Author: Dwight Lyman

  • Forbidden Apples

    Forbidden Apples

    Sistine Chapel, fresco Michelangelo,

    “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” is not God’s way. We learn this from Genesis. We learn it as we observe naked Eve and Adam wandering about blissfully in God’s garden of Eden. In that self-same garden God placed the serpent, and allowed it not just to be seen but to be heard as it spoke its words of deception. God never warned Adam and Eve about the snake. Never told them not to associate with it. Never prepared them for the ideas the snake might present. Not a bit of “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” in God’s garden.

    God was quite willing to let the snake have its say: its beguiling promise that Adam and Eve could become god-like. God didn’t even offer a rebuttal. He let evil have its say without response.

    Not surprising, therefore, that two innocents like our naked Eve and Adam fell head first for the serpents’s guile.

    We call it guile, evil. But in fact the serpent did not lie.

    “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” he asked Eve.

    “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden,” she replied, “but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

    “You will not die,” replied the snake, truthfully.

    Not only did Eve touch the tree without dying, she even plucked an apple. And ate it.

    The serpent had more truth to shared with Eve, “God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

    And so it was.

    But if our naked pair knew nothing of good and evil before eating the apple, how could either be expected to recognize evil in the snake’s simple statements? Like a fool, God left them unprepared for the serpent’s apparent honesty. At the one moment when his presence in the garden was most needed, God was absent.

    Despite divine omniscience, he was unaware of the perfidy going on below.

    Michelangelo Bounarotti - The Fall and Expulsi...
    Michelangelo Bounarotti – The Fall and Expulsion of Adam and Eve – detail (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

    “When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.”

    Lacking as yet the ability to distinguish good from evil, Eve cannot be blamed for her mistake. Without a knowledge of good and evil, she could not be expected to recognize even the goodness of God.

    The same for Adam, who we are told ate of the fruit only because his lovely and innocent wife offered it him. Genesis simply tells us, “she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.” No conversation between serpent and Adam reported here—not that it mattered. The man had no more ability to distinguish good from evil, truth from falsity, than the woman.

    “Then the eyes of both were opened,” just as the snake had promised.

    Suddenly the ability to know and recognize evil flooded their minds. We must ask, what evil did they thus so suddenly recognize? It was not the serpent. It was not the apple tree, nor its apples.

    It was their nakedness.

    Why, we must ask, were their naked bodies evil?

    Why did God create and breathe life into two naked humans and declare them good—if in fact they were evil? Did he not want them to know?

    Is that why he told them not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? To protect them from learning of his mistake?

    Did God mess up, and try to hide it? Did the real perfidy come from God?

    At the least, we must question his divine wisdom. For earlier we learned that “God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man that he had formed.” Yet God sabotaged his own plan by planting two inappropriate trees: “the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,”—we are explicitly told this in Genesis 2:9.

    Why did God tempt fate? How reckless of him, to do so knowing the snake was about. Knowing as well the inability of the two naked creatures he created to distinguish good from evil, or know truth from falsehood.

    God had only himself to blame for the consequences.

    Two naked beings ate of the pleasant-seeming tree of knowledge and—just as the snake promised—their eyes were opened. They became like Gods, knowing good and evil.

    They had eaten of one special tree, but don’t forget: there was another, the tree of life. They had not yet eaten of it, but surely it would not be long before they would do so. This thought raised God’s alarm like nothing else had.

    “Then the Lord God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever—’”

    Plate depicting Adam and Eve, maiolica, from U...
    Plate depicting Adam and Eve, maiolica, from Urbino, Italy, mid 16th century. On display at the California Palace of the Legion of Honor in San Francisco. 1991.40.13.2 See also File:Worcester plate CPLH 1991.40.13-1.JPG (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

    God could not even finish the sentence. The idea was too alarming.

    Immediately God drove Adam and Eve from the garden. But that was not enough—”and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim , and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.”

    The message in the story of Genesis is obvious. It goes like this—

    God wanted us in the garden of Eden. We know it because he designed the garden for us and then put us there. Deliberately. We also know that despite recklessly planting the tree of knowledge and tree of life in the midst of the graden, God did not want us to eat of them. He did not want us to become like himself knowing good and evil. Nor did he want us to live forever.

    Genesis is very clear about this.

    And yet, there is one character in this story who encourages us to eat what is forbidden—the serpent, who tells us that if we do so we can become god-like, acquiring both knowledge and eternal life. Beguiled, we eat from one of the trees, and God becomes alarmed. Adamant that we should not have eternal life, God banishes us from the garden and sets a special guard to prevent us from living forever.

    Perhaps after all God has our best interest at heart. Perhaps he does not. Either way, God is said to be our maker, and the story ends with his determination to prevent us from reaching eternity.

    What about the serpent? We are not told the serpent’s opinion, but we do not need to be told. We know that if given the chance, the serpent would offer us fruit from the tree of life, just as he did with the tree of knowledge. We know that he would tell us its fruit is sweet, that if we eat our eyes will be opened once again, that we can become god-like and live forever. Eternity can be ours. We can join God!

    In all the Old Testament, the serpent is the only one who promises us the heavens, who offers to us a God-like existence. Nowhere else in that book is any promise of eternity to be found.

    For Christianity, this is a problem. Seeing it plainly laid out before us, the discontinuity of the New Testament with the Old becomes glaring.

    Behold the Saviour of the World
    Behold the Saviour of the World (Photo credit: Lawrence OP)

    Suddenly in the Gospels we see that the serpent has returned, that he has taken the form of Jesus.

    Like the snake, Jesus offers us eternity.

    Like the snake, Jesus says “eat of the tree of life.”

    Eat, and so live forever.

    The serpent has returned in the garb of a savior.

  • Sex and Weddings

    marriage
    marriage (Photo credit: Nathan Congleton)

    I’ve always been surprised—okay, not surprised, but aware—at the extent to which sex is missing from marriage ceremonies. You find the presenter or priest or officiator of the ceremony talking a lot about love and marriage, but usually never mentioning sex at all.

    When one considers that marriage is the bonding of two people for the purpose of sexual reproduction (or at least sexual fidelity), it seems a glaring omission.

    Why is discussion of this central core of marriage missing from our ceremonies—why is sex hidden at weddings? The answer is simple, I think. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and the official in charge is almost always a representative of one of the major world religions, most often Christian or Muslim. And our major religions have an incredible amount of antipathy towards sexuality.

    Which in my book casts them as evil and anti-­human. People who don’t copulate can’t be trusted. And people who copulate but think it “dirty” or “undignified” have feelings that can be trusted even less. There is something poisoned and unhealthy about them.

    No doubt the poison comes from religion. Christianity and Islam can never be condemned enough for the despicable outlook they bring to sexuality. They reek of memes which are cancerous. They have reeked for centuries.

    If the dominant religions had their way, no one would feel any connection at all between sex and love. The twain would never—or almost never—meet. Sex would be dirty, debased and animalistic, and love would be cerebral and angelic. I can’t imagine anything more anti­-life, more inhuman than such a split.

    Marriage is a physical bond between two people who have built a house of sex between themselves—who have found their sexual home in each other.

    But our sex-­hating religions can’t admit that. They want marriage to be mental—the joining of two pure minds, the mingling of souls.

    They wish marriage could be bodiless, just as they wish life could be bodiless. Which is nothing but self-­hatred, since bodies is what we are and must be.

    In real life, splitting sex from love has bad consequences. In the worst outcomes, it leads to rape and the murder of women. But even in mild cases it results in a bit of self-loathing. Splitting sex from love necessarily splits feeling from body. It disembodies our feelings. It alienates our bodies.

    I will never forgive Christianity for hating sex. Nor will I forget that the hatred of sex issues directly from hatred of the body. I will neither forgive nor forget that Christianity and Islam and all the others stinking religions want us to be as divorced from the body as possible.

    They worship nonexistence. If anything in this world is evil, the worship of nonexistence must fit the description.

    In marriage ceremonies they pass this evil attitude on to our children. A wedding ought to be all about celebrating the sexual home two people have found in each other, but instead the occasion is used to hide sex. The minister or priest shouts about ethereal love (or worse, God’s love) while pretending sex has nothing to do with it. They thereby send a very clear message to our children that sex is a totally separate thing from love, that the two don’t go together.

    The subtle message is that sex is off-­scene, if not obscene (which actually means the same thing as off-­scene), and its place is outside of marriage. Subtly the message sent to all of us is that sex is extramarital. Of course when sex crops up outside of marriage—exactly where religious people have pushed it—they cry adultery and sin. Yet their message all along has been that marriage is really not about sex but about love, not about bodies but about eternal minds.

    The problem, you see, is that sex exposes their falsity. Sexual passion is the trump which makes it plain that we exist for pleasure, and that pleasure is inherently bodily. Sex tells us that we are indeed animals, that biological evolution uncovers both our intimate history and our ultimate nature. Tells us that our home is not heaven but here on planet earth coupled together, having sex.

    We are biological beings. We are body beings. If we bring this fact into our wedding ceremonies, making marriage a celebration of sexuality and sexual coupling, if we make marriage sexual again, then we send the message to ourselves and our children that sex and love are not divorced, and neither are bodies and minds.

    It is the beginning of self-healing. And sanity.

  • Can You Be More Wrong Than This?

    At the end of the year 1858, the president of the Linnean Society of London—the preeminent scientific society in England at the time—summed up the year in science as follows:

    1858 has not, indeed, been marked by any of those discoveries which at once revolutionize, so to speak, the department of science in which they occur. —Thomas Bell

    Six months earlier on July 1, 1858, Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace’s ground-breaking papers introducing the concept of Natural Selection to the world were presented at a meeting of this very same Linnean Society.

    Maybe the president of the Society was absent that day.

  • Satanism Identified

    Title page of Wikisource:en:The suppressed Gos...
    Title page of Wikisource:en:The suppressed Gospels and Epistles of the original New Testament of Jesus the Christ, a text over 100 years old (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

    Lucifer’s original sin was wanting to be equal to God. And the greatest temptation humans face is the same: wanting to be equal to God. What is the desire for immortality but exactly this?

    According to Christians, God gave us a choice. In the Garden of Eden, Christians like to point out, we disobeyed God and ate of the tree of knowledge. We did so because the serpent tempted us with the idea that we could become like gods.

    And what, according to Genesis, was the result? It was that God became alarmed. He feared that we really would become like gods, so He kicked us out of the Garden. Most importantly, God put up guards (Cheribim with a flaming sword) to keep us away from the Tree of Life—which had we eaten of it would have given us eternal life in Heaven, would have made us really, truly like gods.

    So, if you are someone who takes the Bible seriously, if you believe the Garden of Eden story in Genesis is true (either literally or figuratively), then intellectual honesty compels you to admit that God does not want us to obtain eternal life. If you are honest, you will admit this.

    But the “New” Testament, which got tacked onto the Old Testament by Christians centuries later, is all about promising us eternal life in Heaven. In other words, Christianity promises what God forbade!

    You will note that the words “Jesus” and “Christ” appear nowhere in the Old Testament. If Jesus was to be part of God’s word, why not mention the name there? Why didn’t God say, “There’ll be another Testament coming later on about my son Jesus Christ”?

    He didn’t. It’s not there.

    So the honest conclusion is that God knew nothing about Jesus Christ when He wrote the Original Testament. Why not? Isn’t God perfect? Does God not know the future?

    No, the reason is simple: God had nothing to do with the New Testament.

    And why would we expect otherwise? The New Testament tells us how we can eat from the tree of Eternal life and so live forever, something which is anathema to the original word of God.

    English: Icon of Jesus Christ
    English: Icon of Jesus Christ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)al Life, which goes directly against God’s word in Genesis.

    So, if you’re following what I’m saying, you’ll see that in Genesis it is the serpent who falsely promises us that we can have the knowledge of the gods, and in Genesis it is God Himself who prevents us from obtaining eternal life. But in Christianity, with its pretended “New” Testament, we find Jesus Christ—like the serpent of Eden—promising us once again that we can “be as gods,” that we can eat fruit which God has denied.

    Have I made it plain enough? Christianity is the devil’s religion. It is a religion in open rebellion against the wishes of God.

  • The Frogs

    The Frogs

    frog
    frog (Photo credit: =[ haixy ]= right here)

    When Peter was fifteen his grandmother had given him a pair of frogs.

    “I know how you love animals, so I ordered you a frog aquarium for your birthday,” she told him.

    And it was true Peter did love animals.  Over the years he had a succession of pets: dog and cat of course, but also turtle, snake, rabbit, hamster—always one of each until the rats. The rats were supposed to both be females, but that turned out not to be the case. He separated them, but Romeo escaped from his cage and impregnated Juliett through the mesh of her cage, and suddenly Peter found himself with eight naked hairless little rat babies. He managed to give away all but one of the babies, mostly to girls at school who found the baby rats irresistibly cute and the idea of a rat for a pet enticing.

    The frog aquarium did not come with frogs. But it came with a coupon with which to order a pair of tadpoles. When the tadpoles arrived in the mail Peter dutifully prepared their home, and over the next few weeks watched them grow into frogs. Every other week or so he would pour out their old dingy water and replace it with carefully prepared water which he had de-flourided—tap water with little “rocks” added and allowed to sit for twelve hours.

    One day when he arrived home from school he saw that the male frog had climbed onto the back of the female and was fiercely clutching her with what looked like a wrestler’s death-grip around her stomach. The female tried clumsily to swim, while the male seemed determined to prevent her from moving around in the water.

    Peter took the straw from his drink and attempted to separate the two frogs. Then it hit him: they were copulating!

    If they were having sex, it was quite passive. Peter could not detect any “thrusting action” of the sort he would have expected on the part of the male. He was merely clutched firmly onto the female’s back, conjoined but otherwise motionless. For her part the female propelled her legs in a swimming motion—perhaps in a feeble attempt to knock him off?

    They continued in this position while Peter completed his homework. He turned on some music and watched them, wondering how long they would “do it.”

    When Peter returned from supper, the frogs were still in mating position. “They must be trying to set the record for sexual intercourse,” he thought.

    The frogs were still copulating the next morning, and when he returned from school (where he had bragged about the frogs olympian endurance to his friends) he went immediately to the frog aquarium. Amazingly, the male was still mounted on the female frog as if they had never stopped.

    They continued like this the rest of the week, all weekend, and the following week too. At first Peter watched, voyeuristically, for half an hour or more at a time, never detecting any sexual “action,” just the male clutching the female from his position on top, apparently content to have his erect penis embedded forever in the female. For her part the female would periodically propel them through the water with her powerful rear legs, including up to the surface for air or perhaps food. Peter began to wonder if her leg thrusts caused muscular contraction around the male’s penis.

    Toad Sex [3]
    Toad Sex [3] (Photo credit: MDrX)

    It seemed strange to Peter. In the wild, he thought, prolonged sex like this would surely have made the frogs unacceptably vulnerable to predators. Why did they copulate for so long? Did he do it to prevent other male frogs from having the opportunity to fertilize her eggs? But there were no other males in the little world of the frog aquarium, obviously.

    As Peter pondered this, he wondered what it felt like for the male, clutched like that against the female, penis enclosed in her body as if it had become a way of life. It had to be pleasureable—otherwise why keep it up for such a ridiculously long time? Days, weeks beyond what was biologically necessary. Peter felt guilty watching them. Yet it was strangely fascinating. He couldn’t resist.

    Day after day he would come home from school and see them still coupled, until how long it had continued became a blur. Had it been two weeks now? or three? more? He no longer remembered.

    And then one day it was over. The water had gotten quite dirty. Peter had not wanted to change it while the frogs were so occupied, but had done so once anyway. And the frogs had stayed coupled throughout that ordeal. Now he changed the water again.

    The male frog did not survive for long after mating with the female. For her part, the female frog survived another year and a half. There were never any baby tadpoles, but most likely because Peter had so dutifully changed their water. Whatever eggs were laid would have gone into the toilet.

    Once during this “frog time” Peter was with a couple of friends—Cindy and Cory. They had gone to a movie together, a matinée, and afterwards wandered over to a park. As they sat on a picnic table talking and joking, Peter suddenly wondered what it would be like to clutch Cindy like some mad male frog, clutching and copulating with her as if that alone was their way of life. They would be facing each other of course, unlike frogs or other animals, forced to look at each other’s eyes while the eternal clutching took place. To be embedded in her like the frog—not thrusting, but wordlessly together, conjoined, bodies doing their silent instinctive thing, while he looked her directly in the eyes and said—what?

    What could he say? What could she say? What thoughts would run through their minds? How could their minds put up with this “indignity” of copulating for days on end?

    He would love her, he thought. But somehow all the love he could imagine feeling as he faced her in this frog-reality seemed shallow and fleeting. Surface stuff. While their passive frog bodies instinctively and fundamentally underrode everything they thought or might think.

    Peter realized that if he loved Cindy—and he wondered if he ever could—it would be on the level of their likes and aversions, their individual personal preferences for things, the compatibility of their thoughts and personalities. They would be drawn together by mutual jokes and experiences, a sort of happy mixing and meshing of their thoughts as individuals. They would love each other because they liked the same bands, the same music, the same food, the same comedians, the same internet videos.

    The frogs showed him the possibility of something far more physical and fundamental, a connection that made human love look like only a glint of light on the surface. The frogs sexual connection occurred deep in the water; it was biologically fundamental.

    Could he, Peter, ever be biologically fundamental with Cindy? Or any other girl he knew. Or would their minds reject it outright as ridiculous? He knew the answer. Frog-love was out of the question. It would be too embarrassing. It would undo the human mind.

    Imaging clutching a woman as if it was life itself. No, there was something about the sex act that was shameless. Too biological. Too physical. Too much life. Too unmental.

    Even without ever having had any experience like it, you could watch those frogs and sense the utter shamelessness of sex. But, Peter realized, the human mind could never accept it or allow it, at least not for long. The mind would feel shamed.

    He knew that Cindy—really, all the girls in his circle of friends—would be derisive and dismissive at the thought. They would make jokes, as would Cory of course and the guys he knew at school. The human mind had to be in control; the sex act had to be something the mind could stand above. In one’s stream of thoughts, it had to be explainable and put in its place.

    With your friends you had to be witty and all-knowing. Intercourse would have to be relatively quick, the mind never absent for long. The witty mind had to stay on top.

    Somehow, Peter thought, this was wrong. The frogs were right and people, the human mind, was wrong. Minds were afraid of biological connection, of being subsumed. Sex was threatening to the mental self. But why?

    Perhaps Peter says something to Cindy and Cory about the frogs. And they joke. Perhaps he speaks too seriously about the fundamental biological nature of life, about the grounded physical connection his frogs experienced in sex. Perhaps Peter admits aloud that the frogs showed him there was something deeper in life, something that made his interactions with them (even though they were his best friends) seem like surface reflection.

    Cory and Cindy cover it up with joking and Peter’s face flushes. With the hint of a tear he shrugs, “I’m just trying to be honest with myself.”

    Afterwards Cindy and Cory are wary of him, uneasy. Behind his back they laugh about it. Still, uneasiness persists. Over the next few days both feel a desire to defend Peter, but find themselves unable to bring it up without joking.

    After that their friendship gradually fades. The three grow apart.

  • Litmus Test for Sanity

    Litmus Test for Sanity

    Nudity is the litmus test for sanity. Sane societies are clothing-optional; they are built on the principle that no one has the right to control the appearance of others. The clothes someone wears or doesn’t wear, the manner in which they style or color their hair and body—these are sacrosanct to the individual.

    Naturism
    Naturism (Photo credit: bartmaguire)

    We were born naked and we will die naked. Our skin requires broad exposure to sunlight in order to synthesize vitamin D, and that alone tells us that the right to be naked is innate. It is a health right.

    The importance of being nude in the sun was recognized 150 years ago, when enlightened American doctors advocated sun-baths. Their instincts were right on target. Today the benefits of vitamin D and sunshine are being teased out by scientific studies, and those benefits appear to be extensive and far-reaching. You don’t get them from the small amounts of D added to milk and other products.

    Summer sun exposure can result in your skin creating upwards of 20,000 IU of vitamin D  in a single day.  You can’t get anywhere near this amount from food. A serving of vitamin D fortified milk contains only 120 IU—you would be forced to drink 167 glasses of milk per day to get as much as your skin can make from a few hours of sunshine.

    Furthermore, when D is synthesized in the skin from sunlight, it’s impossible to get an over-dose. The human body automatically regulates how much is synthesized based on its needs.

    Nor should we forget that there are other benefits of outdoor nudity, both physical and social. This should not be surprising. After all, our bodies evolved to be naked in the world—it is part of our natural inheritance.

  • Bertrand Russell on Nudity

    Bertrand Russell on Nudity

    The taboo against nakedness is an obstacle to a decent attitude on the subject of sex. Where young children are concerned, this is now recognized by many people. It is good for children to see each other and their parents naked whenever it so happens naturally. There will be a short period, probably at about three years old, when the child is interested in the difference between his father and his mother, and compares them with the differences between himself and his sister, but this period is soon over, and after this he takes no more interest in nudity than in clothes. So long as parents are unwilling to be seen naked by their children, the children will necessarily have a sense that there is a mystery, and having that sense they will become prurient and indecent. There is only one way to avoid indecency, and that is to avoid mystery. There are also many important grounds of health in favor of nudity in suitable circumstances, such as out of doors in sunny weather. Sunshine on the bare skin has an exceedingly health-giving effect.

    nudity prohibited
    nudity prohibited (Photo credit: Wayan Vota)

    Moreover, anyone who has watched children running about in the open air without clothes must have been struck by the fact that they hold themselves much better and move more freely and more gracefully than when they are dressed. The same thing is true of grown-up people. The proper place for nudity is out of doors in the sunshine and in the water. If our conventions allowed of this, it would soon cease to make any sexual appeal; we should all hold ourselves better, we should be healthier from the contact of air and sun with the skin, and our standards of beauty would more nearly coincide with standards of health, since they would concern themselves with the body and its carriage, not only with the face. In this respect the practice of the Greeks was to be commended.

    —From Marriage and Morals (1929) by Bertrand Russell

  • Honesty

    God Father
    God Father (Photo credit: NeilsPhotography)

    Honesty is about being brave enough to embrace life as it is in reality. It’s about taking our clothes off—figuratively and literally—and loving ourselves just as we are. It’s not about making up feel-good stories about heaven, or hoping for some kind of spiritual salvation after we die, or fooling ourselves with other dishonesties from our popular religions. What is honest is to accept ourselves as physical beings, perishable bodies alive only for a short time before we disappear forever.

    It is to admit that existence is something temporary.

    Instead of tainting our lives with spiritual flagellation which dismisses our animality and denigrates sexuality, it is essential that we own up to the fact that, from beginning to end, we are bodies. That is the naked truth. We are not angels muddied into physical form as some sort of perverse punishment from God. Rather, our desire to be angelic and God-like is what is perverse. We are body-beings rather than spirit-beings, and to admit that is not degrading. Instead, it elevates us into the only realm in which life is actually possible.

    Without a body, there can be no movement, no action, not even a thought. Scientists have shown clearly that our thoughts and feelings are products of our brains, of chemical reactions in synapses themselves dependent entirely on the makeup of the physical nutrients we happen to consume. This knowledge has consequences. It means there can be no bodiless God who created us or our world, for without physical body even God Almighty could not move or think.

    The truth is that there is no intelligence behind or before the world. Our own species of intelligence evolved long afterwards on a dim speck of a planet incredibly far from the center of our galaxy, further still from the center of the universe. On this small blue planet we evolved, thinking thoughts every bit as physical as our aches and pains—thoughts which proceed not from some realm of spirit, but directly from our naked mammalian brains. We are bodies that think, not thoughts that have bodies.

    Bundled Burial
    Bundled Burial (Photo credit: Travis S.)

    Admitting this does not degrade us. Rather, it places life squarely where it belongs: here on earth now. Life does not belong in some bodiless heaven or imaginary afterlife.

    True enough, we must admit that we will die, and that death is final. There is no God, and when the body ceases, all that constitutes us will cease with it. This is the honest truth. But by beginning here with these facts, we can adjust to life.

    We can make the most of it.

    We can be naked atheists.

  • God & Penises & Vaginas

    Isn’t sex just about the most unlikely thing to be God’s handiwork? Imagine the Almighty sitting alone in the vastness of heaven with only His alter-ego Son and Holy Ghost to entertain Himself. Imagine Him after trillions of years trying to figure out some way to break the boredom. Is that how we got sex?

    No, because if there’s one thing we can be sure of about sex, it’s that God’s not having any. Sure, I suppose He could entertain Himself as Supreme Voyeur watching us go at it for a while, but ultimately what’s the appeal in that for Him? It’s not like He has any sexual desires of His own—he doesn’t even have genitals, much less hormones like testosterone coursing though His disembodied spiritual Holy Self.

    The problem with sex from a spiritual perspective, is that it just doesn’t fit the picture. Would a God who only wants us to reach the zenith of spiritual existence have invented penises and vaginas? Sorry, don’t think so. Doesn’t fit.

    A bible from 1859.
    A bible from 1859. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

    Even the Bible stumbles over sex. Right at the beginning of Genesis, when God created Adam and began searching for a “helpmeet” to mate with him. What follows—this is right there in the Bible—is God parading all the animals of the world before Adam to see which one he would choose for a mate. After Adam found none suitable, God finally hit on the idea of creating Eve, a creature just like Adam but with vulva and curvy breasts. That worked well for Adam, but God seems to have never gotten comfortable with the idea. Sexual intercourse wasn’t supposed to be part of His plan.

    Which perhaps explains why Christians—not to mention Jews and Muslims—have stumbled over sex from the beginning. Genitals have never meshed with the divine plan. And they never will.

    Face the fact: sex is not Godly. It’s ungodly. And that’s a good thing—it wouldn’t be any fun otherwise. Ungodly sex kicks with life, it pulses with a physical spirit that can only come from bodies being together, doing their thing.

  • PZ Myers on Movie Atheists

    Cover of "I Am Legend [Blu-ray]"
    Cover of I Am Legend [Blu-ray]
    In a review in Pharnygula of the Will Smith movie I Am Legend, PZ Myers notes that when atheists are depicted in popular movies they are either villains or stereotypical candidates for conversion.

    The acceptable atheist is the one who has faced so much tragedy, whose life has been damaged by cruel fate to such a degree that his declaration that there is no god is understandable. . . . .That’s the standard trope: the atheist is a broken man, a nihilist, a cynic, someone who has come to his disbelief as a consequence of a devastating emotional experience.

    This “acceptable atheist” almost always reconsiders their atheism by movie’s end. Myers notes that although “this is the kind of atheist theists are comfortable with” it has nothing to do with why most atheists today do not believe in any kind of god. “New atheists” have embraced a natural, scientific worldview, whereas the “movie atheist” still yearns for the supernatural underneath their anger.

    I love Myer’s summary,

    There are atheists who look on a tragedy and cry, “There is no god,” in despair. But we are atheists who look on beauty and complexity and awesome immensity and shout out, “There is no god!” and we are glad.