If I Were an Atheist...How Would I Mourn?

Greetings, mortals!  It may seem like it's been some time since I posted last, but that's only true in the context of your fleeting lives.  For a timeless embodiment of God's Will like me, it's been less than the barest fraction of an instant.  So try to see things from my perspective and quit giving me a hard time, ok?

Speaking of fleeting lives, one of the great things about being an ageless immortal in the company of ageless immortals is that I never have to confront the decline and death of any loved ones.  Ever!  It's awesome.

Recently, however, a mortal who was close to me passed away.  Her death got me to thinking.  As one who believes ardently in God, I can be certain that the end of her mortal form was not her end.  I can take comfort that her immortal soul received the reward she earned in life (which, granted, was condemnation to Hell.  She was a good, honest, and loving person, but unrepentantly wore cotton/polyester blends for decades).  Similarly, a mortal who believes in God as I do could look at her death and stave off the fear of his own with that same, comforting thought: my body's inevitable death is not the end.  My loved ones' deaths are not the end.  Our souls will go on.

But what about atheists?  How does someone who believes that there is no afterlife confront the loss of a loved one?  Where does she or he find comfort from the fear of death?  What does she or he say to young children who keep hearing that the deceased is now "watching over them from Heaven," and asking their atheist mother or father whether that's true?

I didn't have ready answers -- I mean, apart from "all of those thoughts are affronts to the LORD; repent your heresy!" -- so I thought I'd conduct another thought experiment.  This time, I'm asking:

If I were an atheist, how would I mourn the loss of a loved one?

Well, first, I'd have to confront the hard reality.  The person who died is gone.  Forever.  Her single shot at a meaningful existence is over.  All that's left of her are the changes she worked in the world and our memories of her...but even those will gradually dim and disappear.  Our crediting her for her works, our memories of her, will decay.  The biochemical and neurological mechanisms we have evolved to defend ourselves from the strain of trauma will work inexorably to close the psychic wound of her absence by dimming our memories of her.  And then, soon enough, those who knew her works and remember her will themselves die.  The world will go on as if she had never been here.

Next, I'd have to accept that the exact same thing will happen to me.  That the exact same thing will happen to every single one of my loved ones.  I'd have to confront the fact that there is no external source of comfort from the fear of death.  No God will shepherd me to an afterlife; no aspect of my consciousness will continue to eternity.  Death is instead (except for one species of jellyfish) total and inevitable.

As I, an atheist, grappled with this, I'd also have to be jealous of theists.  I'd watch them find sincere comfort in their beliefs of an afterlife and a merciful God.  I'd realize that while I disagree with them about God's existence, I see undeniable value in how they mourn together through ritual and song, knitting together communities to aid those hit hardest by the loss of a loved one.

At the same time, I'd be furious to hear them label the person who died a flawed sinner, who goes to Heaven only through the grace and forgiveness of God.  I'd want to scream at them that they were demeaning her memory in the name of ancient superstition.  I'd want to ask them why they couldn't just celebrate her as a good person who struggled through a good person's life to leave behind healthy, well-loved children.  But then I wouldn't do any of those things, because who wants to be the [blasphemy redacted] who pulls that [more blasphemy redacted] at a funeral service?

Then I'd answer the questions from my children:

Is our loved one in Heaven, like the celebrant said? 

No one really knows.  Some people believe that.  I don't think there's a Heaven. 

If there's no Heaven, where did she go? 

Nowhere.  Her body and her brain stopped, like they do for all living things.  What goes on is people's memories of her.

We're supposed to be happy that she's in Heaven.  If she's not, do we just have to be sad? 

Being sad is perfectly natural when someone you know dies.  Everyone feels sad when they lose someone.  But we don't have to just be sad because she's gone.  You saw all the people who came to celebrate her life; she made a lot of people happy for a long time.  We can be happy for us and for them that we had such wonderful times with her -- and have the happy memories to carry with us. 

Will I die?  Will you and Mommy? 

Yes, eventually.  But probably not for a long time.  And for as long as we're alive, I promise we'll work to have wonderful times together and build lots of happy memories for you to carry when we're gone.

And then...where would I go from the thought that death is final, total, and inevitable?

Well, after I finished crying, I'd go to the realization that my finite life -- which is no greater or less in dignity than the finite life of every sapient being on the planet -- is precious.  I don't have eternity to find meaning or satisfaction.  If I want those things (as I ardently do), I need to work for them now.

I'd realize that I still need comfort from the fear of death, but that the source of that comfort isn't faith, or a religious leader, or God.  The sole source of comfort from the fear of death is me.  If I want to prolong my existence, I need to make choices that protect and strengthen my body starting right now.  If I want to die satisfied with my life, I need to work for that satisfaction starting right now.  And if I want to make sure that my loved ones are left with comforting, happy memories of me -- or that I'm left with comforting, happy memories of them -- I need to create those with them starting right now.

In short, I'd realize that what shields me from the fear of death is not avoiding it with promises of an afterlife, but working every day on myself and my relationships to be satisfied with my lot in life when my death inevitably comes.

My next thought would be that because we all evolved the same way, and that none of us is favored above others by any God, that's true for everyone.  So everyone I see working through their days?  Is working to make the most of the only meaningful existence they'll ever get.  So I should probably make choices that help them (within reason) to reach our shared goal of personal satisfaction.

What, then, about the comfort of believing that my consciousness will continue on to eternity?  That there will never be a world without me?

I don't get to have that.  I have to instead confront the universe for what it is: something that will go on without me almost entirely unchanged by my death.

But while I may have to live in an uncaring universe, I get to live in a consistent one.  As an atheist, I view every natural death -- including my own -- as neither fair nor unfair.  No death is freighted with divine judgment or inequity.  Death is natural and impartial.

If, for example, my three-year-old neighbor is afflicted with an inoperable, cancerous brain tumor, I'm not driven to resent a God who let something so awful happen to an innocent and his family.  I don't have to struggle through grief to reconcile my beliefs about God with the evidence of suffering before me.  Because I know God didn't let that child die.  I know He didn't engineer the boy's death for a greater purpose.  The child just developed cancer because the biological processes that have allowed all known life to evolve occasionally lead to cellular mutations that cause cancer.  So I can work through my grief without the distraction of anger at an absent, heedless, or cruel God.  I get to see every death as tragic, but sensible.

So, in short, as an atheist confronting death, I lose the external comfort of the promise of eternal life.  But in exchange, I can take comfort in the fact that while the universe is cold and uncaring, it is ultimately cold and uncaring to all of us equally.  And I gain the urgent desire to live my life meaningfully -- and to help others do the same.

Wow, that really sounds like a ton more work than believing in Heaven.

Yep!  And why would anyone put in that kind of effort?  Thank God (again) I'm not an atheist!

Thank you for reading, mortals, and as always, I look forward to your comments and questions.  Take care, and God (who, again, totally does exist) bless.

If I Were an Atheist...

Greetings, mortals!  Christ, in Chapter 5, verse 44 of the Gospel of Matthew, teaches,

But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.  For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?  Do not even the publicans the same?  And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others?  Do not even the publicans so?  Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Which, of course, I always strive to do.  But it's hard!  Throughout my ministry on Twitter, I have encountered atheists who disbelieve the very existence of God.  Loving them despite their persistent apostasy has been difficult.  So I sought guidance from a moral authority nearly equal to Christ: Atticus Finch.

You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view -- until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.

So, to better follow Christ's teachings, I thought I'd try what I believe infidels call a "thought experiment."

If I were an atheist, what would I believe?

Well, first, I'd be human.  Second, I'd have concluded after inquiry and introspection that there's no reliable proof of God -- of any gods.  I'd believe that the available evidence points to nothing supernatural at all.  In addition, I'd maintain that what evidence we do have is consistent only with a naturalistic universe.  And while I wouldn't currently have an explanation for how all known life arose, I would see from what science tells us that the known diversity of life is well-explained by the occurrence of genetic mutations and application of selective pressures over the billions of years the Earth has existed.

Wow, ok.  Wow, I'd have to reject Creationism.  I'd no longer believe that all life was Created by an omnipotent God, in whom lies infinite plenty.  Instead, I, like all but a few biologists, would believe that everything we know about life -- above all the universal condition of constant, brutal competition for scarce resources during finite lives -- supports the theory that life emerged on Earth billions of years ago and evolved from there to its current states.  Moreover, my view would be supported not by a holy text, but by centuries of consistent findings in the fossil record, naturalistic observations, and laboratory experiments.

I'd also be skeptical about my own, personal experiences of God.  After all, neuroscience has demonstrated that my feeling of a personal connection to something greater than myself during prayer and ritual worship is, on a chemical level, indistinguishable from connections with the divine felt by others who believe in a God or gods that I hold to be false.  I, being skeptical, would therefore be inclined to conclude that my personal experience of God was nothing more than the operation of chemical processes in the reward center of my brain.

Based on all of that, I'd reject the supernatural events described in holy texts.  After all, none of them has been observed or repeated.  All of them are explainable by science in a way consistent with a naturalistic universe.  On top of that, if I viewed holy texts skeptically, the contradictions, demonstrable inaccuracies, and immoralities they contain would strongly suggest human authorship, rather than inspiration by an omniscient, omnibenevolent God.

So there's no God. Nothing outside holy texts supports His existence.  In fact, those same holy texts undermine His existence.  Where do I go from there?

Ok, well, if there's no God, the universe wasn't Created for me.  I'm not exalted above all other living creatures.  In fact, I exist by mere chance.  The universe not only doesn't care about my fleeting existence, it, outside of those of its sentient subcomponents who know me, isn't aware of me at all.  

Furthermore, no God loves me above others because I happen to worship Him in the right way with the right words.  My origin and existence are no more remarkable or memorable than that of any other person. Even if my life becomes the stuff of legend on Earth, I will be, at best, forgotten with the collapse of civilization.  Should records of my exploits be discovered and translated by whatever civilization arises after ours, or after that one, or after the next one yet, I'll be forgotten when it collapses.  And no matter what, I'll be forgotten here when the Sun expands and the Earth becomes, like most of the universe, inhospitable to all life.  

Not even the idea that my exploits would be broadcast to the stars is a comfort.  After all, the expansion of the universe will eventually stretch out that signal to the point of unintelligibility.  Even if it were to persist long enough to be received and understood by some extraterrestrial beings, they, too, would eventually come to nothing.

In short, virtually nothing I do matters on a scale meaningful to anything outside my immediate environs and anyone other than those whose lives intersect with mine.  And no matter what I do, no matter how great I am, I will die, decompose, and be forgotten -- just like everyone else.

So life is meaningless.

Well, yeah, obviously.  I'm an atheist for this thought experiment.  But I've still got this pesky will to live.  I can't shake it.  Even though the universe isn't handing me a reason to go on, I seem to need to find one.  In fact, I seem to need to assign meaning and purpose to what I do in order to find what I do rewarding.  I suspect that's evolutionarily advantageous.

It also seems that the biological processes that evolved to help me survive as a member of the current global apex predator species, which initially achieved dominance as an endurant pack animal, make me feel happy when I do things that those biological processes make me feel are meaningful.  And a lot of the things those processes make me feel are meaningful just happen to build connections with the humans around me.  I suspect that that's also evolutionarily advantageous.

So, in other words, even though no God exists to supply my life with meaning, I have inborn in me, independent of anything external or supernatural, the need to live a life of purpose.

So...

Shh, I'm thinking.  So while, to the universe, my life is infinitesimal, I need to live it.  And I need for it to be full of meaning.  And who cares whether those needs arise from biochemical processes?  They are mine, and they are constant and inescapable.

And, holy crap, everyone else needs the same things too.  Because we all evolved the same way.  The biochemical processes that drive me drive everyone else.  And...and none of us is loved by a God above another.  There is no God to do so.  None of us is favored in any way by anything other than chance.  

We are all, therefore, creatures of a common origin and destination.  Nothing else will ever help us, comfort us, or guide us.  There is no other life but that which competes with us for what we need to live.  We are all we have.  That's why we evolved to work -- and have succeeded only by working -- together.

Um, so...

Shh, still thinking.  This means no one is my better.  Not only are we all shaped by mutation and natural selection to need each other, but everyone is driven by the same basic needs as me: water, food, shelter, companionship, competence, and purpose.  When other people behave in ways that increase my access to those things, they enrich my life.  They enrich that part they've touched of the only life I'll ever have.  When they're selfish, they diminish and make difficult part of the only life I'll ever have.

And when I'm selfish -- when I behave in ways that benefit me to others' detriment -- that's what I do to them.  I take a part of a fleeting existence that is equally as precious as mine and I make it worse.  But when I'm generous, thoughtful, and caring, I make it better.

Then, in turn, I'm rewarded!  The biological processes that drive me to be a collaborative member of a collaborative species make me feel good about how I acted.  I get not just the same dopamine-driven satisfaction I once found by saying the right words in the right way at the right time to the right God, but the knowledge that I've given of myself in a way that improved a life equal in value to my own.

So...life isn't meaningless?

It would appear not.  I, an atheist, find my own life's meaning.  And I find it most frequently by acting to enrich the lives of my co-equal human beings.

Wow.  It sounds like thinking that way would take a lot of care and consideration.

Oh, yeah, it sounds like a ton of work.  Thank God I'm not an atheist!

Thank you for reading, mortals, and as always, I look forward to your comments and questions.  Take care, and God (who totally does exist) bless.

Rapid evolution in butterflies? No, God pitying unfortunate physicists.

Greetings, mortals!  Apologies for my long absence.  I have been focusing on my Twitter ministry (@angelofscience), which so far goes well.  I have, admittedly, converted zero infidels and nonbelievers to Christ, but I feel I've come close on at least one occasion.  Maybe.  Towards the end of my proselytizing efforts, the person became intensely and aggressively interested in what I was wearing, and in what I would do to her or his nether regions.  I was compelled to disengage and scourge myself as penance.

Anyway!  Earlier this month, scientists at Yale University announced that through selective breeding, they were able to induce the butterfly Bicyclus anynana to "evolve" from having dull, brown wings to having wings streaked with violet.  The researchers published their results in Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences.

The colors in butterfly wings -- whether brilliant or dull -- are, of course, merely expressions of the glory of God.  Your sciences nonetheless say that such colors are the result of constructive interference of light reflected off of microscopic structures in butterfly wings.  B. anyana has wings that are predominantly brown.  Two other Bicyclus species, B. sambulos an B. medontias, have "evolved" more brightly decorated wings.  The Yale researchers hypothesized that B. anyana, under selective pressure favoring the development of more colorful wings, could thus "evolve" similar nano-morphologies and begin to display more colorful wings.  Their experiment was not only successful, the B. anyana butterflies developed wings streaked with violet in just six generations.

Now, is this shockingly quick change a demonstration that even slight changes in genotype can, in a very small number of generations, rapidly produce exactly the kind of phenotypic variations that would, given the various selective pressures in different ecological niches, account for the massive diversity of life, thus supporting modern theories of biological evolution?

No!  No, of course not.  The theory of evolution is contradicted by the entirely factual and internally consistent Creation story in Genesis, and so is necessarily false.  Here's what the Yale researchers' work really means.

God felt bad for them.  Truly bad for them.  These were physicists studying butterflies.  Do you know what other physicists are like if you're studying an observable, physical object that's subject to Newtonian mechanics but isn't a hypothetical frictionless sphere?  They're awful.  Just, I mean, awful.  Incredibly derisive.  And they never give up mocking you because your social cues of offense and shame aren't hypothetical frictionless spheres, and so bullying physicists don't bother to observe them.  Given what these poor researchers were going through, God pitied them.  He made their butterflies all pretty.

What proof of this do I have, you ask?  Well, first, as always, stop questioning God lest you go to Hell.  Second, since it wasn't evolution, it had to be the Christian God.  There's no other God, per the Bible, so if a phenomenon was caused by supernatural means rather than evolution, it has to be Him instead of some other un-evidenced, supernatural cause.  QED.

Thank you, mortals, for reading!  As always, I look forward to your comments and questions.

What Jesus Really Said about Homosexuality

Greetings, mortals!  In my last post, I explained why the account of Creation in Genesis is not, as many infidels claim, self-contradictory.  Now I want to take on another frequent claim of nonbelievers, the weak in faith, and the heretics: that Jesus never condemned homosexuality.

Before I begin, let me make one thing clear: I believe lesbians, gays, bisexuals, the transgendered, and those questioning their sexuality are equally as human as heterosexuals.  God made them as they are.  Their sexuality is not a choice.  They should be afforded the same civil rights, privileges, and dignities as heterosexuals.  They should not be subjected to mistreatment of any kind -- and especially not violence -- because of their sexual orientation. 

It is, rather, incumbent on LGBTQ individuals to constantly suppress and never act on their desires.  Because while loving God instilled in each LGBTQ person a sexual orientation (and the fundamental personal needs that come with it), loving God also deems that orientation to be an abomination.

Did Jesus really say nothing against homosexuality in the Bible?

If you read only the text of the Bible, yes, Jesus says nothing explicitly against homosexuals or homosexuality. Given that homosexuality has always existed in God's Creation, Jesus's teaching that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, and that that commandment of empathy and mutual respect is greater than all the others, even strongly implies that we should regard LGBTQ individuals as no less normal, human, and worthy of the right to freely express their love and commitment to one another than heterosexuals.

But remember, all of the Bible is literally true.  And Jesus Christ, Son of God, is omniscient and consubstantial with our Almighty Father.  So when God inspired the authors of Leviticus to write that "[y]ou shall not lie with a male as with a woman.  It is an abomination.", we know Jesus was saying that, too.  So what we need to do is read Jesus' teachings in the New Testament with His & God's shared commands in the Old Testament in pari materia -- in other words, we assume that the Old Testament laws and the New Testament laws, all of which are the inerrant and absolute Word of God, are consistent with one another.

Bearing that in mind, does Jesus condemn homosexuality as an abomination in the New Testament?  Yes, he does, in his greatest teaching of hope in a merciful and loving God: the Beatitudes.

Dude, are you sure you want to go there?  Even Monty Python's Flying Circus found these above mockery in The Life of Brian and instead used the "blessed are the cheesemakers" joke about Jesus being hard to hear from so far away.

Yes!  We evangelicals must be brave in our faith if we are to persevere in the face of constantly having our beliefs undermined by facts and reason.  So even though doing this may bring me condemnation, I will demonstrate that the Beatitudes, Christ's message of hope to all humanity, are, in fact, anti-LGBTQ screed.

How the Beatitudes Plainly Condemn Homosexuality

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."

Many take this as Jesus offering comfort to those who are unhappy in their mortal life by reassuring them that they will find comfort in God.  Not so!  Remember, Jesus has perfect knowledge of everything, past, present, and future.  He knew that "gay" would go from meaning "happy" to, you know, the other thing.  

Since Jesus knew "rich in spirit"="happy"="gay"="homosexual," we therefore see that here, Christ clearly meant "poor in spirit"="not happy"="not gay"="heterosexual."  So this passage should actually be read, "Blessed are the straight, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."

"Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted."

Is this a reassurance that those suffering the pain of lost loved ones will find solace in God?  While that seems to be its plain -- and only -- meaning, no.  Remember, bereavement in Judaism has clear stages.  During many of those stages, people in mourning are prohibited from attending festive occasions, listening to music, or dancing.  

And despite the fact that for as long as there have been Jews, there have been observant gay Jews who keep to all of their faith's teachings and traditions, including those concerning bereavement, we all know that gay people love festivities, good music, and dancing so much that they couldn't observe the proper stages of mourning.  As such, gays wouldn't fall into Christ's category of "they that mourn."

So here, obviously, Christ is saying, "Blessed are the straight, for they shall be comforted."

"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."

Many suggest that what Jesus meant here is that those who are gentle and kind will be rewarded for their good treatment of others.  That is also incorrect.

As we all know, despite all evidence to the contrary, homosexuals work aggressively to convert others to their deviant "lifestyle/inborn and unmodifiable essential identity."  Anti-gay heterosexuals, by contrast, merely defend themselves against such aggression with violence, oppression, ostracization, population-level discrimination, invidious discrimination, psychological abuse, and disgust (whether patent or veiled).  So, as is plain on the face of this Beatitude, Jesus here means that LGBTQ persons are not meek, and heterosexuals are.  

Furthermore, as we all know, since gay people don't have children, they don't have direct heirs to whom they can pass on their lands.  They consequently and leave such property to the descendants of their heterosexual relatives.

In short, this Beatitude means, "Blessed are the straight, for they shall be rewarded by God and, incidentally, inherit their gay relatives' property."

"Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled."

This one's straightforward: Christ's saying that those who long for equal justice for all humanity will find it in Heaven.  It's His message that fairness and justice are the due of all humanity.

Remember, though, that it's the job of LGBTQ individuals to behave like they're straight so they can be treated equally in the eyes of laws written to discriminate against non-heterosexuals.  To do otherwise would be to allow sin against God's Design, per the passage from Leviticus cited above.  And Christians must do what they can to aid those non-heterosexual persons who seek to abide by God's will.

We see, therefore, that this passage actually reads, "Blessed are they that make available gay conversion therapy, for they shall be filled in a way other than having the homosexual agenda crammed down their throats."

"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy."

Christ knew that being merciful is a tough thing.  Showing kindness to those who have wronged you in a moment when you have power over them is extraordinarily difficult.  It is rarely as immediately satisfying as exacting revenge, or, for that matter, imposing appropriate punishment.  In addition, the rewards for being merciful are always delayed -- assuming they ever come to you at all.  So here, Christ is saying that those who are kind the weak despite their greater power will themselves be shown mercy for their own transgressions.

What does this have to do with LGBTQ persons?  Well, this Beatitude, in contrast to the others, addresses them directly.  

As I mentioned above, the homosexual agenda is pursued aggressively.  Gays work out, like, a lot, and are therefore much stronger than the average heterosexual.  And, as we all know, the temptation to engage in homosexual behavior is nearly overwhelming for everybody.  Not because I'm gay!  I'm totally not.  But, you...you know, you imagine stuff, right?  Everyone does, right?  And if it's an option -- an acceptable option -- how can you not take the chance to tell the Archangel Uriel how you really feel about him?  

He's so dreamy.

Uh, anyway, I digress.  In short, homosexuals are ideologically aggressive, physically superior, and wielding a nearly overpowering temptation into sinful behavior.  So what Christ is saying here is, in short, "Blessed are the gay people who show mercy by concealing their essential selves and don't exhibit their sexuality in public, for they shall be left alone by heterosexuals in the afterlife."

"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

This one should be obvious without any explication.  As mentioned above, Jesus (who is one in being with God) said in Leviticus that gay relations are sinful.  Ergo, people who engage in non-heterosexual relations are not pure in heart, and shall not see God.

Just a reminder: sexual orientation is given to you by God as an aspect of His perfect Creation.  It's not a sin to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning.  It's simply that following through on that God-given orientation earns you a ticket straight to Hell.

Anyway!  This Beatitude is, in other words, "Blessed are they who, despite their longing for an authentic, loving connection with another human being to whom they are attracted by dint of the bio- and neurochemical processes that make up the core of their being, ignore those urges and falsely behave like heterosexuals, for they shall see God."

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the Children of God."

This is another straightforward one.  It also builds on the principles stated in the last two Beatitudes, thus showing the rigor and consistency of Christ's messages of Mercy.  This simply means, "Blessed are those faithful who work to quell the aggression of homosexuals by helping voluntary participants in 'pray away the gay' therapy and thus delay the otherwise inevitable hegemony of the LGBTQ agenda over all humanity, for they will be honored above all others by God."

"Blessed are they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."

Alright!  Last one, and a bit of the break from the previous teachings, because it's not a code.  It means exactly what it says: Those who are targeted and harmed for being righteous individuals will be rewarded for their perseverance with eternity in Heaven.  That's all.  That's it.  

As always, mortals, thank you for read--

Wait!  This includes straight people who are offended by gayness, try to get them to stop being gay, and are criticized for discriminating, right?

Nope.  Witnessing something you personally find icky isn't persecution.  Neither is being called out for saying things or behaving in ways your contemporaries consider discriminatory.

What about when I'm called a bigot or homophobe for voicing my opinions about gays?

Also not persecution.  It's not the nicest thing to say, but let's be honest, you probably earned it.

But if my children see people being gay, they'll--

Be straight or gay based on their God-given nature.  Relax.

But you said gay people who conceal their essential selves will be rewarded!  Shouldn't I tell them to--

No.  The reward they get in Heaven from Almighty God is to be left alone by people like you.  What does that tell you about what God wants for them now?

Um, for me to leave them alo--

FOR YOU TO LEAVE THEM ALONE.

Well, that was fun!  Thank you so much for reading, and as always, I look forward to your thoughts and comments!

Debunking the Claim that the Book of Genesis Contradicts Itself

Greetings, mortals!  During my time interacting with you, many have confronted me with supposed "contradictions" in the Bible.  The favorite "contradictions" of apostates, atheists, and infidels seem to be the order and manner of creation in the Book of Genesis.  "Did God create man before beasts, or beasts before man?  Did He fashion waterfowl of the water, or of the ground?"  I wanted to take time out from my usual work of concealing God's Creation in mundane phenomena (and blogging about it) to address and resolve these questions.

Because if you don't stop asking them, trust me, you will go to Hell.

What is the order of creation in Genesis?

According to Genesis 1, God Created all that is, seen and unseen, in this order:

1. Heaven (Gen 1:1);
2. A formless Earth, which was nothing but a dark ocean on which God walked (Gen 1:2);
3. Light;
4. Night and day, after which the first day and night passed (Gen 1:4-5); 
5. A firmament to divide the waters above and below, which firmament He called Heaven (Gen 1:7-8);
6. Dry land on Earth, created by gathering all the waters below the firmam...uh, also Heaven...in one place. (Gen 1:9-10);
7. Grass, herbs, and fruit are brought forth from the Earth (Gen 1:11-12);
8. Night and day...um...again.  Then, the seasons, days and years (Gen 1:14);
9. Light upon the Earth (Gen 1:15);
10. The Sun to rule the day and the Moon to rule the night, plus the stars (Gen 1:16);
11. Um, okay.  Then Light upon the Earth.  Again.  This time by way of setting the Sun, Moon and stars in the firmament of Heaven (the Heaven under the half of the dark ocean from item 5, above, not the Heaven in item 1, which is geographically unrelated to said dark ocean), thereby separating night from day.  Again.  (Gen 1:17-18);
12. Every creature that has life is made from the waters, including whales, fish, waterfowl, and every single creature that moves. (Gen 1:20-21);
13. Ohh, boy. Um, at this point, God creates the creatures of the land, as distinct from every single creature that moves, from the earth. (Gen 1:24-25);
14. Finally, God makes men and women in His image and grants them dominion over all other creatures of the land, sea, and air. (Gen 1:26-30).

Okay, that went somewhat less smoothly than I expected it to.  But have faith!   All these "contradictions" will be proven to not be contradictions at all, because all things are possible with God.  On to Genesis 2!  

We pick up right where we left off.  Genesis 2 acknowledges that "[t]hus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them," adopting in total the recitation of Genesis 1.  It continues with the following additional matters of Creation:

1. God rests on the Seventh Day (Gen 2:2).
2. He sees that...ah, Christ.  He sees that while the grasses, herbs, and fruit are in the ground, the ground has not yet been tilled and it had not yet rained, so none of those plants, which He, in his omnipotence, willed forth from the Earth in Gen 1:11-12 actually came forth. (Gen 2:5);
3. God fashions one man, Adam, from the dust of the earth.  Adam is utterly alone. (Gen 2:7);
4. God wills forth trees in Eden (this time successfully). (Gen 2:9);
5. God places Adam in Eden to tend it. (Gen 2:15);
6. Because Adam is utterly alone, God forms from the earth all the beasts of the earth, again, and fowl of the air...again.  But from earth, not water. (Gen 2:18-20);
7. Finally, God creates the one and only woman from Adam's rib (Gen 2:20-23).

What are the apparent contradictions?

1. First there was Heaven and Earth but Earth is a dark ocean.  Then God creates a firmament that horizontally bisects the dark ocean, which firmament He declares to also be Heaven.  So Heaven is Created, then Created again, this time with a portion of the dark ocean of the Earth on top of it.
2. The Earth is lit on at least two separate occasions and night and day are created and separated, like, a bajillion times.
3. Grass, herbs, and fruit are called forth from the Earth, and God sees that they are good.  Then, they're in the Earth again till the land is tended and/or God calls them forth in Eden alone.
4. Every creature that moves, swims, or flies is created from the water before men & women.  Then beasts of the land are created of the earth, also before men & women.  Then men & women are created and given dominion over all the creatures of the Earth.  Then Adam is created, but is utterly alone.  Then everything that crawls, walks, or flies is created from the earth -- after Adam.
5. As just mentioned, men & women are created after all other living creatures.  Then Adam is created before all land-based animals and birds, and Eve is created after.  No mention is made of sea life.

Wow.  That's quite a list.

Shut up, mortal, I'm thinking.

Are these contradictions?

No.  Clearly not.  God is omniscient & omnipotent.  His Creation was, and is, perfect.  So why the "contradictions"?  Let's take them in order.

1. Creation of Heaven, then an ocean-only Earth, then Heaven in the middle of the Earth-ocean.

Some would say that this is a capitalization error -- that the firmament separating the part of the ocean-only Earth that remained ocean from the part that became land and sea is "the heavens," meaning the sky, not Heaven.  But not me.  God, in revealing His perfect Word, did not abide such errors.  That's why the Bible contains none.

No, what happened here is that God created Heaven.  Then He took part of Earth and simply made more Heaven, with a saltwater pool in the middle.  It's now a favorite attraction of those saved through Christ.

2. Light created; night and day divided.  Then night & day again, along with seasons, years, and days.  Then light upon the Earth.  Then light upon the Earth again, which is subsequently separated into night and day.  Again.

Okay, now, there are those who would argue that this is the kind of additive repetition of elements is indicative of Genesis being a story passed on orally and eventually transcribed.  But that's incorrect.  Here's what really happened, all of which is entirely consistent and not at all contradictory.

First, God Created Light, which He separated into night and day.  Then, He separated the dark ocean of Earth with Heaven.  The light had been above the dark ocean and lit its surface, but now there was light, then light-absorbing water, than Heaven, complete with a ground, and then more dark ocean.  What remained of Earth's dark ocean -- that which would become the land and sea -- was again dark.  Not because there wasn't light, mind you, but because that light was occluded by half the dark ocean and Heaven.  The second Heaven, not the first one.

Moving on.

Then, after calling forth photosynthetic plants -- we'll discuss that in the next subsection -- God creates the categories of night and day, along with seasons, days, and years.  He just doesn't put anything into them yet.  They're Platonic forms, sitting there, unused.  Then He creates light upon the Earth, so the Earth is lit, but then takes that light to make the Sun, Moon, and stars, and His omnipresent hands blot the light out in relation to the Earth.  It's as simple as that.

Finally, He places the Sun, Moon, and stars in Heaven (the second-but-equally-as-Heaven Heaven, not the first Heaven, which is no more Heaven than the second one), and the Earth is not only lit, but the categories of Earthly night and day are put to use.

See?  No contradictions at all.

3. Grasses, herbs, and trees are created and called forth from the Earth, and God sees them upon the Earth, but then they're not present except in the Earth, and not only have to be tended and rained upon to come forth, but have to be called forth by God a second time in Eden specifically.

As you'll recall, God called these photosynthetic plants upon the Earth, which He subsequently lit.  But then He had to block that light to separate it into the Sun, Moon, and stars.  There was just enough time for those plants to spread their seeds before dying for total want of light.  So they were there, then died, and the second generation of plants was in the Earth waiting for rain and care.  As for the plants in Eden, God just re-did His work.  Obviously.

But, wait, why would an omniscient being not plan ahead so he didn't have to do the same thing all over--

Mystery of faith.  On to the last two, which I'll explain together.

4 & 5. Everything that moves, including fowl, is Created from the waters.  Then land creatures, a subset of everything that moves, are created from the earth.  Then men & women are Created and given dominion over every creature of the earth, sea, and air.  Then, somehow, all the living things are gone and God makes Adam alone.  Then God makes all the beasts of the land and air from the earth and gives Adam dominion over them (making no mention of creatures of the sea).  Then God makes Eve.

I'll be honest with you, this is the most difficult "contradiction" to confront.  Not because it's a clear inconsistency in a Creation myth derived from similar creation myths of religions that preceded Judaism.  No sir, because that's not the case.  It's difficult to confront because it is somewhat inconsistent with what we'll call "modern concepts of morality prohibiting omnicide."

Like I said above, God called forth all those photosynthetic plants.  They die for want of light.  Then he Creates all the beasts of the sea, air, and land from the waters, and finally, his greatest Creation: men & women.  Those men and women were unfortunately naked, exposed, surrounded mostly by salt water and unfamiliar with desalinization techniques, and unable to rely on any plants at all for food (because, as I mentioned, all the plants are dead already).

While men and women were able to hunt and kill some smaller herbivores without tools, weapons, or defenses against injury, those herbivores themselves had nothing to eat.  They quickly died off.  That left the omnivores -- and especially carnivores -- desperate for food.  As you may know, men and women are somewhat less than capable in unarmed combat against other animals.  So, while mankind had dominion over all other creatures, hunger doesn't care about concepts like dominion.  Humanity was thus slaughtered.  

Shortly thereafter, following their descents into scavenging and cannibalism, all the other creatures of the land and air died off as well.  Creatures of the sea, which did not depend as heavily on photosynthetic plants, survived -- which is why they're not mentioned as being created again.  Look at that! Consistency in Genesis.

And so it came to pass that God started over again with Adam.  He made sure Adam had plenty of viable plants to live on in Eden.  He also made sure that the animals, seeing themselves named by Adam, were clear on the whole dominion thing and let Adam (and Eve) be until Eve screwed it all up.

There you go.  No contradictions at all -- because of some minor issues involving light and photosynthesis, God's perfect Creation descended into an orgy of starvation and slaughter, and required a bit of a reboot.

Okay, holy shit, I'm going to be sick.  And again, how could an omniscient, omnipotent God not plan ahead so he didn't have to--

Mystery of faith.  Get with the program.

There you have it, mortals.  Genesis contains no contradictions at all, because Almighty God is a loving God who gets everything right the first time.

Farewell, and as always, I look forward to your comments!

Observable, Convergent Evolution of Crickets? Hardly.

Greetings, mortals!  Okay, so, I've gotten a few questions about this one: in the May 29, 2014, Current Biology, scientists published the results of a study led by Dr. Nathan W. Bailey purporting to show evidence of observable, convergent evolution in two separate populations of Hawaiian field crickets.  Isn't that strong evidence for evolution?

No!

What the scientists claim to have observed is the development of flat wings for soundless flight in each population of crickets (one population on O'ahu, the other on Kaua'i).  This change in wing structure helped them avoid a sound-attracted (and fatal) parasitic fly.  The O'ahu crickets developed silent flight first.  Then it was observed in the Kaua'i population.  These researchers diligently checked for genetic markers of introgression of a genetic variation from the O'ahu crickets into the Kaua'i population -- in other words, they looked to see if an O'ahu cricket and a Kaua'i cricket had ridden what we in Heaven call the "wild nookie train."  They not only found no evidence of transmission of the trait from the O'ahu crickets to the Kaua'i crickets, they found that the flat wings of the two populations were structurally very dissimilar.  The researchers concluded from this, as you humans are wont to do, that natural selection had shaped the two populations in similar ways to compensate for the same environmental challenge -- the fatal parasite.

But, of course, that's not what happened.  There is no such thing as evolution.  You may observe what you think is evolution, but the evidence you see is just a sham.  It's a test, created to see whether you have abandoned the same hubris that led you to rob yourselves of Eden by eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.

And you haven't.  No wonder science continues to lead you further from the peace, warmth, and light of God's Love.

So, what actually happened to these crickets?  It's obvious: their wings changed shape to help them avoid this fatal parasite, but not by means of evolution.  These changes were wrought by the Hand of God.  They further the miracle and beauty of His design.  God simply chose to adjust the wing configurations on the O'ahu crickets and Kaua'i crickets a little differently because, well, don't you get bored doing the same thing over and over again?  Of course you do.  Just imagine if you were omniscient.  Avoiding boredom would be job #1.  Well, job #2, after the loving curation of all existence.

Now, because you're human, some of you may be asking, "If God wanted to save these crickets, why are only about half of each population created with flat wings that help them avoid the parasite?"  The answer to that is simple: Stop questioning God.

Thank you all for reading!  And please, I welcome your thoughts in the comments.

On Mary Anning

Greetings, mortals!  I hope you've been well.  As you may have seen, today's Google doodle is an homage to Mary Anning.  God created Ms. Anning's soul and shepherded it to Earth 215 years, 9 months ago today.

Ms. Anning is, of course, best known as the protagonist of the tongue twister, "She sells seashells by the seashore."  She is second best known for those of her achievements to which your scientists have assigned the greatest meaning, including her identification of the best-of-its-time icthyosaur skeleton, discovery of what you call the plesiosaurus, and location of the first pterosaur outside of Germany.

Ms. Anning's discoveries (many of which were initially passed off as the work of male scientists because of the sexism endemic to the contemporary scientific community), caused a tremendous shift in the thinking of the early 19th Century's scientists.  It is no exaggeration to say that her work was not only instrumental in the acceptance and popularization of the concept of extinction -- misguided though that concept is -- but laid the foundation for modern paleontology and the exploration of what you incorrectly believe to be long-disappeared ecosystems.

Now, before I continue, I want to give credit where it's due.  Ms. Anning was curious, tremendously dedicated to her work, resilient, and, among humans, brilliant.  But all of her fame, and all of her work, is founded on a lie.  Well, except for the tongue twister part.  But the rest of it?  All founded on a lie.

None of what Ms. Anning discovered was the remains of some fanciful creature that lived in what you call the Jurassic Period.  They were skeletons that I, Decipiatur, put together and buried in the Earth to test Man's faith in God's Creation.  The same is true of the "fossils" she collected and sold: None of them is the remnant of some ancient creature.  They're just more false evidence of past life on Earth, fashioned by me as a test of your faith.  Even the coprolites she analyzed are my work (some of the least glamorous, by the way.  But when God commands you to create and then fossilize poop, what do you do?  You create and then fossilize poop).

Unfortunately, Ms. Anning's admirable rigor and extraordinary ability to correctly identify which pieces of my various false skeletons went together led her, the scientific community, and eventually much of the world away from the Light of God.  Her commitment to discovering my frauds made you believe that animals have existed and gone extinct, that there have been ecosystems on the planet for more than 5,700 years, and so on.  Essentially, Ms. Anning and her contemporaries were both so thoroughly fooled by my work and such good proselytizers for what my frauds meant to them that they persuaded you to doubt not just whether God's Creation is perfect, but that the Earth was created by God at all.  That's partly why she, like most scientists from the 1700s on, is (very regrettably) suffering eternal torment in Hell.

At this point, some of you may be asking, "Decipiatur, why would she burn in Hell because she was fooled by your work?  You're a divine being, endowed by God with the power to create frauds that appear genuine to all known and knowable human faculties.  Of course she was fooled!  Isn't that cruel?"  To which I answer, "I don't make the rules, God does, and how dare you question our Almighty Father!?"

I also answer that the point here is for you to listen to the truths God has revealed to you through the Bible, prophets (not the false ones, though, careful with that), your religious leaders (only the ones who are right, mind you) and this blog.  You're then to believe those truths despite all of the contrary evidence you can perceive with your God-given senses.  That's what faith is, after all.

Some of you may also be asking, "If these are mere tests of faith, why not make it possible for us to detect that they are the work of the divine?"  Because you're smart and would figure that out.  Then it would be evidence for the divine.  That would, in turn, lead you to God through the use of reason rather than on faith, which is not how this works.  Again, you're to believe the truth of God's Word in the face of all contrary evidence.  Seriously, people, keep up with me here.

Anyway, thank you for reading about the work of the remarkable, Hell-damned Mary Anning.  If you have thoughts or comments, I invite you to post them in the comments, below.  Please refrain from the use of profanity, blasphemy, and heresy.

And heterodoxy -- just to be safe.

See you again soon!

An Introduction

Greetings, mortals!  I am Decipiatur, Angel of the Lord and servant to the Archangel Raphael.  Since before you were formed from clay (or, for you lady readers, a rib), it has been my duty to test Man's faith in the Lord our God by concealing His work in the mundane phenomena you examine with your "science."

Five thousand, seven hundred years ago, when the Almighty spoke the Universe into being, it was I who strewed the cosmos with the gravitational ripples you recently observed with your Bicep-2 telescope. It was I who shaped those ripples so as to appear to have arisen from a massive explosion approximately 13.8 billion years ago.  And, yes, as many have speculated, it was I who created geological strata and radioactive decay patterns suggesting the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, strewed the bowels of the Earth with the fossils of dinosaurs who never lived, and stole away the evidence of the great Flood.  It was I who laced the cells of every living thing on earth with the nucleic acids that not only appear to your limited, mortal faculties to guide the functions of life, but suggest a common ancestry and evolution.

All of that is a fraud.  In fact, you, like everything in this universe, exist and function by dint of God's Love alone.  You were, like all living things, shaped not by the complex interaction of physics, chemistry, biology, scarcity, and happenstance, but by His hand alone.

Some of you are asking, "Decipiatur, why reveal yourself and your divine mission, and why on a blog?"  It's simple.  I'm revealing my divine mission because 5,700 years ago, God, who is, of course, omniscient, foresaw that you would ask exactly that question.  He revealed to me that on this date, humanity's faith in its own analytic prowess would reach what he called a "tipping point" (a term he later gifted to Morton Grodzins (and I am compelled to note that God did not gift Professor Grodzins the term "white flight."  That was Satan.)).  He told me that unless I began to explain my work, thereby exposing the fact that all scientific observation is the pursuit of my righteous frauds, Man would be led into apostasy by his own hubris.

I will, of course, continue my work.  Faith is valueless unless tested, after all!  But that brings us to the second question, "Why on a blog?"  Because God revealed to me that in this time, this Internet -- which is also not a triumph of your applied sciences, but a manifestation of God's Love -- would be such a cacophony of voices that only those endowed with the curiosity to allow their faith to be tested would find their way here.  As it has always been (well, as it's been since 3,686 B.C., when the universe was created), only a select few will have the truth of God's Word revealed unto them so that they may carry the message of the Lord to the unfaithful many.

You, dear reader, are one of the few, brave and faithful.  You will stand with me against the tide of false scientific discoveries.  Together, we will hold back Man's false pride in his own abilities.  We will lead humanity back away from the frauds of science and discovery -- my divinely-commanded fabrications -- and into the light of unquestioning Faith.