BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME.

"Begin at the beginning,and go on till you come to the end: then stop." (Lewis Carroll, 1832-1896)

Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked."Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat."I don't know," Alice answered."Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

"So long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation. "Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

"All right," said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone. "Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin," thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!"

My Photo
Name:
Location: Australia

I am diagonally parked in a parallel universe. Like Arthur Dent from "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy", if you do not have a Babel Fish in your ear this blog will be completely unintelligible to you and will read something like this: "boggle, google, snoggle, slurp, slurp, dingleberry to the power of 10". Fortunately, those who have had the Babel Fish inserted in their ear, will understood this blog perfectly. If you are familiar with this technology, you will know that the Babel Fish lives on brainwave radiation. It excretes energy in the form of exactly the correct brainwaves needed by its host to understand what was just said; or in this case, what was read. The Babel Fish, thanks to scientific research, reverses the problem defined by its namesake in the Tower of Babel, where a deity was supposedly inspired to confuse the human race by making them unable to understand each other.

"DIFFICILE EST SATURAM NON SCRIBERE"

Beepbeepitsme has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts.

Subscribe to BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Sorry, I missed Church Because...

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
~
~
I Missed Church Because:
  • I was busy practising witchcraft and becoming a lesbian.
  • I missed church because I had to go fishing.
  • I missed church because I was listening to a sermon on the radio.
  • I couldn't go to church today because I had a flat on the car and didn't think we could all fit in the truck.
  • I missed church because I just had this feeling I shouldn't be there.
  • I missed church because church gives me gas.
  • I missed church because I belong to the 700 club, so that is good enough.
  • I missed church because my familiy can get me into heaven after I am dead.

Please add to the list by leaving a comment and be as creative as you wish.


LINKS:~

Link

38 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry I missed church, I was busy leading a communist rally.

23/6/06 12:33 am  
Anonymous afokenr said...

Sorry I missed church, the suspension crapped out on my disbelief.

23/6/06 1:29 am  
Blogger Chimera said...

I missed church because...I'm a lousy shot.

23/6/06 3:09 am  
Blogger Procrastinatrix said...

I missed church because I've been on my knees all week, and just needed a short break.

23/6/06 10:03 am  
Anonymous lolly said...

I missed church because I was too busy watching beep bending over

23/6/06 11:53 am  
Anonymous Baryonic Froth said...

I never missed church. It was always there I just didn't go.

23/6/06 12:00 pm  
Anonymous Jeff said...

I never miss church.

24/6/06 3:39 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

and church doesn't miss you..bwwhahhaaaaaahhhaaaa

24/6/06 8:02 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Sorry, I missed church because I was too busy conducting an experiment to see if believers make a sound when I trip them and they fall in the forest.

24/6/06 8:20 pm  
Anonymous Jeff said...

I miss Church....

25/6/06 1:12 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Sorry, I missed church, but the religious brainwashing didn't take.

25/6/06 1:58 am  
Anonymous Jeff said...

WooHoo!! It's Sunday!! Seeya suckers! I'm off to church....finally!

26/6/06 5:25 am  
Blogger Bacon Eating Atheist Jew said...

I missed church, the bomb came up short.

26/6/06 7:16 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE jeffie: "Seeya suckers." Hmmmm. It seems that jeffie is most happy when abusing other people in text and generally acting like a "nice little christian lunatic."

26/6/06 10:13 am  
Blogger breakerslion said...

I missed church because I forgot to allow for windage.

26/6/06 11:31 am  
Anonymous Jeff said...

I'm happy to tell everyone that I had a very edifying experience this weekend at church. My spirit has been renewed for the week ahead. Praise be to God and blessings to all---believers and non, alike. May the light of God's mercy and benevolence shine down to those cloaked in the darkness of sin and confusion....and even those that wish to throw stones at Houses of Worship. God forgives and so do I.

27/6/06 12:25 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE jeffie the troll:

Sorry to hear the ritualistic chanting increased your endorphin level. A nice walk or jog in the countryside would have been just as edifiying, and certainly less likely to promote group think.

But I do realise how religious people like to have collective endorphin masturbation. They are not called sheep for nothing.

Bwwwhhaaaaahaaaaa

27/6/06 3:18 am  
Anonymous Jeff said...

We are God's sheep, yes.

27/6/06 10:46 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

baaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaaaa

Lambchops go "bbaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaa."

27/6/06 11:24 am  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Actually, it's more figurative than literal.

27/6/06 11:05 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Wow Jeffie the troll, some things are NOT entirely literal for you? I for one am shocked!!

I am sure that you won't be insulted when I call you a stupid sheep at that rate.

28/6/06 7:59 am  
Anonymous Jeff said...

I'm not a literalist, no. However, I am an absolutist....

28/6/06 9:20 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

You absolutely believe in the absolute?

You absolutely believe that you are absolutely correct?

See, jeffie, it is NOT atheists who claim to know everything. It is believers.

Believers just have the most massive case of projection.

28/6/06 9:43 am  
Anonymous Jeff said...

I am as certain that I am correct as you are. You and I are both religious.

28/6/06 12:19 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

No, I am not religious. Don't go back to using words incorrectly, jeffie.

RELIGIOUS: Primary meaning>>> 1.Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

Please try to argue from a common premise. I know that logic is not your strong point.

It is just stupid to try and argue that a person who does not believe in gods has a religion.

Not only is it stupid, it is intellectually bankrupt.

It is like me saying that you are not religious because you do not believe in and worship ganesh.

28/6/06 2:10 pm  
Anonymous Jeff said...

If atheists believe that we humans are the authors of good & evil, of justice, of truth, then how is that not religion? If atheists believe that we humans are the authors of the meaning of life, of an explanation for existence, how is that not religion? If that is not religion, what is?

28/6/06 11:14 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: jeffie the troll:

Well, for a start, atheists don't "believe" a whole stack of things as a group.

Saying "atheists believe such and such" is a bit like calling bald a hair colour.

Bald is the default position, It doesn't claim that red, brown or blonde hair is the right hair colour.

In the same way, though there might be some atheists who would be content with the suggestion that we are the authors of "good and evil", not all people who consider themselves to be atheists would agree.

Some might say that they don't believe that gods are the authors, but posit no claim for humans to be the authors.

Now what do I think about it? (I can't speak for all atheists only myself.)

I think human beings have and continue to be, the authors of "good and bad".

I think that history shows the changing face of human morality and ethics and that it is from the combined knowledge of personal experience AND history, that human beings determine what is considered appropriate and inappropriate.

The ability of human beings to share information and knowledge and the ability to intellectually process huge amounts of data and to critically analyse this data; is what allows us to ascertain and create codes of behaviour / ethics / morals which we hope will make our societies constructive, productive and safe.

Do these codes of ethics/laws eliminate all destructive or harmful behaviours? No. Would I expect them to do so? No.

Do "religious codes" eliminate all destructive or harmful behaviours?. No. Do believers expect them to? YES.

I think that believers have unrealistic expectations because they believe in a "perfect being".

Because they believe in a PERFECT BEING they believe that they could create a PERFECT SOCIETY if EVERYONE was forced "to follow the words of the perfect being." (Which I think are just the words of men anyway.)

One of the major problems in this is that in order to enforce the "words of the perfect being" believers take on the morality and ethic of the "perfect being."

The morality and ethics of the perfect being are highly suspect in my opinion, as a quick examination of the "holy books" displays gods with sadistic, genocidal, misogynistic and dictatorial qualities.

And amazingly, these are the very qualities that many god believers display when they want to LAY DOWN THE LAW onto those heathens, atheists, heretics and unbelievers.

The morality and ethics of the "gods in their holy books" is suspect because they are the words of men which have been UNCHANGED throughout the centuries.

Consequently, the words of the bible, or any supposed holy book, are an anarchronism.
(This basically means they are out of place and time.)

The bible, like all religious books is stuck in a time warp, it has learnt nothing since it was formulated a couple of thousand years ago.

It has had nothing or little added to it, few changes and certainly nothing of any remarkable knowledge added to it.

It has remained basically unchanged because believers of the book claim that it is the inerrant word of their god, and because god is perfect, the book must be perfect.

To me, that is like claiming that the thousands of papyrus scrolls written during the times of the pharoahs, must be the inerrant word of the gods because the pharoahs WERE gods in their own right.

People who believe in perfect beings hope to make perfect societies.

People who hope to make perfect societies, will be "perfectly poisonous" in the methods they use to try and bring about perfect people who live in the perfect society and who worship the perfect god.

29/6/06 8:56 am  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Ok, so what do atheists use as their yardstick in order to assess morality and ethics?

29/6/06 10:28 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Atheists do not have a yardstick to assess morality and ethics.

What? You say?

Because being an atheist only describes what someone is NOT.

I am NOT a believer in gods.

So an atheist does NOT by the definition of what an atheist is, present a yardstick for morality and ethics.

Now, there are some worldviews that DO present an argument for ethics and morality without a belief in god/gods.

And some atheists support those worldviews.

One of the worldviews that some atheists support is secular humanism.

Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice and specifically rejects rituals and ceremonies as a means to affirm their life stance.


So secular humanists prefer a worldview built and based on reason, ethics, logic and rational thought.

It would NOT necessarily exclude "religious morality/ethics", but they would not accept religious morality which was NOT built on rational thought, reason and logic.

So, secular humanists would suggest that human beings need laws, but those laws should be subject to and accountable to critical analysis.

Which is what happens in secular countries, most of the time.

An appeal to religious law isn't an effective appeal to a secular humanist. A religious person would make the claim that religious law must be ok BECAUSE it is religious law.

A secular humanist would suggest that religious law needs to be tested in the same way that all law is tested.

29/6/06 11:36 am  
Blogger jeff said...

So how do you suppose humanists decided what was right and what was wrong? I know....it's all grey and built on variables and circumstances. Nothing is black and white or absolute.

Nothing? Pedophilia? Murder? Sodomizing a dog? Sex with your grandma?

Disgusting, right? Why? What 'logic' and 'reason' told you that murder is wrong but abortion is okay? What 'logic' and 'reason' told you sex with your grandma is wrong but sex with your spouse is healthy and good? Where do you draw from when deducing whether something is right or wrong?

29/6/06 1:35 pm  
Blogger jeff said...

....in other words, what is the 'fulcrum' with which you weigh against reason, ethics, logic and rational thought?

29/6/06 1:37 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Humanism is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationality, common history, experience, and belief.

Humanism is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems, and is also incorporated into some religious schools of thought.

There are many forms of humanism:
1.Marxist humanism
2.New Humanism
3.Posthumanism
4.Religious humanism
5.Christian existential humanism
6.Humanistic Judaism
7.Renaissance humanism
8.Secular humanism
9.Transhumanism

RE: "What 'logic' and 'reason' told you that murder is wrong but abortion is okay?

Well, who is assuming that abortion is murder?

Numbers 5:11-31: The Adultery Test: In this particular situation, a man, if he suspects his wife has cheated on him, can take her to a priest where she will be given a liquid concoction which aborts the fetus.

If she is guilty of this trespass, "may he (the Lord) make thy thigh to rot, and may they belly swell and burst asunder. Let the cursed water enter into thy belly, and may thy womb swell and they thigh rot." (15:21-22)

The "cursed water" is designed to cause a spontaneous abortion. This could be both punishment for cheating, and assurance for the husband that the children born by his wife will indeed be his seed. Either way, the fetus is aborted - and by a priest.

Apparently, the bible doesn't consider it murder.

RE: What 'logic' and 'reason' told you sex with your grandma is wrong but sex with your spouse is healthy and good?

Well, once again, I don't ever remember making the claim that sex with granny is a great idea.

But then the bible thought it was ok for Lot to give his 2 daughters up for a bit of raping and sodomy.

Genesis 19: 5-8
They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

And then the bible thought that Lot having sex with his daughters was a great idea.

Genesis 19:32-36
Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."

That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father."

So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father.

So the bible doesn't seem to worry too much about sex with your family or giving your virgin daughters to strangers to rape and sodomise.

(And Lot was considered by god to be a righteous man. lol)

RE: Where do you draw from when deducing whether something is right or wrong?

CERTAINLY NOT FROM THE BIBLE.

29/6/06 2:13 pm  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Genesis 19: 5-8

The people of Sodom were a vile and wicked bunch...of that there is no doubt. In order to properly understand this passage, a little cultural history is needed. For you see, the rights of hospitality required a man who had taken a stranger under his care to defend him at all costs; even if this meant his own life. It certainly takes a mind that can appreciate this 'influence', to understand Lot's conduct on this occasion. Also, please remember that Lot was speaking out of extreme haste, as he knew he needed to leave Sodom before it was destroyed....unwarrantable as it may have seemed.

Genesis 19:32-36

In this passage, while it may seem impossible to imagine, we see Lot's daughters commit an act that he was clearly not aware took place. Remember, their husbands had been destroyed in Sodom and in their minds the only men left in Caanan were evil. They wished to perpetuate the lineage the only way they knew how. It was not out of lust or base desires, not that this excuses their sin, and this peculiar action should never be used as a precedent for similiar incestuous relations.

If you're trying to convince me that Genesis is full of crazy and seemingly incomprehensible things, you don't need to. I already know. But as with most things, we must try to ascertain a feel for the culture and mindset of the people of this time. Christianity has gone through reformations and is constantly evolving. Genesis, as I've mentioned before, is not a Christians road map....the New Testament is.

30/6/06 12:18 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE jeffie the troll:

Blah ~ blah ~ blah ~ excuses, excuses for Lot and his horny daughters.

Reality? If Lot existed he was a misogynistic old chauvinist who gave up his virgin daughters to a crowd of lunatics for a gang bang.

And why was this? Because his MALE guests had to have their assholes protected at all costs. Even at the cost of his daughters. Wham Bam Thank You Daddy Lot!

But you know about those semitic religions don't you? The ones where women are treated like cattle to be traded? And where women and men were kept as slaves. What a great moral and ethical example they are for us all. (barf)

Re: "They wished to perpetuate the lineage the only way they knew how."

Well, I guess that crowd of men back in Sodom taught the daughters a few tricks so they just had to share them with daddy.

I wonder if daddy was sleeping with one eye open? I have never known a man to sleep through having sex with me, and surely I am not the exception, so I find it amazing that even in a drunken haze, Lot seemed to be unaware that his daughters did a bit of a bump and grind on his old, nasty bones.

Oh and by the way, Lot and his daughters escaped to Zoar after leaving Sodom. Now it says that Lot was too scared to stay in Zoar so he took his daughters to live with him in a cave in the mountains.

Why would Lot be afraid if god had intended him to live?

Genesis 19: 29-30
"So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.

Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave."

I figure that daddy lot could have made "procreation visits" to Zoar if he really wanted to, but he preferred to keep his daughters in a cave with him where his incestuous relationship with them could be kept secret.

Re: "Christianity has gone through reformations and is constantly evolving. Genesis, as I've mentioned before, is not a Christians road map....the New Testament is."

I hear this all the time. It goes something like this>> "Everything in the bible is the inerrant word of god."

This should be prefaced with:
1.Unless we are ashamed of it and find it conflicts with our own moral standards and beliefs;
2.Then we pretend that it isn't really there;
3.Or we pretend that it doesn't mean what it says;
4. Or we pretend it is out of context;
5. Or we pretend that THIS particular part of the bible is not meant to be taken literally;
6. Or we pretend that it is an inaccurate translation;
7. Or we pretend that one translation is the inerrant word of god but any other translation of the same text isn't.

Personally, I am sick of the charade that christians carry on with in order to squeeze the bible into their personal version of what christianity is.

Yes, the new testament is the gentler version of religious fascism, but that does not excuse the old testament.

You do not get to pick and choose which parts you believe and which parts you don't.

By the way, if you want to give up the hopes of being able to put homosexuals to death, you will need to fall in love with the old testament all over again.

30/6/06 1:26 am  
Anonymous Jeff said...

"Reality? If Lot existed he was a misogynistic old chauvinist who gave up his virgin daughters to a crowd of lunatics for a gang bang."

Again, you are judging his actions by the liberal and cultural standards of today. Not a useful way to assess the norms and mores of our early ancestors.


"And why was this? Because his MALE guests had to have their assholes protected at all costs. Even at the cost of his daughters. Wham Bam Thank You Daddy Lot!"

Now you see, I didn't infer that the crowd wanted to rape these men. What made you think that?


"I wonder if daddy was sleeping with one eye open? I have never known a man to sleep through having sex with me, and surely I am not the exception, so I find it amazing that even in a drunken haze, Lot seemed to be unaware that his daughters did a bit of a bump and grind on his old, nasty bones."

I'm glad you asked, because here's my opinion on this matter: Lot would have had other house maidens (as was customary practice) and being old and rather frail, the wine and a dark room would have been enough to numb his senses as to the true identity of the woman upon his manhood.

30/6/06 8:40 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE jeffie the troll:

Yes, reality: Ahem.

RE: "Again, you are judging his actions by the liberal and cultural standards of today. Not a useful way to assess the norms and mores of our early ancestors."

God judged Lot to be a righteous man, so certainly a gang bang or 2 with the daughters doesn't upset god much.

2 Peter 2:7-9
And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed [his] righteous soul from day to day with [their] unlawful deeds;)

Lot was so upset about the wicked people in sodom that he had incestuous relationships with his daughters. aawwwwwww.

So let's get this straight. God judged Lot to be a righteous man, NOT me.

It seems that God is considerably MORE LIBERAL than I would ever be.


Re: "Now you see, I didn't infer that the crowd wanted to rape these men. What made you think that?"

This is what makes me think the crowd of men wanted a bit of raped poohole.

Genesis 19: 4-5
Before they had gone to bed, all the MEN from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house.

They called to Lot, "Where are the MEN who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have SEX with them."

Now I don't know about you, but a crowd of men at my door asking me to deliver my male guests up to them for sex, sounds like they WANTED SEX!

RE: "Lot would have had other house maidens (as was customary practice) and being old and rather frail, the wine and a dark room would have been enough to numb his senses as to the true identity of the woman upon his manhood."

Yes, Lot might have had slaves. It is a pity he didn't smuggle a couple of his sex slaves with him so he didn't have to play hide the sausage with his daughters.

30/6/06 12:11 pm  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Come on! Does this look like the picture of a man eager to have sex with his offspring?


http://www.wga.hu/art/g/goltzius/lotdaugh.jpg

30/6/06 12:41 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Yes!
And so does this ~~

http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/the_seduction_of_lot/gn19_33b.html

30/6/06 2:03 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home