The Ten Commandments: Original Translations

The ten commandments as we know them today are the result of an English translation of a Latin translation of a Hebrew translation of an early Semitic language, and due to the thousands of years and many translations, these immortal words have been a bit skewed from their original meanings. Here, according to biblical scholars here at FIJMU, are their true wordings:

  • Honor thy father and mother.

In the original text, this actually says “Honor all of your elders.”

  • Thou shalt not steal.

More accurately and fully, “Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.”

  • Thou shalt not kill.

This one was more specific in the first texts, explaining, “Never kill another human being, unless they really deserve it.”

  • Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Properly translated, this commandment says simply, “No cutting in line in front of God.”

  • Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Oddly, this one accurately translated means, “Bears are not sufficient witnesses in court, but neighbors are.”

  • Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Literally translated, “That’s my name, don’t wear it out.”

  • Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Often completely altered to fit the morals of the times, this commandment was originally, “Do not leave your spoons right side up in the dishwasher or they will collect water and stain with minerals.”

  • Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

Originally, “Do not reblog God’s selfies.”

  • Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Originally, “Thank God it’s Friday.”

  • Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, wife, or donkey.

The original list of uncovetables in the first copies of the bible was far more exhaustive, stating, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house, nor his wife or donkey, or horses or mule, or camel, nor his chimney, roofing or tile floor, nor shalt thou covet him his money or pottery, or milk cow, or his job or parentage or even his wristwatch, though it be gold and ivory, nor shalt thou ever covet his music collection or his familiarity with Jessica the check-out lady at the Barnes and Noble even though she’s seriously hot and he doesn’t even treat her right, I mean seriously, he’s being a dick to her and you always ask how she’s doing but she still digs him more and smiles really big and what’s up with that because you see her more often, you read way more than Josh does and he only ever reads like self-help crap and she literally saw you reading Dostoyevsky after she was wearing a Brothers Karamazov shirt that one time but he’s the good looking one with his big thick mustache so she’s totally into him not to mention that he’s fucking MARRIED. Nor shall you envy his boat.”

Modern copies of the bible also generally leave off the mysterious and rarely understood eleventh commandment, “Wrap it before you tap it.”

Christianity is an Instruction Manual for Patriarchy

The whole structure of the religion is like, the holy Father who passes his power on to the Son and then there’s also the holy spirit which is present in ~all men~ basically saying that men have access to God’s power. (As a little girl reading the Bible, when you read that, didn’t you ask what about women?)

Mary is the holiest woman ever because God knocked her up and it wasn’t even her choice she just accepted it and dedicated her life to serving him and obeying his wishes. So the best thing a woman can aspire to be is an obedient baby maker who produces a son for the holy father–and he gets the credit for being the ultimate creator, not the woman who actually grows the baby in her physical body, nourishes it with her body. That is taken for granted.

Patriarchy is a family structure within a society where a man marries a woman in order to gain use of her body as a baby making factory for the benefit of his lineage; where the roles of men and women are that the husband is responsible for shaping the moral character of the children while the wife does the manual daily labor around the home and the dirty work of raising the kids. This is male supremacy. This is why women take men’s last names when we get married, as a symbol of ownership. This is why fathers “give away” their daughters at a wedding to the new husband who now owns the wife. The father/husband is the authority on right and wrong and makes the decisions for the family, the wife’s role is to provide the man with children and keep house for him in exchange for basic survival.

Reject patriarchal religion. Reject traditional marriage ceremonies.

Spells, Invocations and Divination: The Ancient History of Magical Grimoires

Grimoires are books containing magic spells and instructions for the making of amulets and talismans, but some of them also contained directions of how to summon and control demons. Their origins date back thousands of years and serve as clues to understand the beliefs held by individuals at different points in our history.

Read more…

geardirector  asked:

Do you think it's reasonable to claim the knowledge that Christianity is false? If so, why?

It is not only reasonable to claim to know that Christianity is false, it is demonstrable and tenable. One can ground this knowledge in facts and evidence, both of which are entirely ignored by Christians. Christians will either claim to have a body of evidence that when scrutinized proves to be anything but or they’ll move the goalposts and change the standard of evidence, so as to qualify what they call evidence and disqualify what opponents call evidence. Some Christians don’t even consider evidence and think of evidence as something diametrically opposed to faith.

Christianity is false for two primary reasons: a) Christianity has no credible evidence of its own b) the evidence against Christianity is insurmountable. I talk about this at length in my book. Some Christians will tout apologetic arguments as evidence. They’ll mention the Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Argument from Fine-Tuning, The Moral Argument, and a number of others. Others will claim, against actual evidence, that creationism or ID are the case. Some will dishonestly claim that modern science confirms Christian revelations and disregard that these revelations have been made to fit their narrative and this, after the fact; this is therefore an ad hoc explanation. “Let there be light” is not talking about the Big Bang at all; one has to wonder why these so-called revelations weren’t made absolutely clear before the advent of modern science. The science doesn’t fit the revelation; the revelation is forced into the keyhole.

When you consider the full gamut of human knowledge, historical, anthropological, scientific, mathematical, and philosophical, the conclusion is inescapable: Christianity is hopelessly false on all fronts. Christianity talks about an afterlife. Given the intimate relation between consciousness and our brains and physical bodies, such a continuation of consciousness is not possible. Add a philosophical discussion on identity or the dubious essentialism which attempts to ground the static picture most have of the self, and the waters become even murkier for Christianity. 

For instance, if heaven is real and we enter this place in a new body and lacking memories of relatives and friends who didn’t enter and, in addition to such memories, lacking traumatic memories, is it safe to say that the you that enters heaven is the you that lived on Earth for x amount of years? A large percentage of philosophers will answer that question with a resounding no and this because we understand that memories help mold us into who we are or think we are. Memories are the foundation of our egos. If you remove some, it is likely that you change an individual at a fundamental level and it is even likelier that they aren’t who they were.

The same with this new body business. Yes, there’s talk of uploading a consciousness into a computer, which is essentially giving that consciousness a new abode. Yet there’s widespread discussion about whether that consciousness retains its identity in such a transfer. This definitely applies to the new body resurrection view. If we receive new bodies upon entering heaven and on some accounts, receive a new body when entering hell, is that consciousness the same one that currently exists? As you can see, Christianity’s view of a person is already mired by a number of issues, all of which are answered with philosophically dubious views and obscure metaphysics.

This same thinking applies to the notion of god becoming man. Muslim and Jewish philosophers starting in the 10th century assaulted this aspect of Christianity. The notion of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being becoming flesh is outrageous. Leave it to a C.S. Lewis admirer to say that this absurdity is precisely what makes it true, a claim which is in itself absurd. This aspect of Christianity hasn’t been revealed at all because no Christian, neither past nor modern, can explain exactly how god became man or, at the very least, explain how such an idea is coherent.

I’ve focused a lot on the philosophical aspects of Christianity. If I were to discuss anthropology, science, and history, this reply will be much longer. Suffice it to say that Christianity is even less tenable on those grounds. History and anthropology render Christianity defenseless, especially with regards to the incongruity between portraits of the historical Jesus and the portrait offered in the Gospels, a portrait that is neither here nor there and one that has led to a number of theological conundrums, e.g., just consider the Christology controversy, a controversy Christians are good at downplaying.

Christianity is false. I say that with full certainty and not even a scintilla of doubt. The amateurs on Tumblr have tried to convince me of otherwise and have failed. I traced their insights to thinkers far more capable than them and have remained unconvinced. The harsh reality is that we will someday die and there’s no way out of that. There’s no afterlife, no new body, no scapegoat that can make us new or “complete the work in us.” The hard truth is that we have to improve our own circumstances, improve our own psychology, carry our own weight, and deal with our own baggage. There is no cross upon which we can cast our doubts, misgivings, misfortunes, and shortcomings. That picture may seem hopeless, but the atheistic view, though nihilistic to some, offers two great insights. 

For one, we are fully accountable for who we are, who we become, and the life we lead. This is much more moral. We don’t have this pretense that we can literally get away with murder so long as we repent. The second insight is that we provide our own lives with meaning and purpose, and we are free to choose how to go about it. We can achieve whatever is within our capacities without the aide of a selectively available god–one that will give the capitalistic Christian a new car or new home and completely ignore the cries of a child being passed around in a sex trafficking ring or the hunger of a child who is impoverished. This was Sartre’s conclusion. 

One may bring up that it’s all for nothing because of the “heat death” of the universe or some other fancy and bleak picture Christians like to paint. My response is that a thing isn’t more preferable because it persists longer than other things. Precisely what makes this life beautiful and worth living is that it’s the only life you know you’ll live, the only life you ever consciously accessed, and it’s temporary. You, your relatives, and all that merits your affection and gaze will someday cease to exist and that is why we should cherish and appreciate who and what we have. If we were eternal and everything was everlasting, we would never appreciate anything, for we would procrastinate on being good parents, good spouses, good partners, good friends, and so on. We would continuously indulge our propensity to leave things undone, leave it for tomorrow. Some day your daughter will go off to college, your son will move out and get married, your pet will pass away, your grandparent will die in their sleep; what better time than now to show them what they mean to you. In a world that never perishes, that time may never come.

Book Overview

Intimate Bonds: Family and Slavery in the French Atlantic by Jennifer L. Palmer

Jennifer Palmer’s Intimate Bonds: Family and Slavery in the French Atlantic offers a new perspective on slavery and gender in the 18th century by including La Rochelle and the west province of Saint-Domingue into an integrative analysis. Palmer’s main contention is a focus on the different forms of intimacy existing between white men and white women as well as free people of color and slaves to illustrate how these ties could be used to push against or strengthen ruling practices, particularly those that monitored racial categorization. Using examples of Rochelais families, often of Protestant extraction, and how their own gender, racial, and economic interests fluctuated in response to slavery and the hardening of racial boundaries, Palmer’s compels the reader to include gender in understanding the shifting views on race, slavery, and family in France and Saint-Domingue. Furthermore, her investigation of slavery in France provides a novel approach.

A particular weakness of Palmer’s analysis, however, lies in the lack of detail pertaining to creole slaves and bossales in terms of plantations and urban slavery in Saint-Domingue. Palmer successfully contextualizes white women as economic agents and slaveholders in colonial society and analyzes their relationships with their slaves and free people of color, but not enough attention is paid to how slaves of African origin and those born in Saint-Domingue related to each other via gender relations, hierarchies, and other bonds of intimacy. A similarly rich examination of intra-slave gender nuances would have made this a fuller text while showing how African influences shaped social formations and structures within the colonial society, not to mention any possible areas of convergence between French Protestant or Roman Catholic social forms. 

1,000+ Syrian "refugees" imported to American cities in last 3 weeks; 99% are Muslim!

1,000+ Syrian “refugees” imported to American cities in last 3 weeks; 99% are Muslim!

External image

Often they are towns, not cities, so the impact is much greater. Source: Over 1,000 Syrians seeded throughout America in last 3 weeks; 99% Muslim « Refugee Resettlement Watch by Ann Corcoran Apparently there is no effort being made to resettle more persecuted Christians from Syria than Obama did last year. 1,069 Syrians have been spread around America in the first three weeks of FY2017. That is…

View On WordPress

Made with WordPress

The New Religion Niamey Dusk and Dust Niger Photo Hugh Ardoin

New Saints are coming with the aura of our mechanical brave new world

The aura may be a discarded tyre but the last will be the first, they said

Like the pie, the writing is in the sky, the threat of an imminent strike that will zap you back to stone age

The latest day saint is marching, his clothes may be in tatters but who cares, he wears his mobile phone around his neck like an amulet

Now, the mobile phone is the new cigarette

Hugh Ardoin Niamey Dusk and Dust Gallery