Bush and Co. Wanted a War That Could Have Been Avoided

Ten years of war in Afghanistan could have been avoided, and Bin Laden arrested in the Fall of 2001.  But the governmental and corporate elites wanted war.  Gareth Porter's article linked here.

God's Miscommunication with Christians

Dear Reader,

On Easter Sunday of 2011 I suddenly felt inspired write this blog post based  on ideas floating around in my head for some time.

Generally speaking all Christian sects, whether they are Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs), traditional mainstream, fundamentalist, and evangelical Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons or any other Christian sect, believe in a few basic things.  First they believe that God sent his son, Jesus Christ, to earth to die on a cross (or stake in the case of JWs), so that this sacrifice would atone for the sins of man.  Nearly all Christians seem to believe that God considers it important that humans believe in him, have faith in him, obey him, and live according to his will, and repent of their sins.  All these varieties of Christianity believe this, and most also strongly advocate that people should belong to their particular church, believe in that church’s particular doctrine, and that people accept their particular church as God's true and exclusive representative organization on earth.1

So we might ask, if God is a perfect being, and he wills that people hold correct religious beliefs, practice correct religious rituals, and belong to the correct church that propagates those correct church teachings, why has he not communicated more clearly exactly which church is his true organizational representative? Exactly what religion is the sincere truth seeking Christian supposed to belong to? 

The pastor of any of the above mentioned churches would surely answer that by reading the Bible, it is clear that the Bible and God clearly favors his church   Most any JW, Mormon, Evangelical Christian, Catholic, or other Christian sect can offer support from some translation of the Bible that their Church holds the correct doctrine according to the Bible.  Mormon’s may be slightly different in this regard as they believe that their organization has been blessed with a second book of God’s revealed truth, The Book of Mormon.  Various churches of Evangelical and Protestant Christianity regard the doctrines of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons and often the Catholic Church as false Christianity, frauds, that mislead people away from God’s true church.  JWs also regard all the other Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox churches as false prophets that mislead people away from God’s true will, and insist that salvation is only found in their organization.  The Catholic Church regards itself as Jesus’ and the apostle Paul’s original and true Christian Church, and regards all later Christian churches as apostates.             

For the sincere truth seeking would-be Christian and potential church member who desires to make the right choice, this seems to be an intractable dilemma.  This would be Christian can accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior, repent of his sins, practice the appropriate rituals, show love to his neighbor, live a moral life according to the strictures of the Bible and church he chooses to join, attempt to convert others, and study his Bible.  And still he could make the wrong choice of churches hypothetically speaking.  

I can imagine that it could be quite perplexing in attempting to choose the correct church by reading the Bible and attempting to match sacred scripture with the appropriate church doctrine.  Might the truth seeking Christian see strong points in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of the Bible on one question, while seeing other strong points in the Baptist’s interpretation of the Bible on another question?  Or worse, might the truth-seeker find compelling reasons to agree with two different interpretations of the Bible regarding the same question?  To resolve these problems the recruiting Christian witness will undoubtedly implore the truth seeker to open his heart to the Holy Spirit in prayer asking for guidance in choosing with which church to affiliate with; confident of course that the aforementioned Holy Spirit will guide the truth seeker to his church. 

If the Holy Spirit doesn’t lead the truth seeker to the recruiter’s church, but chooses another, then from the recruiter’s perspective the truth-seeker must have made some error, not the Holy Spirit.  Nor do I think it happens very often that the Christian recruiter entertains the possibility that he might have chosen the wrong church.  Regardless, it seems that if any of the Christian religions are true, then somebody is going to hell, despite their best efforts to be a good Christian in what they think is God’s chosen church.2 

So it seems that there is a strong possibility that this want-to-be sincere Christian can make the wrong choice.  Even after Bible study, prayer, and opening oneself up to the Holy Spirit.  According to the doctrine of most of the religious organizations I mention above, being in the right church, THEIRS, is part of being the right kind of Christian and gaining that reward of afterlife in heaven (or on earth, as JWs believe).  Christian sects basically compete for market share for the available souls in need of saving.  To do this they must persuade Christian believers that they must be a Baptist, or a Pentecostal, or a Catholic, and not another sect, if they hope to acquire the after-life reward in heaven, or be resurrected, or live forever in some fashion.   

So we must ask ourselves a few questions.  If the Christian God is real and demands that we believe the correct religious doctrines and belong to the right Christian church, why then has he not communicated much more clearly to his disciples regarding his desires and correct doctrines?    All of them at least share some common interpretations of the Bible, yet their divergent interpretations they regard as serious enough to split into a number of different religious organizations.  Shouldn’t a perfect God communicate much more clearly as to what his specific will is? Given this, it seems nearly certain that the Bible is not the inspired word of a real God, or that any version of Christianity is true. 

1--There are some more liberal Protestant Churches who don’t necessarily insist on loyalty to their own church and are less dogmatic in this regard.  Regardless, for the sake of this argument, let’s put them aside.

2—I should also note that JWs and some other liberal Christians do not believe in hell.  JWs believe the unrepentant sinner simply dies without the reward of life ever after. 

Response to Nils Jansma's Continued Mis-Representations and Evasions

The following is a response to Nils Jansma who responded to my critique of  a blog post of his comparing Atheists and Jehovah's Witnesses as "judgmental".  Follow the links back for context.


Nils, Thank you for your response,
With all due respect Nils, you seem to make your best effort to avoid even acknowledging the arguments I had written, let alone addressing them.  I won't go into too much detail, because quite frankly arguing about these topics doesn't interest me much anymore. 


First, I have no necessary problem with the dictionary definition of atheism, and in fact my position would fall under it, I do not think there is a God, therefore I do not believe that a god(s) exist.  I would lean towards the stronger atheist position.  So no, I am perfectly comfortable with the term atheism and applying it to myself.  I still maintain that agnostics are a weak form of atheism as they lack an affirmative belief in god (and weak doesn't have any pejorative meaning in this context).  Dictionary definitions are fine to an extent, but as surely you know words can have multiple meanings, and people regularly clarify the definitions they are operating under.    

You insist that disbelief in God is a position that requires "faith".  Then you should define faith.  Define faith.  I think this is a misapplication of the term "faith."  To doubt that there is a god does not require faith, but is exactly the opposite, it is a lack of faith that a god exists.  One can come to the tentative conclusion that there probably is no god based on philosophical arguments. REASON.  And quite frankly, this effort to classify either naturalistic science or atheism as a religion is tortured logic.


I thought I also made it quite clear that I don't agree with Dawkins' style of atheism, so why do you press me to defend what he says?  For the record, I don't think people who believe in God are mentally ill, just wrong.  If Dawkins has said or has implied such, then I think he is dead wrong.  Dawkins is not our high priest, nor does he speak for all atheists.


My academic background is in anthropology, and from these studies I know that religious belief is a universal feature of human societies, and a normal aspect of human psychology.  Interestingly enough, coming from this appreciation for the vast cultural and religious diversity of the human species leads me to doubt not only the religious beliefs of some tribe in Papua New Guinea, or the ancient Greeks, but also the religious beliefs of my own society.  As soon as you come to an understanding of why you don't believe in the many other gods of other cultures, then perhaps you will understand why I don't believe in yours. 


And why do you insist on stereotyping me as the "angry atheist", and charging that I am projecting it on to you?  I left the JW's a long time ago, and I am over it.  I was simply annoyed at your misrepresentations and over generalizing comparison of JWs and atheists as equally judgemental.  My flippant remark of "so what", was in the context of noting you could say that about any group. An observation like "flowers are red".  I directly addressed why this is simply a sloppy comparison, which you simply ignore.  It would be more accurate to say that JWs, Evangelical Christians, Catholics, and Muslims are judgemental, as we can take a large set of people and organizations within these parameters and see how they are judgemental of people who don't share their religious dogmas.  Furthermore, they attempt to enforce behavioral conformity not only within their organizations, but within society at large.  There is no comparable "judgmental" efforts made by atheists.  While I don't doubt that there are some atheists who are "judgemental," and there may be some religious believers who are not, it seems silly to focus on atheists as judgemental in light of the history of most of monotheistic religion.


You may know of an anecdotal account that some scientist and professor, who happens to be an atheist abused his power in enforcing atheism on his students.  Yet, there is no reason to believe that this happens with any regularity.  99% of science can be done without having to even consider the question of god.  Of course this is exactly what bothers the religious believer.  They presuppose that God must be an agent in there somewhere, looking for some gap with which to fill up with God, and it bothers them that scientists proceed without god(s).

"Most, if not all, of the “facts” I have been exposed to, support my belief in God more often than not.  Fortunately, we are living at a time when science is learning more and more about the complexity of the universe and life, resulting in a continuous list of surprises as more and more is learned, causing Hugh Ross to exclaim something like, “if you don’t believe in God, wait a week and maybe then you will.”  Nevertheless, there are still many issues I have yet to resolve but I am confident that the outcome will be likewise supportive.  So “what if” God doesn’t exist, what have I lost? nothing--  it is like Pasqual’s wager, better to be safe than sorry.  In saying this, I don’t want to imply that my belief in God is nothing more than a life insurance policy because I actually do believe He exists."

You claim that the continual advances of science in understanding the complexity of life and the universe supports your belief in God.  If that is your interpretation, that is fine with me.  (Again you want to have it both ways, science supports God, can't disprove God).  And that is the second time you have quoted Hugh Ross saying the same things, as if the quote stands on its own.  I asked you for specifics, you gave none. However, I do find it curious that all of this scientific discovery advances without appeal to God's alleged agency.  It is only post-hoc reasoning that the scientific facts support your belief in God.  

"So, the bottom line is, if you can show me a better way of life that maintains good mental health with a character building philosophy that I can teach my children to pursue, I will change.  However, I have to say, I have covered a lot of ground since leaving the Witnesses and sincerely doubt there is anything that can take the place of God in my life and still allow me to maintain my sanity, especially now with the future looking so bleak."  

I note that you claim that belief in God supports you psychologically, emotionally, and morally in coping with life.  I will be completely non-judgemental in stating that there is nothing necessarily wrong with that.  That doesn't mean God exists, but If it works for you, then go with it.  However, I do recommend that you should also acknowledge that others have come up with alternative solutions to the problems that religion solves for you.  Secularists are perfectly capable of living sane and moral lives without belief in God.  I am perfectly capable of teaching my son the difference between right and wrong, to be honest, compassionate, and to do the right thing, without God, and the promise of a reward of eternal life of some variety.  It does seem to me that my lack of belief in God is seen as a threat by you as a believer. 


So in conclusion, if a person chooses to believe in God I don't have any problem with that.  There are problems with Religion as an oppressive institution (somewhat distinct from the issue of god-belief)  that I wish to address in another post.  


Nils, if you do wish to continue our dialogue, I ask you to address the following questions.  Now that you are not a Jehovah's Witness, what do you believe?  Do you believe in hell? An afterlife? Do people need to accept Jesus Christ as their savior for what reward?  How accepting are you of other lifestyle choices (homosexuality, intimate relations outside of wedlock etc.)?  Also, what are your opinions of mainstream American Christianity and its collusion with right-wing politics?        

International Worker's Day, Nice day for a revolution: Why May Day......David Harvey

Update: Ooops, should have given a hat tip to one of my favorite blogs, Pink Scare!

Nice day for a revolution: Why May Day should be a date to stand up and change the system - World Politics, World - The Independent

May Day is the occasion we celebrate the grand achievements of the workers of the world in making our world a far, far better place to live in. There is, unfortunately, not too much to celebrate these days. The past 30 years are littered with battles and skirmishes that have resulted in defeat after defeat for organised labour.

A capitalist class gone rampant has now consolidated its power to command or corrupt almost all the major institutions that regulate the body politic – the political parties (of both left and right), the media, the universities, the law, to say nothing of the repressive state apparatus and international institutions. The democracy of money power now rules. A global plutocracy exerts its will almost everywhere unchallenged.

So what is there to celebrate? We would not, of course, have what we still have now (from pensions to the remnants of reasonable health care and public education) had it not been for the labour movement. But waxing nostalgic over the undoubted achievements and heroism of the past will get us nowhere.

May Day should therefore be about relaunching a revolutionary movement to change the world. The very thought of doing that – even just saying it and writing it down – is as exhilarating as it is astonishing.

Continues at link above.

A Powerful Message on the Broader Context of Birther Racism

The Limits of School Reform - NYTimes.com

Oops, I hit the "blog this" button then the "publish post" button thinking of only the possibility of what I might write about this article.  Lets just leave it at this, the problem of low performing schools is a much broader societal problem.  One of these is of poverty and inequality which is dealt with in this article The Limits of School Reform - NYTimes.

Family Values American Style

Hat tip to Move On and my friend Lucia.