Evidence that the building blocks of life are abundant in the interstellar medium? Yes, but it's not a big deal.

Greetings, mortals!  Earlier today, scientists with the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy announced their finding that isopropyl cyanide, an organic molecule, is abundant in the interstellar medium.  They made this "discovery" by observing the Sagittarius B2 gas cloud with the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) of radio telescopes to analyze the radiospectrometric signatures of the various molecules that make up the gas cloud. 

While researchers have previously detected organic molecules in space, isopropyl cyanide is the first such organic molecule seen that has a branched carbon backbone.  It, unlike any of those previously-observed molecules, is thus more like the amino acids that your sciences (incorrectly) believe form the building blocks of life here on Earth.  Because the amino acids, like isopropyl cyanide, have a branched, carbon-based structure.

What's the significance of this?  Well, if you believe life on Earth arose naturalistically, this finding strongly suggests that other branched carbon molecules -- including, possibly, amino acids themselves -- exist in abundance in space.  That would further support the theory that life arose on Earth without any supernatural intervention because it means those building blocks were likely already present here on Earth and didn't have to form from simpler molecules under the right conditions.

In other words, if branched carbon molecules are abundant in space, they were likely abundant on Earth from its earliest days.  And if that's true, the number of steps humans thought were needed to move from molecules present on Earth to the emergence of life decreases.  It also increases the likelihood that life exists elsewhere in the universe.

Said another way, given the existence of branched carbon organic molecules in space, the number of assumptions in the chemical synthesis-based hypotheses of abiogenesis goes down.  And as scientists are always fond of telling us, the simpler a hypothesis is in relation to competing hypotheses, the more likely it's true.

Does this undermine Creation or Intelligent Design?  No, of course not.  First of all, if you want to blaspheme by calling Creation a hypothesis, it's the simplest hypothesis of all: God did it.  You don't even need to assume anything (apart from the agency of a supernatural being of limitless power and eternal duration whose very existence is at variance with all available evidence, which evidence is consistent only with a naturalistic universe).  QED.

Second, even if branched carbon organic molecules were abundant on Earth from its beginning, no one was around to see those molecules become self-replicating bases for all terrestrial life.  That means abiogenesis can't be proven, which means, of course, abiogenesis must not be true.  And if abiogenesis isn't true, then Creation must be, because it says so in the Bible.  QED again!

If God Created all, why, then, are complex organic molecules present in interstellar space?  Simple.  As I said in my last post, God has been expanding the veil of Heaven to make sure human space exploration doesn't pierce through it.  It's been a big project and something we had to do pretty quickly, so, well, there wasn't a lot of time to clean everything up.

Basically, the organic compounds you're seeing in space are the cast-off materials from Creation.  It's the sawdust on the floor of God's workshop.  That's all.  There's no significance to it at all apart from being further proof that God Created all life on Earth.

So quit getting all excited about this, okay?  Focus on something more important.  Like praying, or figuring out better ways to rationalize the Bible into being literal truth.  The salvation of your immortal soul is, after all, both incompatible with and more important than knowledge.

Thank you for reading, and as always, I welcome your comments below!

If God Punished Humanity for the Tower of Babel, why not for Space Exploration?

Oh, He's punishing you for it.  And what He's doing is chilling.

But we'll get to that.  First let's discuss what you're doing wrong.  The Book of Genesis is clear on how humanity is supposed to view the cosmos: 

"Flammarion" by Anonymous - Camille Flammarion, L'Atmosphere: Météorologie Populaire (Paris, 1888), pp. 163. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

I, of course, cloaked this truth of Creation in the evidence that you now claim points to a spherical earth, heliocentric solar system, and Big Bang cosmology.  But you were supposed to reject all of that evidence.  You were supposed to accept what the Bible says about the cosmos because what the Bible says about the cosmos is in the Bible.

Obviously you went a different way.

And so here we are, with humanity growing more and more distant from the beliefs God prescribed for you as your scientists re-create the conditions of the Big Bang, achieve greater understanding of your place in the universe, and use space-based telescopes to peer further than ever before into the cosmos.

You're not limiting yourself to terrestrial efforts, either.  You have collaborated despite nationalism to build an orbital station, sent a probe past the heliosphere into interstellar space (maybe), and landed a laser-armed, nuclear-powered science tank on another planet.  Your spaceflight capabilities have advanced to the point that private entities are now able to accomplish feats of engineering once achievable only by governments.

Which brings us back to the Tower of Babel.  Genesis 11:1-9 teaches,

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. 

And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 

And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. 

And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto Heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 

And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 

And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 

Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 

So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 

Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

In short, a bunch of dudes got together and, because they had both the ability to collaborate effortlessly and a sufficient supply of slime, were able to begin building a tower that would have pierced Heaven but for the intervention of God.  Because as God said, when humans collaborate fully, nothing within their imaginations remains beyond their grasp.

Seriously.  You guys are figuring out how to propel spaceships with glorified microwave ovens.  You're working on a warp drive, for [blasphemy redacted]'s sake.  Let that sink in.  You are working on a warp drive.

Now, sure, the warp drive stuff is still all theoretical.  But do you think something being theoretical is going to stop you?  Look at your Rosetta spacecraft.  It was launched in 2004.  A week ago, the European Space Agency chose a landing site on comet 67P for the Rosetta's Philae lander.  Let that sink in.  Humans shot a rocket into space ten years ago, successfully maneuvered its payload into stable orbit around a comet this year, and are about to land on that comet another science tank.  And how did you do this?  By combining math, astronomy, physics, chemistry, engineering, and fire.  Holy [blasphemy redacted].

Anyway!  Back to Babel.  Humanity was about to pierce the veil of Heaven.  But if it had done that, the portion of the dark ocean held above the Earth by Heaven would have poured through, drowning everything on Earth.  And that kind of devastation is something only God is allowed to wreak, thank you very much.  Also, secondarily, humanity was proving itself capable of equaling the glory of God, which He really doesn't like.

For those two reasons, God (who, of course, loves you and wants only for you to succeed), robbed you of your ability to collaborate with one another for your shared benefit.  The veil of Heaven and God's majesty were thus preserved.

Except you found workarounds.  Fast forward 4,300 years -- since, of course, the Earth is only 6,000 years old -- and not only have you learned each others'  languages, you're now so capable as scientists and engineers that you can exceed the works of the Babel architects within not just a single language, but within a single nation.

So what was God to do?  Organized religious sects already keep you divided, obviously, but that's no longer sufficient.  Neither is the languages thing.  Even if He pulled that again, you'd just adapt again.  You'd keep expanding your reach to the stars, pierce the veil of Heaven, and drown the Earth.

So He decided to punish you by implementing a public works project second in scope only to Creation.  As humanity has peered and explored deeper into space, God has concomitantly expanded the veil of Heaven to exceed your reach.  That is His horrifying punishment for your continued, arrogant exploration of the cosmos.

Now, you may be saying, "that doesn't seem so bad."  Well, then.  You haven't thought through the implications.

Before they may receive their posthumous reward in Heaven, virtuous souls must first get there.  And as you know, God has made it so nothing in the universe travels faster than the speed of light -- including humans' immortal souls.

The veil of Heaven is now over 13 billion light-years away from the Earth.  Which means that when your faithful loved ones pass away, it takes at least 13 billion years for their souls to reach Heaven.  So your dear departed Grandma?  Yep, you guessed it.  She's presently hurtling through the blackness of space, incorporeal, immortal, and utterly alone, just as she will be for billions and billions of years to come.

Terrible, isn't it?  But necessary -- because God loves you.  He doesn't want you to drown.

...again, I mean.

Thank you for reading, mortals!  As always, I welcome your thoughts and comments.

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.

Anthropogenic Warming "Pause" Due to Ocean Currents? No, it's Intelligent Planetary Thermodynamics.

Greetings, mortals!  Today I'd like to discuss the so-called global warming "hiatus," and the recent claim by scientists that they've found what they believe to be its cause.

What is the claimed discovery?

Earlier today, researchers led by Drs. Xianyao Chen and Ka-Kit Tung published in Science the results of a study showing that currents in the Atlantic and Southern Oceans have been operating as heat sinks, carrying heat down from the ocean surface to its depths.  According to their research, currents carry warm water from the tropics -- which is relatively saltier than ocean water closer to the poles -- to the North Atlantic, where it cools.  Then, because saltier water is denser, it sinks to the ocean depths, taking with it heat from the surface.  This process is known as saltwater subduction.

The researchers further announced that based on their analysis of available data, these currents are cyclical.  The warmer water coming from the tropics melts ice at the poles (which has been happening rapidly over the last decade).  That makes the water closer to the poles less saline, and therefore less dense.  That slows the ocean current.  As a result, the scientists claim, the current switches back to a warming cycle until the salinity differentials switch back.  This happens once every 30 years or so.

The last time these currents were on a cooling cycle, in the 1970s, the cooling trend was so pronounced it triggered fears of a new Ice Age.  The switch to the warming cycle corresponded with the rapid global warming observed between the mid-70s and early 2000s.  Researchers attribute half of that warming to these ocean cycles, and half to human activity.  The current switched back to a cooling cycle in or about 2000 -- the start of the global warming "pause."

But global temperatures did not drop.  Rather, they rose more slowly and intermittently. 

What does this mean for me?

If the researchers are right about the effect of these ocean currents, this suggests human activities over the last 15 years have contributed so significantly to average global temperature rise that they counteracted a cooling effect that, when last observed, was so significant people feared an Ice Age.  That, in turn, suggests that when the current switches back to a warming cycle in approximately 15 years, we will see unprecedented warming of the Earth's average global temperature due to human greenhouse gas emissions, to possibly catastrophic effect:

"The frightening part," Tung says, is "it's going to warm just as fast as the last three decades of the 20th century, which was the fastest warming we've seen." Only now, we'll be starting from a higher average surface temperature than before.

Is it time to finally get serious on a global level about changing human behavior to avoid and counteract further anthropogenic warming?

No, of course not.  There's no such thing as anthropogenic warming.  These ocean currents aren't responsible for any changes in global temperatures at all.  The evidence the scientists presented is simply not valid.  They didn't find it in the Bible, so it's just not true.

What's really causing these fluctuations in global temperatures?  God's Will.  He changes the average global temperatures, thus causing fluctuations in climates, to further his inscrutable -- but perfect -- Design.  I call it "Intelligent Planetary Thermodynamics."  That's a lot of syllables, though, so I'm open to suggestions on a better name.

The bottom line is, human activity doesn't cause warming, despite the overwhelming evidence for exactly that.  God does.  And you can rest assured that despite His history of allowing, condoning, and/or commanding slavery, torture, murder, infanticide, and genocide, AND triggering a global Flood, that He is causing all of these changes because He has humanity's best interests at heart.

So, in summary, you can, despite the mountain of evidence suggesting otherwise, go on burning fossil fuels and emitting greenhouse gases.  There will be no adverse consequences.  Everything will be just fine.

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!