Category Archives: Uncategorized

On Jordan Peterson, Religion, & Atheism – Part 6, The Moral Atheist Mystification

The Moral Atheist Mystification

<< Previous, Part 5 – The Dostoevsky Distraction

On Atheism

As laid out in part 5, Jordan has his own definition of what an atheist is—an amoral psychopath who has rejected all societal values— and in his example from U, he elaborated on why people who self-identify as atheists are really not; in his mind:

Jordan: “As I said at the beginning, the atheist types act out a religious structure.”

Host: “You have a fascinating part in your book, Jordan, where, addressing atheists, you say you’re simply not an atheist in your actions, and it is your actions that most accurately reflect your religious beliefs. What do you mean by that? Are you saying that no one is really an atheist deep down?”

Jordan: “I didn’t say no one was; I said that most of the people who claim to be atheists aren’t.”

Jordan reiterated this sentiment in PP, in his talk with Matt Dillahunty:

Matt: “You’ve already suggested that despite me sitting here, and having talked about this for decades, that I don’t believe in God, that I actually do because I have a moral code, but my moral code…”

Jordan: “I was more specific, I said it was because you didn’t want to throw Sam off the stage.”

Given that atheists are already considered untrustworthy by many in the general public, and as eloquently stated by Matt in this quote:

“The mindset of what people have about what an atheist is has been poisoned by religious proclamations, we have been denigrated from the pulpit and it has seeped into every aspect of culture right up to the height of intellectual pursuits, and it’s time for that to end,”

it is irresponsible of Jordan to use his large social media following to fuel further misunderstandings with his misleading and distorted assertions which associate atheists with totalitarian psychopaths.

atheist baby

On Abandoning Religion

At odds with his warnings about the abandonment of Christian values leading to social anarchy, are the statistics demonstrating that the least religious countries are also the happiest. (page 13 in the UN World Happiness Report 2016, Chapter 2)

“Though 59% of the world’s population still describe themselves as religious, the proportion has fallen in most parts of the world, and this trend is likely to continue. Where religious belief declines, a new view of ethics emerges. The rules of behaviour are then seen as made by man rather than by God in order to improve the quality of our human life together.

UN World Happiness Report 2016, Chapter 3

Three of Jordan’s colleagues would disagree with his pessimistic outlook on the declining faith and what it bodes for the world.

“Peterson seems to assume that the only alternatives to religious morality are totalitarian atrocities or despondent nihilism.”

Psychology Today, Jordan Peterson’s Flimsy Philosophy of Life

“It is said over and over again by religious conservatives: without faith in God, society will fall apart.

Religion – or so the age-old hypothesis goes – is therefor a necessary glue for keeping society together. And conversely, secularism is a danger to societal well-being.

The correlation is clear and strong: the more secular tend to fare better than the more religious on a vast host of measures, including homicide and violent crime rates, poverty rates, obesity and diabetes rates, child abuse rates, educational attainment levels, income levels, unemployment rates, rates of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy, etc.”

Psychology Today, Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies

Steven Pinker has an entire chapter of his new book, Enlightenment Now, which is dedicated to humanism and its benefits.

On Morality

Jordan is worried atheists—or anti-religious thinkers—want to throw the baby out with the bathwater: not just rejecting the religious texts but ignoring the mythologies that emerged from our psyches, and thus abdicating basic moral values. The series is based on the psychological significance, the “moral of the story,” that’s contained in the some of the passages (if we ignore the not the not-so-moral bits) and so, we are told, keep that accumulated wisdom.

Isaac

“The Bible stories—and I think this is true of fiction in general—is phenomenological. It concentrates on trying to elucidate the nature of human experience.

And so if you know that what the Bible stories, and stories in general, are trying to represent is the structure of the lived experience of conscious individuals, you open up the possibility of a whole different realm of understanding.”

The problem is, the people who believe in the Bible do not understand these stories in the metaphorical way that Jordan feels is important. Just ask Rabbi David Wolpe, who in his 2001 Passover sermon, dared to tell his parishioners that the Exodus story was not grounded in historical fact. As one can imagine, the more conservative Jews and Christians lost their collective minds.

Jew

How dare this honest theologian desecrate one of the most cherished beliefs of the Judeo-Christian tradition by using…dare I use the word, facts. As Jordan would appreciate, the point Rabbi Wolpe was trying to make was that the story contains a message of hope in times of suffering, and that is the psychologically significant take away. But, the light at the end of the tunnel sermon, well, that did not  go over well with the traditionalists who want to preserve their beliefs in the historical accuracy of the Bible as an anchor for their faith.

There are plenty of other meaningful parables in the world from which we can draw moral sustenance and keep us on the straight and narrow path, so we can safely dispense with the Bible and all its collective baggage, and, I think, not wind up in a dystopian hell on Earth.

As the unofficial atheist mantra goes: we are good without God.

On Nihilism

During the conversation between between Jordan and Susan in U, Jordan continued to peddle his nihilistic warnings, and it is clear he is either obtuse or just not listening in this interaction:

Susan: “Nothing matters, it’s all empty and meaningless. This is how the world is, get used to it, get on with it…”

Jordan: “The first part the first part of that is nihilistic and the second part isn’t.”

This outlook is only nihilistic from a Nietzschean perspective, which, Jordan admittedly is; but, Susan is very clearly using this phrase in the Buddhist way. Even the host commented on this fact just before Jordan interrupted. The Buddhist (Mahayana, of which Zen is a subset) meaning is in no way nihilist, but freeing and uplifting.

Monk email

Capital L life has no meaning. We, individuals, create meaning, which, Susan pointed out just after the above quote; but, life, in and of itself is, has no meaning. So, get on with it.

Return to main article >>

Video References:

Biblical Series I (BS1): Introduction to the Idea of God, (transcript)

Biblical Series II (BS2): Genesis 1: Chaos & Order, (transcript)

Pangburn Philosophy (PP): An Evening With Matt Dillahunty & Jordan Peterson

Unbelievable (U): Jordan Peterson vs Susan Blackmore • Do we need God to make sense of life?

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The Vatican: Thou Shalt Not Lie!

I stumbled across this—I hesitate to use the word—documentary from CNN about the bishop of Rome, called, Pope: The Most Powerful Man in History.

I have heard late night pundits and comedians repeatedly bashing CNN for their lack of serious journalism, and since I do not watch CNN, I had no reference on which to judge these claims; until now. The complete lack of any unbiased reporting came shining through in this puff piece that presents nothing but self-aggrandizing Vatican propaganda and rhetoric about itself.

Pope Donald

This presentation was so one-sidedly slanted in favor of the Church’s self-proclaimed supremacy, that it made me think if the Vatican was a person, it would be Donald Trump: “I am tremendous, just absolutely tremendous. Look at all things I take credit for. My detractors? Fake news, fake news!”

I lost count of the consummate lies, and blatant lies of omission, within the first few minutes. For the sake of brevity—and this is still going to be too long—I will focus on a few major misrepresentations that occurred within just the first twenty minutes, going into detail on why each is wrong.

The show begins with the Church’s claim to primacy, based on its ties to Simon Peter, compounding fabrications and half-truths with the outright lie about how other cities were, from the start, subordinate to Rome. They even go so far as to display graphics showing all ties leading to Rome, if you will pardon the paraphrasing.

“What began with one apostle, has become 1.2 billion followers under one man.”

“World’s first pope…”

“Because Rome is the capital and the center of the empire, the bishop of Rome becomes the leader of the other bishops.”

I will break down why Peter was not the first bishop of Rome, and how the Vatican has perpetuated this lie for centuries as the foundation of their primacy.

Deconstruction #1: The Vatican stakes its claim from the verse in Matthew 16:17-19, highlighted in bold:

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

As the renowned biblical scholar, Geza Vermes, pointed out in The Authentic Gospel of Jesus:

“The promise made to Simon, known as Peter, is the only passage in the Gospels where Jesus speaks of establishing a church. Also, whereas Peter is regularly depicted as the senior member or leader of the inner circle of Jesus, it is here alone that he is presented as the foundation stone of the community which was created by Jesus…

… The episode of Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ is contained in all three Synoptic Gospels, but his appointment to be the rock does not figure in either Mark or Luke. Their silence on something as important as Peter’s nomination as head of the [church] strongly intimates that Matthew 16:17-19 must be a secondary accretion. The lack of any mention of the church in the other Gospels, including John, also points in the same direction. In short, the words about Peter’s promotion should be credited not to Jesus, but to Matthew or his editor in AD 80 or later.”

A further clue for scholars that this passage was a secondary insertion, is that verses 17-19 break up the flow of the surrounding text. Reading verses 15-16 and 20, non-bold, it becomes clear that these verses flow together without the clumsy addition of the foundation of a church.

Deconstruction #2: There was no Church, nor any leader, in Rome until the second century.

As Professor Bart Ehrman stated in Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene:

“We have two writings from Christians who actually resided in Rome. Both attest to a situation in which the Roman church was not under the leadership of a single individual, the bishop…

… It was only with the passage of time that the Christian churches developed the hierarchical structures that came to characterize their organization by the end of the second century…. Eventually these churches would band together to make common cause. And when they did so, they appointed leaders who would be in charge of all the communities found throughout the city. But this was a development that did not transpire until the middle of the second century. Peter, in short, could not have been the first bishop of the church of Rome, because the Roman church did not have anyone as its bishop until about a hundred years after Peter’s death.”

First Pontiff

Deconstruction #3: Rome was not the head of all other bishoprics.

Firstly, Christianity—at least what it morphed into—has always been a creation of the Greek world, not the Romans. Paul was a Roman citizen, and he preached extensively throughout the Greek-speaking, eastern half of the empire, as evidenced by the epistles he penned to the communities in Corinth, Galatia, and Thessaly. Additionally, Antioch (Turkey) and Alexandria (Egypt) were the leading centers of the Christian world, not Rome, until they were conquered by the Muslims in the seventh century.

Secondly, the bishop of Rome did not rise in importance until after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, due to the power vacuum created in the wake of this upheaval, when Gelasius donned the red shoes and asserted his claim to primacy, and reasserted by Gregory the Great another hundred years later. The revisionist history of Rome as the center of the Christian world is nothing but a delusional fantasy, spawned from the shifting socio-political realities in the Eastern and Western spheres of the sixth and seventh centuries. One could be considered impolite for so impudently pointing out that Rome came rather late to the party, so many hundreds of years after the time of Jesus and Simon Peter.

Thirdly, all the major Ecumenical Councils of the fourth and fifth centuries—predating the serendipitous elevation of the bishops of Rome by almost 200 years—were held in Greek cities, and leading to the next major lies presented as fact.

Fast-forwarding 300 years, and glossing over all the inconvenient truths listed above, the show jumps to Constantine the Great and his impacts on Christianity.

“One of his first official acts as the first Christian emperor of Rome is to issue the Edict of Milan. This not only makes Christianity legal, but favored.”

Deconstruction #4: This is just flat-out wrong. The Edict of Milan, despite the claims of the Church, did not make Christianity favored, nor the established religion of the empire; it merely extended Christians protection from being persecuted. Christianity did not become the official state religion for another 67 years, under Theodosius.

“Constantine, by legalizing Christianity, opened up a space where the bishop of Rome could become a permanent fixture on both the spiritual and political scene.”

Deconstruction #5: As already pointed out above, this is just more revisionist history, with absolutely zero basis in reality. The Greek-speaking half of Christendom was the center of authority, and it would remain so for another 300 years. Constantine’s edict has nothing whatsoever to do with strengthening Rome’s clout; indeed, he moved the capital to Constantinople.

“The hierarchy of clergy under bishops who reported to the bishop of Rome had been working well; but, now with Constantinople acting as a second capital, there is a second bishop who believes that he should be in charge.”

Deconstruction #6: From Constantinople, a further 12 years after issuing the Edict of Milan, Constantine called the first major Ecumenical Council, the Council of Nicaea, in 325. Continuing to refute the Vatican’s penchant for playing fast and loose with the truth, this Council amply demonstrates just how unimportant Rome, and the Latin churches, were in the grand scheme. Of the roughly 300 bishops who attended, only 5 were from Latin-speaking, western churches, and, strangely, counter to the Vatican’s self-appointed status as the big man on campus, the bishop of Rome was not one of them.

“Constantine gives Romans a political and financial incentive to convert to Christianity. He gives Christians tax breaks and makes churches tax exempt.”

Deconstruction #7: In a brazen lie of omission, or at least a bending of the truth that would impress a yoga master, the fact that Constantine bribed the dissenting bishops at the Council of Nicaea with tax breaks was completely overlooked.

Gregory of Nazianzus, Archbishop of Constantinople, also known as Gregory the Theologian, a Cappadocian Father and a Doctor of the Church, commenting on the subsequent turmoil in the post-Council years, remarked:

“The pretext was souls, but in fact it was desire for control, control, I hesitate to say it, of taxes and contributions which have the whole world in miserable confusion.”

And the biggest bald-faced lie:

“As Rome falls, and Constantinople flourishes, much of the Church’s terminology becomes Greek instead of Latin.”

As pointed out in Deconstruction #3, the Church had always been dominated by the Greeks from its earliest days. This statement also completely ignores the fact that all four Gospels were written in Greek. Where the producers came up with this perception of the Roman Church as poor victims of an unfortunate change in circumstance, to have made such a ridiculously stupid and easily refutable claim, is beyond me. Many of the words still in use today, ecclesia, presbyter, etc., are Greek terms, and started out that way, they did not shift from Latin after the transfer of power to Constantinople.

Keeping up with this pattern of omitting inconvenient facts, the show also completely jumped over the schism which has kept the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches separate since 1054. This break—doctrinal, temporal, and spiritual—further cemented Rome’s unchallenged rise to preeminence in the West, and has allowed them to control the narrative, and spin their own legend, ever since.

Here endeth the sermon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hell… is other people

This weekend I watched Netflix’s new docu-drama, Come Sunday, about the true story of an evangelical preacher who comes to the realization that hell is not only a false doctrine, but that it’s emotionally harmful.

What resonated for me in this presentation, was just how viscerally the congregation responded to their pastor’s epiphany when he stood up in the pulpit for his next sermon and dropped this little bombshell. Completely ignorant of the history of the doctrines they have whole-hardheartedly believed their entire lives, the parishioners reacted with overt hostility to this new information which ran counter to their brainwashing. You would think they might be relieved to hear that hell is a fiction of the early church; alas, no. People are strange creatures, and anything new, truthful or not, that contradicts a deeply held worldview, is perceived as a threat.

LizDuring my own debate with a Baptist preacher (2016) on this very topic, I was asked, “Are there any people of faith I do respect?” Sure, the ones who are honest about all the nonsense that has become blindly accepted as truth in religious doctrine. I can now add Carlton Pearson to that list, along with retired Bishop John Spong, who said:

Religion is always in the control business… It’s in the guilt-producing, control business… And so, they create this fiery place, which has, quite literally, scared the hell out of a lot people throughout Christian history; and it’s part of a control tactic.

Recently, the Pope was (mis?)quoted as stating that hell doesn’t exist. One overlooked tidbit in the Vatican’s spin control, was this quote:

There’s nowhere in Catholic teaching that actually says any one person is in hell. ~ Cardinal Vincent Nichols

While Catholic doctrine states hell is a literal place, honest Catholic priests will tell you they are not required to believe anyone is actually there.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Misogyny in Atheism

He saidLast week I got immersed in what turned into an acrimonious online discussion about the so-called misogyny problem within atheist circles. The debate was spawned after a fellow atheist friend posted this article on growing alt-right extremism within atheism, and I took exception to some of the comments which followed.

The point being put forward in the comments, in a nutshell, was that fewer women are involved in atheism due to the prevalence of misogyny, based solely on anecdotal hearsay. The comments were from activist women, and words/phrases like bulwark, harbouring, toxic masculinity, and gaslighting were being tossed around. I won’t digress into how they were misappropriating these terms from their actual meanings to reinforce their own worldview.

Just because women are underrepresented in atheist communities, doesn’t mean that misogyny is the reason for this trend. Considering these are people active in the skeptic and free-thinking community, I asked, “Where’s your evidence that atheism has become a ‘bulwark of misogyny’ that is ‘harbouring toxic masculinity’?”

Pointing out that they were conflating correlation with causality did not go over well. Well, of course, as a white male, how dare I question the validity of feminist claims? I must obviously be “privileged” and the inevitable attempts to shame me into silence began, because I am supposed to feel guilty over this radical left-wing tool called “Western male patriarchy.

Yes there’s been brutality, but the brutality is in the minority. This sick portrayal of human history as nothing but male oppression and female victimage, this is a way to permanently ensure the infantilization of women. ~ Camille Paglia

Indeed, there is little (no?) evidence that misogyny is rampant within the atheist community. That is not to say that there are not isolated incidents of inappropriate conduct happening; and, of course, it should be remedied immediately when it is encountered. But, isolated incidents of boorish behaviour do not a systemic problem make, no matter how deeply such feelings of truthiness may be held.

Skeptic icon, Jerry Coyne, himself weighed in on this topic, stating in the article “Another plaint about sexism-ridden New Atheism” on his blog:

This self-categorization has no clear connection to misogyny. Remember, the thesis is not that women are innately less atheistic, but that they are, because of misogyny, less likely to be members of atheist groups. . . .

. . .The anecdotes are just that—anecdotes. There is no random interviewing or surveying of women to see if they’re staying out of atheist organizations because of sexism, nor any controls about the pervasiveness of sexism in atheism versus other endeavors like antiracism or politics.

As one of the original poster’s friends commented: “If you are a racist, or misogynist, it’s not because you are an atheist. It’s because you are just an idiot. Stop blaming atheism.”

He’s right. This is the same argument that theists use in relation to murderous dictators: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, et al, were atheists; ergo, atheism leads to genocide. It would be nice if theists, and feminist atheists, would desist from mixing two wholly unrelated issues and branding them as the same. Rational thinking is the hallmark of the free-thought movement—let’s see some exercised.

The atheist movement has been at the forefront of campaigning hard against religious oppression of women, homosexuality, and a host of other outdated ways of thinking. We, by and large, are for freedom in all its forms, and wholeheartedly support women’s rights. So, let’s not tarnish the whole movement because of a few bad apples.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Grief & Non-belief

grief

How does a person cope with grief when they don’t believe in a higher power or the afterlife? This was a question I was forced to confront recently, after losing a close friend.

Some people turn to food, drugs, and/or alcohol to bury their pain; which, is not physically or mentally healthy, or something I would do, anyway. Nor, do I believe in God or, consequently, that my friend is floating on a white cloud and we’ll meet up again someday—something I heard a lot of from well-meaning friends. Stunned, and in mourning, I struggled for days without any of the traditional comforts available to most people.

While I understand the powerful placebo effect which a belief in the afterlife provides to many people, this is simply not an option to ease the pain for those of us who have no such belief. The normal platitudes do not soothe atheist grief, because they ring false in our ears.

Part of the pain was caused by how suddenly my friend was taken. He was a healthy, middle-aged man, who exercised and drank moderately, if at all. Less than forty-eight hours before his death, we stayed up late talking—one of life’s little coincidences I am very thankful for providing—and he told me how great he was feeling lately: more energy, improved mood. A blood clot changed all that; and he never regained consciousness so that his family and friends could tell him how much he meant to us, and that we were all pulling for his recovery.

What I did realize, was that I was grateful for the memories and the time I did have with my friend; especially that last conversation. I recognized and acknowledged that, along with all his other loved ones, I was in pain and that I just need to be with that pain for a while. I chose to let the pain remind me that I was still alive, that I can reach out to other friends in my life and say the things left unsaid with those already gone.

I appreciate that this strategy might not, and probably will not, work for others; but, it might just help one or two other like-minded people who find themselves in this situation. Atheists, despite popular misconceptions to the contrary, are not evil people and we feel pain just like everyone else. When thoughts of an afterlife in the company of a benign deity will not provide consolation, then, maybe, the realization that we had those brief moments of friendship with those who touched our lives in the first place, might bring some comfort. Because, that’s all that life is, a series of moments.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Easter Nonsense

It’s that time of year again, when Christians celebrate god sacrificing himself to himself to save mankind from himself.  Let’s look at some of the insanity behind it all.

The timing of Easter tracks with (or used to, at least) Passover, another celebration of the Abrahamic god’s apparent bloodlust. The Exodus story tied to the Passover celebration is a myth, with no basis in historical reality. What’s even more bizarre to any person with a conscience and an iota of critical thinking, is the Jewish commemoration of an event in which a cruel and indiscriminate god murders innocent Egyptian children. To compound all the nonsense, the Passover observation wasn’t even original to the slavery myth, but was an ancient festival appropriated by Judahite propagandists:

This celebration is found only in the Priestly source. Just as P grounded the Sabbath in the creation story, so it grounds the Passover in the story of the exodus. The Passover was probably originally a rite of spring, practiced by shepherds. In early Israel it was a family festival. . . . The celebration was changed by the reform of King Josiah in 621 B.C.E. into a pilgrimage festival, to be celebrated at the central sanctuary (Jerusalem) and was combined with the Festival of Unleavened Bread.

~ John. J. Collins, A Short Introduction to the Hebrew Bible

Easter, then, builds off the Passover feast, which, as most Christians overlook, was the Last Supper. John 13, however, puts the Last Supper a day earlier, in order to cast Jesus in the starring role as the sacrificial lamb of Passover.

Emperor Constantine, at the Council of Nicaea in 325 (where the Trinity Doctrine was proclaimed orthodox in addition to the other bullshit which follows), made the extremely intolerant comment:

It is unbecoming that on the holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews; henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people.

This from the guy Christian propagandists claim made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire when he signed the Edict of Milan in 313, ironically an edict of religious toleration, which put a stop to the Diocletian persecution of Christians.

And so, Passover and Easter were forever decoupled; and human memory being short-term and highly selective, many Christians fail to recognize the original connection.

Moving on, the resurrection stories in the four Gospels don’t even gel in their respective accounts. Go figure, the Bible is inconsistent; who would have thought? The accounts differ in who went to the tomb, who they met, and what happened after.

Mark originally ends at 16:8, with the women (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome) fleeing in terror:

[T]hey saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.” So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

One wonders, if the women said nothing, how did the tale spread? Scholars believe the remainder of the verses in Mark 16 were added by a later editor to correct this blatant oversight.

In Matthew, the women are Mary Magdalene and the other Mary—what the hell happened to Salome?—and this time, it’s an angel, not a young man, who greets them. The women go and tell the disciples, then Jesus appears, and they go back to Galilee where Jesus appears again

In Luke, the women aren’t even named, and it’s not one man they meet, it’s two. The women go and tell the disciples, who don’t believe the story, so Peter goes to the tomb to see for himself, but then just goes home and says nothing.

In John, Mary Magdalene goes alone, sees the stone is moved and runs to get Peter and John (the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved). They didn’t understand what they saw, so they just went home. Then, Mary Magdalene is greeted by two angels . . . and Jesus.

To top off all the Gospel inconsistencies, is the sheer impossibility of resurrection, or as Celsus put it in the second century:

But we must examine this question whether anyone who really died ever rose again with the same body . . . But who saw this? A hysterical female, as you say, and perhaps some other one of those who were deluded by the same sorcery, who either dreamt in a certain state of mind and through wishful thinking had a hallucination due to some mistaken notion (an experience which has happened to thousands), or, which is more likely, wanted to impress others by telling this fantastic tale, and so by this cock-and-bull story to provide a chance for other beggars.

I will let draw your own conclusions as to the magnitude of the last two thousand years of Western history being shaped by the delusion of a hysterical woman. Fast forward to today with chocolate bunnies and coloured eggs. What the hell, enjoy the long weekend!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Mythology of Christmas

PowerPoint Presentation – Mythology of Christmas

mary-and-joseph

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized