Skip to content

The Right to Bare … or Knot (cont.)

May 11, 2015

Has any Religious Denomination proven the existence of God? Is it possible to prove there is a God? Is there a way to present to nonbelievers that a God exists? No. God is not a presentation. A presentation is a type of proclamation placed before an audience. This is its purpose—to present ‘something’ to others. It can be a gift, but God is not a presentation. Why? God is Spirit—–unseen.

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

So, how is it that so many believe in God, and what does the above passage from John say to the nonbeliever? First, we were not kidding when we said that “Christ is not a man”. Right away this expels the idea for the nonbeliever that “a certain type” of man is God’s representative, and this according to certain Religious sects. To some, this may be a relief, because we can tell you that there are many men who say they could never go along with the idea that God chose only men for the role of Apostleship. Actually, some find the whole idea of Religious Hierarchy a fraudulent enterprise that enslaves people for the purpose of its own accredited positions of power and control. Their pastoral leadership they find wanting, almost destructive to the minds of youth, but especially to the health and wellbeing of the female. And we have seen how they do not want their daughters and wives, nieces and … martyred in these forays for any male dominion where enrichment serves the lust of the heavyweights, sucking the charisma and light from the young women seeking, hoping, yearning for a seat at those tables … But no, it is not of the Writings. Any body of believers that designates itself voice for all souls is to be considered a danger to the role that just and fair practice serves, or should serve, in Society. Why? Because the soul to the believer is paramount. Put someone into dress robes, give him a few fancy titles, have him ‘write’ a few books and poof … the lethargy starts … the fear … the guilt … We say, challenge the bugger, and don’t let him off until he what? Admits he is in it for the Institution more that the release of those souls. He wants you in the seat that he ascribes … not out where you can see him in a fuller light. *Of course not all believers are of this … just making a vital point in the places people position themselves, and to establish a precedent, which is to say that God never specifies man within this sect or that sect as authority of Spirit. It would not be a sensible promise, nor would it allow for God to be.

And if one is inclined to stick to the story … many of those men should have come from the boats with rugged hands from having spent many years tying nets and gutting fish … not having spent years tied up in a field of academia … primping themselves with …

Has Theology saved anyone from anything? Even the Vatican’s recent push on highlighting Liberation Theology is just another way for men of power to stay in power. Nonbelievers think this is a prize? No … it will be seen for what it is, and those ensconced in this  …  because its point was never for “release” but dependancy. Man allows himself to be deceived by rhetoric and shiny bling. Study the context and you will see its trappings. The poor are used for the elitist might. The poor are the catalyst for the heads to stay heady. See its underpinnings. This is nothing new … just another angle on the same pedestal. Praxis? What do these men know of this? If they understood Jesus they would not still be where they are. So sad to see intelligent men so misled … And the Vatican is grabbing at anything it can to make itself look relevant in this day … but its time is coming to a close … the old orders of these patriarchs are coming to a close. There is no life in resurrecting what was never to be. Man should be feeding light … and lighter …


Now, most nonbelievers would agree on “no man hath seen God at any time”, but what does this part mean: the only begotten Son, which is the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

It sounds mushy-medieval-melodramatic … like something from another time that has no place in our day. It is something from another time and remember, the Writings were translated … and translated. So, how do we ascertain the meaning on this passage? Where do we go to understand what this is saying? People have written books, homilies, songs … painted, sculpted … what they believe is the only begotten Son … and still, we have many nonbelievers … possibly more now than Society has ever had. Diversity of thought, including other religious and spiritual writing/art, and the “secular” has molded and changed belief. Some might say we have reached a ripeness whereby we should do away with these kinds of Writings. Others cling to them, or what they understand of them, to keep away what they don’t want in their lives—what they do not agree with. A tug of war is at play. Meanwhile, one of gnosis says, YES! Finally … finally we reach the moment of Truth! People say, “What? What are you talking about? What truth?” The truth about this passage. What is it? Does it work? Isn’t that what people want? Don’t they want to know the truth about the only begotten Son?




Does evil exist? ISIL … is real. Can we shut “it” down? Can we stop it dead in its tracks? The answer to this question comes in varying forms. People pray. The Roman Pontiff prays. You see him presented in the media, along with the video footage and photos almost daily. Governments (of all stripes) strategize, and often there is militia involved. ISIL grows larger … the deaths increase … Where does such an evil get its supplies, money, numbers to grow and do more damage … kill more people? What is happening with all those prayers to stop ISIL? The Roman Pontiff is not made of magic; neither is his Institution … He can’t stop ISIL. The Eastern Orthodox can’t stop ISIL. The Christians cannot stop ISIL …

Who is being indoctrinated, abducted, butchered and murdered by ISIL?  Someone-something must be supplying it with what it needs to do as it has been doing. Wouldn’t you agree? These are men and women with needs … they are not machines, and yet, they act like machines—machines without a proper compass leading them in a way that understands that murder, torture, rape … is evil … not how one should treat another, even when there is disagreement. The evil seem to move like a wicked flow of raging acid eating … eating … eating.

Why are so many governments unable to stop this flow?

I saw a movie many months ago. I did not want to see it, but I was shown to see it. It’s not my kind of movie, but it is sometimes the case that you go not where you want to be, or even where you are wanted … but where you are needed—where you need to go. I am not going to say anything about this movie except that the evil in the story attacked where there was noise. It could not see, but it could “hear” … and sense sound in a way that caused it to react and destroy, and when it attacked and bit a person, that person became of that same evil and immediately set out to attack. There was only one channel—attack. The numbers of evil grew like flies around something putrid. It was a creepy movie… the evil … it loves commotion … noise … loud presentations … confusion … chaos … biting … gnashing … It is hell on wheels. It moves with swiftness—almost as it if has wings, but it does not have wings. It has mankind. Is this real? Is man real?

Technology is a bittersweet tool, wouldn’t you say? And there are people without Conscience—meaning, one developing in a manner that acts not for the good of self, and not for the good of neighbor. People who are disgruntled, filled with anger, hatred … depression, loneliness, fear, avarice and disdain … can and will do things that lovers would never do, and some will do anything for control … power, and money. Realistic questions: Who or what might be experiencing fear? Hatred? Desiring power and control? And who or what knows how the mind of man is easily led? Can be manipulated, persuaded and indoctrinated? Minds set on a single channel—to live a certain life with certain beliefs … Who or what are these minds? Where and how do they feed?




What causes a nonbeliever (in God/Spirit) to speak out against those who believe in God—Spirit? Some love the debate and will share reasonable information/theology to argue their points-views—beliefs. Some are angry at “religion” or some things having to do with religion and blame it for what they hate in Society  … usually the bad or oppressed aspects, and there is truth in this as history provides many facts, and there is evidence in the Institutional life that shows poor parenting and callous and disparaging attitudes … but there is also historical fact that shows people of Religion condemning bad behavior and oppressive acts (slavery: Northern States—a few individuals acting on behalf of the oppressed and abused). Then there are some nonbelievers hating what they view and understand as “the idea of a Supreme Being.” Their experience may be  that this is bogus; therefore “Spirit” is bogus, even dangerous … based on one experience—their own.

What happened to them that they should hate something unseen? Or is it that they are experiencing evil, and allow it to mastermind …



Allow us a foray (article added after the comments)

dmj76 May 9, 2015 at 4:27 pm
Dear Max

Issue: no difference between Templeton people and Creation Museum:

Since my hero Bertrand Russell sometimes uses the word “spiritual”, do you consider him on the same level as a fundamentalist preacher?


His responses:

Atheist Max May 9, 2015 at 11:55 pm
Bertrand Russell – athiest – was using a manmade word, “spiritual”, to describe a human observation in a poetic way.

Your problem is your lack of irony and your lack of poetry. God as a metaphor is very different from “GOD” as a “God”!
Bertrand Russell would never claim anything to be true unless evidence made it obviously clear.



I know that YOU dmi76 do NOT LACK irony or poetry – I’m referring not to you but “those who” – as in those who put themselves in the box you describe.

“Spiritual” is a man made word to describe a poetic state of mind. There is no evidence for any real spirit – I’m aware you already know this from our previous conversations.

But there is nothing wrong with Atheists using man made words: God (as Einstein did) , spirit (as Russell did), or Soul (as Hitchens did).

These are just poetic usages of literary metaphors.
For example, saying “The devil made me do it” is a playful way of saying “I knew it was wrong by I did it anyway”.
It doesn’t mean you really believe in a devil. It is completely okay to use these terms in any way you want to without it meaning you believe in these literal things.


Do you see the twist on the idea and use of the metaphor? Do you see how this nonbeliever proves himself an inconsequential advocate of peace? Do you see how he makes it okay for the nonbeliever to use metaphor to share but not okay for a believer to use it? Do you see how this nonbeliever is of a mindset that not only denies that man was inspired by something other than himself … but he credits only what he knows and understands from his limited knowledge—born from hatred of something he does not understand—refuses to understand … because hatred is his alley, not reason, or acting reasonably? He is a one-sided talker on what? His own Religion—SYSTEM OF BELIEF. 

Dishonesty—Bigotry—Hypocrisy. A few sound questions for this nonbeliever:

What qualifies you as AUTHORITY on the non existence of God, nonbeliever? You don’t see evidence of God therefore God is not real? Metaphor is not permitted to be used by believers to share something greater than man? This is only for the nonbelievers when they want to borrow and steal from Writings used for something you never understood?

I saw one do an usual thing today—something you wouldn’t believe, nonbeliever. Do you believe me, nonbeliever? Do you believe I saw one do an usual thing today?

What can he say? He can either call me a liar, lie about me … or dismiss me altogether as I am a believer and in his mind believers are delusional. What is the point of sharing life experience with a brick wall?


Who raised him? Were they believers? Also deluded? Seems much of the world is deluded and caught up in fairy tales and this nonbeliever is not?  Really?


He can point to Religion (Doctrine/Theology) and say, nope … not working … unjust … not demonstrating God exists … yada-yada … but he still cannot prove that people are not experiencing a Supreme Being … or something Evil. He cannot prove what entertains the mind that gives rise to any act. He is without knowledge and understanding on this. We wonder does he think mother and father delusional … his family and friends delusional … because they believe in God? He dismisses the lives of generations and generations of people—families everywhere based simply on lack of awareness of a Spiritual Entity. Again, weak … so very weak.

This nonbeliever does not know What is God … has NEVER experienced What is God … but has absolute truth and knowledge on man’s condition, place, beliefs, experiences and imagery … coming to a concrete answer on the language of the metaphor, its uses and purpose on matters pertaining to God, Spirit … ? This is what we call extreme ignorance. This is your militant mindset. This is of questionable intent for the health and wellbeing of Society. Where did the terminology on God, Spirit and the like come from? To ignore the FACTS on this, even with the translations, is ignorance, and not a credible argument for anyone. Man having taken … borrowed, stolen the words from the original source and used them for his own purpose—to say what he wanted them to say—is nothing new. Man has done this using Religion for centuries. Those in the South demanding their plantations be serviced by men, women and children of darker skin took words from a number of sources to give credibility to their desire for slavery. They had BUSINESSES to run—money to make—power to maintain *your Lib. Theology finds a web here 😦 This has nothing to do with the Spirit of God. This was about product and prestige and how this could be fostered. Believer—nonbeliever … it didn’t matter! Anything can sound horrid if used improperly. It may not even be of  “Christianity”.  Those early in having set out to change the minds and hearts of man through persuasive liturgy and inoffensive acts were not bent on enslavement. They were focused on seeking … and assisting man in knowledge and understanding.

*see early culture/diaspora:

But to steal and claim the words as if Writings on God—Spirit—a Savior—Christ—popped out of the nonbeliever’s pen and onto the page is absurd. There was/is BELIEF in Spirit for the word Spiritual to come into use.

A man does not say mother and not know that it was she that gave birth to him.

One can say something like, you motherf, or …  that’s the mother load … but one cannot deny that mother was written into the work early on with a direct meaning. Seriously … let’s not be forsaken on the intelligence of the history of the languages, folks. These held meaning and purpose, and still do. *Note: those having lost mother to unusual circumstances while young … we are seeing a pattern in where the minds hold back, redirects and lunges for growth. “Intelligence in its minority” pushes the child away and mother is not permitted to enter the stream. Intelligence becomes the domineering facet of the mind … there is always this hunger … a great need … the weight on this increases and there is no room for what? There is a poverty of what? A singular existence does what? When man finally sees what the monks of The Philokalia were not only expressing, but experiencing within themselves—that same poverty at odds with the dynamism of truth— in their struggles to seek the Supreme Being, and the Evil that preys  … there will be a climb. The nonbeliever will erupt.


THE HOLY SPIRIT In Hebrew, the original inspired language of the Tanach (Old Testament), the word ‘Ruach’ cannot be construed as a person. It is a force. It is invisible and like wind, because it can be felt or experienced, but not seen. It is the breath of God which disperses His life-force, His energy and His intentions/mind. It is Yahweh’s Spirit which is is omnipresent, but also can be directed in specific ways for specific purposes. It is not His actual Person (which remains incorporeal and outside of the physical dimension) that manifests itself in the world, or which comes to dwell in the hearts and lives of His people.

His spirit can be said to be the emanation of His life-force – i.e. breath

Definition of spirit/ruach: “The basic meaning of ruach is both ‘wind’ or ‘breath,’ but neither is understood as essence; rather it is the power encountered in the breath and the wind, whose whence and whither remains mysterious… 2. ruach as a designation for the wind is necessarily something found in motion with the power to set other things in motion…The divine designation also apparently has an intensifying function in a few passages: ruach elohim (Gen 1:2) and ruach yhwh (Isa 59:19)” (Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, “Ruach”).


The English word spirit comes from the Latin spiritus, meaning “breath”, but also “spirit, soul, courage, vigor”, ultimately from a Proto-Indo-European *(s)peis. It is distinguished from Latin anima, “soul” (which nonetheless also derives from an Indo-European root meaning “to breathe”, earliest form *h2enh1- [4]). In Greek, this distinction exists between pneuma (πνεῦμα), “breath, motile air, spirit,” and psykhē (ψυχή), “soul”[3] (even though the latter term, ψῡχή = psykhē/psūkhē, is also from an Indo-European root meaning “to breathe”: *bhes-, zero grade *bhs- devoicing in proto-Greek to *phs-, resulting in historical-period Greek ps- in psūkhein, “to breathe”, whence psūkhē, “spirit”, “soul”[5]).

The word “spirit” came into Middle English via Old French. The distinction between soul and spirit also developed in the Abrahamic religions: Arabic nafs (نفس) opposite rúħ (روح); Hebrew neshama (נְשָׁמָה nəšâmâh) or nephesh (in Hebrew neshama comes from the root NŠM or “breath”) opposite ruach (רוּחַ rûaħ). (Note, however, that in Semitic just as in Indo-European, this dichotomy has not always been as neat historically as it has come to be taken over a long period of development: Both נֶ֫פֶשׁ (root נפשׁ) and רוּחַ (root רוח), as well as cognate words in various Semitic languages, including Arabic, also preserve meanings involving misc. air phenomena: “breath”, “wind”, and even “odour”.[6][7][8]) Wiki


spirit (n.)
mid-13c., “animating or vital principle in man and animals,” from Anglo-French spirit, Old French espirit “spirit, soul” (12c., Modern French esprit) and directly from Latin spiritus “a breathing (respiration, and of the wind), breath; breath of a god,” hence “inspiration; breath of life,” hence “life;” also “disposition, character; high spirit, vigor, courage; pride, arrogance,” related to spirare “to breathe,” from PIE *(s)peis- “to blow” (cognates: Old Church Slavonic pisto “to play on the flute”).

Meaning “supernatural immaterial creature; angel, demon; an apparition, invisible corporeal being of an airy nature” is attested from mid-14c.; from late 14c. as “a ghost” (see ghost (n.)). From c. 1500 as “a nature, character”; sense of “essential principle of something” (in a non-theological context, as in Spirit of St. Louis) is attested from 1680s, common after 1800; Spirit of ’76 in reference to the qualities that sparked and sustained the American Revolution is attested by 1797 in William Cobbett’s “Porcupine’s Gazette and Daily Advertiser.”

From late 14c. in alchemy as “volatile substance; distillate;” from c. 1500 as “substance capable of uniting the fixed and the volatile elements of the philosopher’s stone.” Hence spirits “volatile substance;” sense narrowed to “strong alcoholic liquor” by 1670s. This also is the sense in spirit level (1768). Also from mid-14c. as “character, disposition; way of thinking and feeling, state of mind; source of a human desire;” in Middle English freedom of spirit meant “freedom of choice.” From late 14c. as “divine substance, divine mind, God;” also “Christ” or His divine nature; “the Holy Ghost; divine power;” also, “extension of divine power to man; inspiration, a charismatic state; charismatic power, especially of prophecy.” Also “essential nature, essential quality.” From 1580s in metaphoric sense “animation, vitality.”

According to Barnhart and OED, originally in English mainly from passages in Vulgate, where the Latin word translates Greek pneuma and Hebrew ruah. Distinction between “soul” and “spirit” (as “seat of emotions”) became current in Christian terminology (such as Greek psykhe vs. pneuma, Latin anima vs. spiritus) but “is without significance for earlier periods” [Buck]. Latin spiritus, usually in classical Latin “breath,” replaces animus in the sense “spirit” in the imperial period and appears in Christian writings as the usual equivalent of Greek pneuma. Spirit-rapping is from 1852.


Do these definitions define Spirit in its fullness? No, but they tried  … and hopefully continue to seek … Isn’t this the way of a truth seeker? Seeking truth? Or have we now the nonbeliever speaking for the believer? Honestly, folks … this is getting ridiculous … We watch you flush yourselves down the drain … 

Do you even deserve God? And those piggy-wiggies hogging up the spotlight for centuries still at it claiming fuller knowledge… Good God it bores the hell out of us.




Now … would the militant nonbeliever such as we shared through the RNS comments speak badly of the art posted above? Does he know anything about what this is saying? Does he understand its source? No. He knows nothing about the art or the artist. He understands nothing of its LANGUAGE. He is ignorant of this. He may think that the painter stands in front of the canvas and paints … nothing more … as if there is no Breath … no Spirit  … no guidance or careful liturgy of the heart—no Essence. He does not know what any of it means … what was involved … the process … how long it took to paint Song of Andradimus. He has no idea who/what is Andradimus! He could make up all sorts of things to demean the artists and the art … insult, degrade … call it crazy … ignorant … nonsensical, even dangerous … if of an agenda or System of Belief to undermine … destroy … attack. He is not interested in knowing the truth about the work, only that he is right and believers having painted in this manner are delusional … living and breathing a fairy tale … and it matters not that the painters are not of Religion. He acts on his own self-worth, limited in knowledge and understanding on these matters. He is racist, and uncompromising.




Now … what about … the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Metaphor? Poetry? An inspiration? Breath? Life? Essence of these? Let’s look closely at another passage that ties in with this so abundantly it is like marriage to spir the family toward Gifts of the Spirit … should anyone actually care about the truth on the Word—seeking, asking …

14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry (dishonesty).

and …

3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

How did Jesus live? Does the nonbeliever know? Does the believer know? Did Jesus live honestly? Was he a “myth” for the purpose of Truth? Human used to prioritize Love? For that matter, What is Love? To the militant of extreme agenda, is it to condemn the believer? Condemn those who do not think and experience and live as he lives? What is the nonbeliever’s fear and anguish concerning believers? Is it the color of their skin? The language they speak? Their painted images? Their writings?

… their Religious advantages?


The table is turning. All men will finally see what is in the bosom of the Father. We shared on this when we spoke of the peach in an essay over a year ago.




Peace and Love






  1. opheliart permalink

    We are not of the heartmind to murder … but this nun cannot possibly know the depth of “sorrow” to be understood as GENUINE … in so short of time … she pushes agenda … this is for sure. As an indoctrinated specimen herself (absolutions and the like) … she understands only surface finality.

    It is of our Conscience that see the people affected by this horror wanting Tsarnaev to come into a fuller understanding of his actions.

  2. opheliart permalink

    We watched the movie IDA last evening and there was a scene where Ida was in a village with her aunt and a woman holding an infant asked that she “bless” the infant. Ida had not even taken her vows yet (RC convent) … even so, I laughed a little. Why did I laugh? I reacted to the indoctrinated mind that was taught that the nuns/clergy and … are somehow “blessed” with special gifts because of these vocations set up by the Institution. I understand why many young women might have entered the convent … to get out of marriage—men—abuse—a life of something they could not agree to, or to work with the poor as many nuns have … these were different times, women were often looked at as property, baby-breeders and … even today this is still a reality for many women … but the idea that this vow to lifestyle is somehow closer to what God wants in his “choosing” has never been for us a REALITY—not in the Spiritual Light on Love. What is interesting in this story (Ida) … I think it was the woman’s husband who murdered Ida’s family because of the Jewish heritage, but of course, the mom did not know that Ida was Jewish. So, that this young novice blessed the murderer’s child is symbolic … quite.

  3. opheliart permalink

    “You can’t love the “epic moral narrative” of the Bible but reject the major turning points of that storyline — like the resurrection of Jesus, without which the Apostle Paul said Christianity is futile, pitiable, and built on a massive lie.”

    Paul said this? Hmm … Trevor, you run dangerously close to anathema within your own guise.

  4. opheliart permalink

    Re: comments
    No, absolutely no … God does NOT use children as Greg states! This is a dead no!

    • opheliart permalink

      This is CREEPY Mariology that the swooning indoctrinated have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

      • opheliart permalink

        the commenter should be asking WHO may have poisoned these children to make their “prophecy” come true.

        This is bad … very bad …

  5. opheliart permalink

    “Jesus is power hungry and malicious?” Maybe this ignorant teen was reading Atheist Max or the Roman Church … 🙂

    • opheliart permalink

      Example (in reference to the Newtown murders … he blames religion for these)
      Atheist Max May 12, 2015 at 8:51 am

      If the universe were just, innocents would not be slaughtered.

      That has everything to do with religion. If God can’t protect innocent children from unfair events he is good for absolutely nothing.

      Has this Atheist ever asked himself why he didn’t stop the slaughter from happening? Where was he prior to this horrendous event? Why wasn’t he involved in the SCIENCE AND MEDICINE regarding Adam’s condition? … has he asked what BELIEFS Adam was involved in? how about the public school system … was he involved in the decisions regarding Adam’s choices, options … how he entered the school in the first place?

      This Atheist wants something without having to do anything! He demands allegiance without worth or merit! If children are a gift to the parents … to community to society and to its future … WHERE IS HUMAN IN THE REARING and SAFEKEEPING of this? A religionist could turn this around on A.M. and say that the increase of Atheism is the cause of this event …

      • opheliart permalink

        Allow us to remind A. M. that slaughtering has been going on for centuries where man is … even before his hatred of Jesus/God … Lapidation was a punishment … still is in some countries … Did he suddenly wake up to the bad news of Newtown, and say, “Oh, wow! God is not real?”
        Where was he all those years prior to this? Praying his rosary? Well, then … we can understand his ignorance.

        We told this story here in SPIR … but I remember quite vividly the day before the Newtown murders. I was sitting in Bradley Airport waiting for the arrival of a plane. I was texting a friend and said, “I am in CT.” He asked, “What is CT?” It was then that I felt something strange. I replied, “Connecticut … and I sense something big …” I sensed something big and something not good. Where does this come from? Awareness. Spiritual Awareness. A. M. can ridicule all he wants … he can toy with people’s emotions by using the Newtown horror, which is what he is doing … or he can realize that he is not helping the situation. Hating God … spewing hate Jesus rants … twisting Writings to suit his agenda … attacking those who don’t think like him with his “SHAME ON YOU” bull’s sh** does nothing for the Adam’s of the world. His Roman Catholic allegiance nor his Atheistic extremism can save those children … then or now.

    • opheliart permalink

      Did the teen say Jesus or Christians? The RNS article says Christians

      but this article says Jesus

      which one is telling the truth?

      *Time for research.

      • opheliart permalink

        Yee posted the video blog laced with expletives as Singapore was mourning Lee’s death on March 23. In the eight-minute clip that he posted on YouTube, Yee said Lee and Jesus Christ were “both power-hungry and malicious,” among other derogatory comments mostly targeting Lee.

        Added: more info on this story

        Interesting? Hmm … “Comparing him to Jesus Christ …” If the boy knew what he was talking about (Jesus Christ), his rants might be of a more succinct articulation … but he confuses INSTITUTION/SYSTEM OF BELIEF with something he knows nothing about … so, to answer our initial question on this story: he must be reading Atheist Max. 😉

        That he speaks out against his government is one thing, as this is something he actively experiences … but does he know Jesus Christ? Does he know if Jesus Christ is in any way malicious? Does he understand the language of Jesus Christ—spent any time in this? Wow … the liberties that some take in their rants is truly unreal … unfounded … to the point of absurdity … but you can thank the melodramatic, scheming, disingenuous militant Jesus haters for this.

        Yawn …

        added on May 14, 2015

        Comment on the article:

        Your article reads like an outsider’s caricature of “Singapore: the authoritarian Asian state”.

        It’s no longer accurate to say he was “threatened with 3 years’ jail”. Upon conviction, the prosecution asked for probation and specifically recommended a non-custodial sentence. They are aware of his youth and do not wish to ruin his future.

        I would also hesitate to call his Youtube channel “popular”. Most of his videos have an overwhelmingly poor “likes” rating. And they were already reviled long before the LKY saga- he had first drawn public ire with his Chinese New Year video back in 2012.

        Lastly, he has callously accused his volunteer bailor of molesting him, then, in a cavalier fashion, revealed it was just to troll the media.

        We should never have fed this troll.

        On legal background, you mentioned some statutes. If you’ve read up on how they’ve actually been applied though, it’s a different story, especially in the last 20 years. The MRHA, for…

  6. opheliart permalink

    While on RNS, I said: If Atheist Max just has to be here (spewing his hate speech) then he will be of purpose. So, we continue using his comments to share the mental state and mindset of the indoctrinated …

    Atheist Max May 12, 2015 at 11:08 am

    I get tired of giving bible lessons:
    Jesus is explicitly referencing himself as the Nobleman in the Parable of the Minas. The entirety of the Parousia relies on Jesus being the Nobleman.
    Don’t contribute to the disinformation you claim to be objecting to!

    😀 ;D 😀 A. M. does not know what “Jesus” represents in the Parable of the Mina … and he does not know What is Mina.

    He loves to shoot off his tongue … but in the process, he slits his own throat (silences any credibility he might have had .. will have)/\.

  7. opheliart permalink

    if a man needs as many people as pope fran needs to explain what he REALLY thinks then somethin’ is just plain smelly.
    —- pushing pope francis agenda, which is really Roman Catholicism wearing a variety of “collars”, is what is the REAL agenda … to try to get the world to see the Vatican as something credible … to try to get people interested in the Roman Catholic Church as a viable player … hmm … Politics is not a difficult thing—what’s il problema?

  8. opheliart permalink

    We wouldn’t normally post this, but the point we wish to make has everything to do with the RCC.
    That these two individuals married is not our point. The Nation’s Parliament is staunchly Roman Catholic: Is this a different Roman Catholicism from the Vatican—from Pope Fran and Co.? There is such divided thought (within the Institution) and growing … on many issues like marriage, abortion and … It’s as if “Catholics” are finally beginning to realize that they cannot hold people to a certain view or belief on life choices, and having a staunch view does not make them in any way superior, nor does it make them special in the eyes of God. To allow one choice of lifestyle, but not another? In Government, to be partial becomes an obvious undermining and an almost fanatical or fascist licensing. And what contradicts the views of those against allowing ssm is the FACT that many priests/clergy in the RC Institution are engaging in homosexual acts. RCs may not want to know this, but talk to any seminarian or priest willing to be HONEST, and he will tell you that this is a fact of many “celibates”. Now, do the Catholics opposing ssm care only on the “marriage” issue, and not an issue of sexual activity? You wouldn’t believe some of the comments/experiences we have read coming from Catholics on the ‘celibate’ view of chastity: sex with a woman is a grave sin, but a priest having sex with a man is not counter to their vows. 😉 Really … ? We did not realize priests thought the female so filthy … so demonic?

    Honestly, it’s all a lot of hooey … these vows of poverty and celibacy … pledging allegiance to an inane life that so few are capable of living. It’s stumbling blocks, ignorance, a way to demonize and enslave … and has NO relevance in being “chosen” for the real WORK. If anything, it’s a hideaway for many not wanting to face the real facts of life. As we have shared in SPIR, we can certainly understand how men and women went into these vocations … some to escape poverty, homelessness, abuse from men, marriage, a chance at schooling, even to be with mostly men or mostly women for sex, or companionship … some even for the elitism that this harbors in certain sects 😦 But today, what gift does the priest offer the world?

    Denominational practices aside … Today, what does the vocational priest offer the world? What part is he in the wellness of Mankind?

    This is something the RCC needs to take a serious look at, and all denominations where there is a featured individual running the “care” of flock.


  9. opheliart permalink

    “the church won” …

    as if we don’t know what went on.

    dishonesty is the plague

    you might try to fool the public, but what you don’t see is what you don’t see

    and what you DON’T HEAR … is what you don’t hear 😦

    • opheliart permalink

      does anyone have the courage to ask:


      • opheliart permalink

        oh, just another, HEY, EVERYBODY, LOOK AT OUR CHURCH!
        *and let’s make sure pop fran does get any poop on his dress

        Same-old-same … covering over the cracks …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: