to God, the Judge of all.” -- “Advice to the People Called Methodists,” / John Wesley / in his Works, Vol. 8 (1830 ed.), p. 357 /  2

So yes, religion can now be, and for a certainty, for 1262 years or so, was a terror upon the earth, and this in the form of “Christianity”. I will be honest about this, as I said. Is it honest however to speak of religious instruction as “brainwashing”? Let me put it this way: I definitely received religious instruction from childhood on, but with that instruction, there was my attending public schools. I suppose that I must have received “religion-aversive brainwashing” here. These “religion-aversive brainwashing” or “counter-religious indoctrination interactions,” left me less than optimally “religiously brainwashed” I suppose.

Look, for most kids, for most people, who grew up in a religious environment, as in weekly church attendance, and religious observances in the home, this did not create a cocoon around them; this did not create a cone of silence if you will, which closed them off from the influence of the non-religious world. Brainwashing has a specific meaning. Religious upbringing is not it. The definition of brainwashing is this,

1.

A method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originating in totalitarian countries, especially through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques.

2.

Any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, especially one based on repetition or confusion.

To be taught, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” is not brainwashing. Does the atheist teach his child, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” with respect and thoroughness, alongside the big bang theory / or theory of evolution? Probably not. Is that brainwashing? But guess what -- the child of the religiously quote/unquote, brainwashed, will be exposed to these theories, over and over again. Who is brainwashing whom?

Does the child of the atheist have a say in this? Does he or she know better? Is he or she given, “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” alongside, “mankind evolved from the ape”? I get it: Religion is so obviously wicked, that wherever it is taught, even if alongside its opposing point, to hear it is to be brainwashed -- a bad thing -- by it. Atheism is so noble, that even if it is taught to the exclusion of its opposition, it is demonstrative of being at the pinnacle of enlightenment.