Stardustalphaomega is moving! We’ve moving to the more communication-diverse YOUTUBE.COM
The use of video will simplify and magnify our opinions and statements on the web!
The transition will be slow, as we are both slammed at work, but we’re hoping to get rolling within a few weeks!
CHECK US OUT SOON!
Well, it’s been quite a while since I lasted posted. Not surprisingly, a lot has happened. I recently got my motorcycle temp and am going to sign up for a motorcycle class. Having never ridden a motorcycle, I figured it was the best place to start. An added bonus is that once I successfully complete the course, I do not have to take the motorcycle driving test in order to get my license! I just turn in the confirmation from the class, and the state will issue me an updated license with a motorcycle endorsement. I’m going to go with a Kawasaki Ninja 500. It’s very forgiving, looks great, and doesn’t have too much power for a beginner…
I’ve decided to start V-Blogging (video blogging), probably on YouTube. I’ll be blogging about everything from guns, to motorcycles, to swinging to atheism… I’m planning on buying the camera next weekend. I want Blair there ’cause she knows a lot more about this stuff than I do! One more thing… I am still struggling to loosing weight and get down to the 170-ish lbs I was three years ago. I thought that if I did a video blog about my progress, I’d be more apt to stick with it… Hope that works!
The neighbor behind us at the Southern House has been wanting to fuck Blair for the longest time. A couple months ago he got his wish. I was at the Northern House and the two of them had been flirting heavy for weeks. She called me and asked if it was still okay if she was with him and I said “Yes”. She called back a half hour later and said he had fondled her and licked her on the back porch while she sat in a chair… Not long after, he came over and licked her to a screaming orgasm on the couch, then fucked her. She sent me a sound bite of her screaming and a picture of the opened condom package…
Everybody want Blair! We went to the club not long ago and half a dozen or more people (boys and girls) had some tongue time with Blair’s huge breasts and nipples. We didn’t find anyone we felt comfortable going all the way with, but while this young black guy had a heavy make-out and petting session with Blair, I groped and fondled, licked and sucked his hot 24 year old girlfriend. One of the hostesses of the club, who I really got the hots for, was there and I flirted with her big time, and she flirted back! She had a slinky top on and her ample breasts were pouring out of it. I asked her about the tattoo on one of her tits and she said it was her initials, except she never got the one letter completed… So I got a sharpie marked and completed it for her!
Had a rough week last week at work. This week will be easy. The shop I’m going to is the North-East shop. Can’t stand the one supervisor there that I usually end up working for. She’s on vacation though! I’ll be training my counterpart in a certain aspect of our job that, so far, he has managed to avoid. But I’ve got over 4 weeks of vacation still and he’s going to have to learn it. He is nervous. Hopefully he’ll catch on!
At the Southern House now. Got to get up at 3:30 am to leave at 4am to be at work up North by 7am… Gonna get some sleep, fuck the Hell out of Blair and watch Predators 2010… ‘Night!
I caught a documentary the other day about the rise and fall of Enron. Once upon a time I was an Accountant for a large company in the construction chemical business. Although the company was not publicly sold, its parent companys (we were bought and sold several times) although not American, were. We had a budget. The executive bonuses were tied into that budget. Those in charge of Accounting made damn sure we made budget, always. No matter what.
I had a variety of responsibilities, one of which was running the company’s Relocation Program. I would move current and new employees and their households around the globe as needed. This was back in the 90′s. I had an annual budget of $1,000,000 USD. I was responsible for calculating the budget needed and I was ALWAYS on the money. The average relocation ran $50,000 USD and we always had several dozen relocations in various stages of completion and funding. Left alone, the operation would have run like a perfect machine. But when sales fell short, and profits, (and therefore executive bonuses), were to suffer, Accrued Liabilities were raided, including my Relocation Operation.
Inevitably, one of the Directors, usually Vince W., would come calling at month end close, asking if the $80,000 + accrual for Relocation Expenses was truly needed. I would state my argument to the affirmative and provide solid documentation to back it up. Despite the obvious, half my much-needed accrual would be hijacked. Then, at year-end, true to my calculations, we would be running a deficit in the account and need to book a large amount to shore it up. This would set off a panic with the higher-ups who, I suppose, thought one could traverse the planet with dozens of people and their belongings for mere pennies. Cries for thorough documentation of expenditures in the account would fill the halls! Having experienced the same thing year after year, I had a special folder with copies of all the necessary back up ready for them. I would hand over the folder, and, as with the previous years, nothing. I wouldn’t hear another word about it until the following December. Why? Because I was right. I was ALWAYS right, because I knew my job, was competent at my profession, was disciplined, focused, paid close attention to details and knew what needed to be done to get the job done correctly the FIRST time, every time. Period.
Lowering Accrued Liabilities was a favorite way to increase the bottom line. Fabrication and manipulation of account amounts was rampant. Every month end close, (the executives having long since gone home), the directors and their minions would huddle in a conference room at 10:00 at night, (most companies complete month-end close in two weeks, we were given two DAYS) plotting to ensure their covert number changing was both effective and undetectable. The rest of us would gather, waiting patiently (abet, with lots of head shaking) for the forgery to be completed. Then, we would book the B.S. entries and be home by Midnight. At one point a new guy took over as head of the Accounting Department. He refused to play ball with the number manipulating. He didn’t last long.
I worked with a lot of good honest people. I also worked with a lot of crooked and inept scoundrels. John G., Brian K., Tim W., Dave D., (who, although supposedly buddy-buddy with the other Directors, found out his real status when he developed cancer and the others tried to have him ousted to save on medical premiums), Don K., Pam W., Michele C. and Jenssa S., (who was an outside auditor for, now defunct, Arthur Anderson, and with whom, despite her being engaged, I had an affair with). My direct Supervisor, Laura, was, although bi-polar, decent. The problem I had with her was the problem most people had with almost all the Accounting heads. When the executives left to go home they had to pass through Accounting. The heads of Accounting made sure, night after night, that the department was there so when the execs left they would see the Accounting Heads dedicated staff working late (for free since we were salary) once again! What a joke.
But that is all behind me now, and I am much happier for it. In the summer of 2002 I made the decision to separate not only from the company, but from the Accounting profession as well. My departure was met with surprise and dismay. I was a valued and respected member of the department and would truly be missed. My going away party was large and memorable. I still have the over-sized card with dozens of signatures on it. With in a few years, the company would be sold once again. This time though, the company would see its departments merged and shuffled. The Accounting Department would be moved to New Jersey. Dave D., apparently having survived until now, his cancer, would be relegated to a token position in the Credit Department which was not moved. Guess he was forced to take what he could get. A fitting end to his career. I have to imagine his cocky ego has been chopped down a few notches. Too bad Dave…
I on the other hand, left the stressful world of corporate America and found solace in a Monday through Friday 7:00 am to 3:30 pm Blue-Collar job. It is union, so the pay is excellent (some of the guys hit well beyond 6 figures with overtime), the benefits great (including annual bonuses and a pension!), and the stress non-existant. The company is doing extremely well and has made a 25 year, $2.5 billion USD commitment to upgrades to its infrastructure. This should fairly guarantee me a job for life. I still work in an office environment, going from shop to shop with my company lap-top, assisting and filling in for office employees who are absent or need a little help catching up. It’s comforting going home after work and not having to worry about what insanity tomorrow will bring. Finally, I’ve found a job where the end of the day, means the end of the day…
On March 26, 2010 8 of jeezee’s faithful robots were crushed and burned to death when the van they were traveling in was struck head-on by a run-away semi-truck. And where the Hell was he? Sleeping? Drinking? Fucking? He sure wasn’t keeping his eye on the proverbial ball! And the kicker? The night before at a church meeting they had asked the congregation to pray for them on their journey! Wow! The amazing power of prayer!
Two young boys riding in the van survived. Police credit their survival on:
A) holy father jesus?
B) A lucky rabbit’s foot?
C) Child safety seats?
Obviously “C”. Yes, what they mystical jeezee was unable (or unwilling?) to do, a product of sinful man SAVED the day! That’s the only way worth being saved!
In response to my post: “David Cloud Gets it Wrong Again” one very upset individual left a comment damning me to eternal Hell, blah-blah-blah… Suffice it to say he was not happy with me! Below is his comment unedited (including spelling errors) and in its entirety. Below that, is my response, which, undoubtedly because he is afraid of debate using FACTS, he has said he will not be back to read…
Rick Says:
Your overt hatred of the Scripture belies your fear of death, hell and judgement. You are a man, created in the image of God, and as such, are one being in three parts: body, soul and spirit. It’s the spririt part that scares you, because it knows that there is a God, and it knows that you hate him. Your “glorious, enlightened” mind has convinced you that the physical universe is all that there is, therefore you serve that physical master. (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13) The things of the spirit are foolisness with you (I Corinthians 2:14), and your reprobate mind is the result of your refusal to accept that this perfect universe was designed by a perfect Creator (Romans 1:28).
Your attack of David Cloud leaves me asking “Why target David Cloud of all people?” He’s not exactly the most prominent spokesperson for Christianity. In the broad spectrum of modern Christendom, he really is a nobody. So why set your sights on him? Is it because you sense the truth in what he says? You are fleeing from a man that is not persuing you (Proverbs 28:1). This is because you are wicked, and you prefer the darkness because your evil deeds can be hidden in the darkness, and you would have others as well as yourself to believe that you are good. (John 3:19-21).
Well, go ahead, believe what ever you want. Nobody is trying to force you into heaven. No faithful servant of Jesus Christ is trying to condemn you, you are condemned already. (John 3:17&18)
If you are as convinced of being right about God and the universe as you represent on this page, then good for you. You had better hope you are right. Forever is a long time spend in torment.
You may pass judgement on God and on his followers (many “Christians” do not folllow God), but your opinions and what is right in your eyes has no influence on God and His ways.
I know the power of God unto salvation, and I am here to remind you, you are wrong. If you come to accept this fact, contact me for further instruction in truth. If not, don’t bother to contact me, for Lord willing, I will shake your dust off my sandles and never look back. i don’t need you or you esteem, I have Christ. But you need Christ, and He would have me to share his Word with you.
Michael St. John Says:
March 23, 2010 at 18:58 e
Let me respond to this comment item by item…
I do not hate scriptures, no more than I hate Bigfoot or the Tooth Fairy. It is foolish to hate that which has been proven not to exist. Fear death? I do not welcome it, but I accept it as an inevitable part of the cycle of life. I do all I can do postpone it (eating right, exercising, being armed at all times, having our homes -Yes, HOMES… although we have never given a cent to god via tidings, he has seen fit to “bless” us with the financial ability to afford two homes! According to preacher John Hagee this should be impossible as financial rewards are given only to those who give to god… via his church of course…- having our homes secure and able to defend them against any aggressor (yes, even religious nuts with a hit list from their god). As to judgement and Hell, again, I fear that no more than I fear the Boggie Man under my bed.
As for refusing to believe the perfect creator created the universe, lets take a look at how well the supposed creator knows his own creation:
Firmament – According to the bible, a SOLID dome covering the sky. Obviously patently WRONG.
Rabbits- Sorry bible, rabbits do not chew their cud.
Bats- Sorry, bible, bats are not blind
Earth Sorry bible, you can not see all creation from a mountain, because the Earth is ROUND, not flat.
And so on and so on… The bible is FULL of errors and contradictions. This is because it was written by cavemen GUESSING at how the universe worked. Period.
Why David Cloud? Two reasons. One, unlike other religious sites, (ie:CAP Movie Ministries/bankrupt I guess god couldn’t pay the rent, jesus-is-lord.com/hasn’t been updated in years) Cloud’s is routinely updated. Secondly, he is extreme. This is a rarity now-a-days as believers scramble to UPDATE their religious beliefs with scientific knowledge and FACTS. Even the Vatican conceded evolution is a reality! It is comforting to us realists that believers are watering down their gods and will one day, water them down to extinction.
The rest of the comment is cockamamie filler.
The bible is FULL of errors and contradictions. The books of the bible were selected by man around 397ad for reasons of politics, power and influence. IF there was a god or goddess, he or she certainly had nothing to do with the bible or any other book of faith.
David-David-David… Our dear misguided friend, David Cloud, author of WayOfLife.org, is at it again. In the following article:
http://www.wayoflife.org/files/cd88e8c5b9a0c2ee77f1b6d0be796851-479.html
He trumpets the need for taking your television, (for which you no doubt shelled-out hundreds or even thousands of dollars of your very hard-earned money) and… and… and… throw it out. Yes, throw it out. No selling, no trading, just pitch the fucker onto the treelawn. And why should one of your most valued and treasured assets come to such a fate? Because cheerleaders show off their bellybuttons. Hah! Who knew?
In this “countering-article” I will enter the bizarre world of asset destruction, and give commentary on some of the sad and vain excuses people have for suppressing their lives and, more importantly, the lives of their innocent children. Pity the child whose early years are stifled as a result of ancient, long since shown to be bunk, superstitious nonsense!
Cloud starts out his latest literary dribble with a bold statement: “One of the wisest things parents can do today is throw out the television altogether, except for watching educational programs and perhaps some carefully selected movies, and the selection of the latter will be slim indeed.”
Okay, like anything, one should not be all-consumed by television. Having any one thing take over your life is ill-advised. However, as an American icon akin to baseball-hotdogs-applepie and Chevrolet, to belittle Hollywood is to belittle America itself. And to belittle America is simply to shine a spotlight (as it were), on ones narrow-mindedness and jealousy. Hollywood is a beacon to the world, signaling Americas second-to-none creativity, resourcefulness, and technological advancements. Every year Hollywood gives pleasure to millions and brings in untold billions in income and tax revenues. One may complain about a rainy day to which there is no control, however, to complain about that which one may simply choose to ignore is child-like foolishness, and anyone who partakes in such nonsense, is simply that, a fool.
Another quote from the article tells it all: “I always tell people that 3-4 hours of church a week can’t hold a candle to 30-40 hours of television as far as power and influence on a young kid. Church was boring; television was fun.” First of all, who the Hell goes to church 3-4 hours a week? I thought you were only obligated to be there one hour? In any event, there is much to be gleaned from this quote. Yes, church is boring! There is a literary term called “suspension of disbelief.” Simply stated, when one reads a book, watches a movie or television program, it is obvious that what you’re about to see or hear is make-believe, but for the next couple of hours you will allow yourself to set aside that knowledge and be drawn into the story. Religion on the other hand, is fantasy exhibited as fact. This is not the Dark Ages (when the facts of science were deliberately suppressed and covered up), but the 21st century, where people have near limitless access to information, and forcing suspension of disbelief will not work. Trying to spoon-feed superstitious garbage to the modern masses is a fool’s errand.
Another silly quote from the article states: “… Real family time is getting closer to god and developing an intimate, passionate, and personal relationship with jesus!” Why not get closer to, and have an intimate, passionate and personal relationship with Sherlock Holmes? Or Superman? Or Zeus or Apollo? Why not Bigfoot? How about the Atlantians? An even superficial examination of the bible reveals even some of the most basic scientific facts are blatantly flawed. Who would want such a relationship with an obviously fictional character? Are these peoples’ lives that shallow?
The article goes on and on about serving the lord (fictional character!) and how television is the tool of the Devil (fictional character!). One contributor states that because there is no television in their home, their child is the way a child should be, innocent to the world. Another states that because there is no television in the home, they (the parents) are not pestered by the kids asking for food and toys they see on TV. Still another states that because of the lack of TV, their child only has desires for what the “family” has desires for. What?!? Are these people raising children or clones? Since when is a child supposed to be a pest? Sounds like a Socialist or Communists regime is running those households!
One quote reveals the truth about the way religious leaders handle facts and evidence that blows huge holes in their foolish fantasies. It states that commercials present things that christians should not be exposed to such as Darwinism, homosexuality and teen in adult situations. So in other words, cover up the facts! Hide the truth! Put forth more lies! More fantasy! More foolishness! Another quote solidifying this: “Our children are ignorant of current trends (ie: current information and facts!)… for which we are grateful.” In conjunction with this, the parents go on to comment on how much better off their home-schooled children are. How pathetically sad! How will these children survive on their own? They will lack the essential social skills to interact successfully with others in order to obtain gainful employment, maneuver through the myriad of complex financial transactions necessary to live a healthy, productive life and make intelligent decisions in order to best position themselves for a safe and secure existence.
Continuing the above theme, another wayward soul states how far better he is not being influenced by commercialism. Now, I for one do so hate commercials. And I hate being told that I need to update everything I have for the sake of updating everything I have (car, cell phone, dvd to blue ray, etc…). But, I am also aware of the fact that our financial system is based on capitalism and therefor, commercials are a necessary part of that. A certain amount of greed is needed to fuel the system. Without (admittedly sometimes superfluous) wants and desires, the system grinds to a halt.
One final area to cover and I’ll call it a day. Sex. Always a favorite hated subject of the righteous invisible man in the sky believers, sex is, always has been and always will be a part of the human experience. Period. There is no on-off switch. Once puberty strikes, horny is the norm. Yes, there is such a thing as too young for sex, however, to pretend that believing in an invisible man in the sky is going to suppress the chemical and electrical firings in the body of a hormonal adolescent or adult is pure folly. One must embrace the inevitable and confront it. Talk to one’s young person and explain to them that the beauty and excitement of unabashed orgasmic coupling can have undesired consequences. It can not be hidden, covered up, or otherwise made to vanish, only to reappear on the night of their honeymoon. Deal with it! Face it!
I could go on and on until our sun supernovas detailing the asinine ramblings of this article, most of which repeats the same tired issues over and over and over again… Zzzzzz. But I’m off to watch a sex-drenched, cuss-filled, rebellious teen immersed gore-fest of a movie on TV! Actually it’s the first Alien movie I recorded on the DVR at the Southern house. Anyway, read the entire article if you wish and drop me a line if you have some commentary you wish to get off your chest… Til next time…
Several weeks ago Blair told her teenage daughter (actually confirmed to her teenage daughter, as she already suspected) that Blair and I are swingers. When out and about in public, Blair and I often will ogle and comment on various individuals we find attractive, speculating on their sexual prowess, etc. This diligent speculating was, apparently, not lost on her daughter. ..
So… her daughter asked point blank, what was going on. Blair told her we have a relationship where we are allowed to have sex with others. That’s when her daughter brought up the “S” word, and Blair confirmed, yes we were swingers.
Blair then proceeded to describe to her the club we frequent. Her daughter asked if when we’re going to dinner with “friends” were we actually meeting people for sex? Blair confirmed it. Her daughter asked if Blair could have sex with younger guys (20′s), and when Blair affirmed, her daughter became quite excited for her!
We have no doubt that, if nothing else then for curiosity’s sake, when of age, her daughter will want to see the club first hand. In the mean time, we are relieved that we no longer have to hide who we are to her and that, she was not only accepting of our lifestyle, but was happy for us. We have informed her of a couple we are currently seeing and she has been texting the daughter of that couple (she knows what her parents are) who is the same age.
We met a very cut black gal on one of the swingers’ sites we frequent. Blair has been fighting pneumonia and wasn’t feeling very horny as a result, and even if she had been, she wasn’t too into this gal anyway. But, she knows my penchant for exotic women, and this one had quite an exotic beauty. Not knowing if Blair was going to make it to the meet-up, the gal wanted to talk to her first to ensure I wasn’t a cheating husband. Days before the meet-up I handed the phone to Blair while I was on the phone with this gal, and Blair put to rest any doubts about her not knowing and approving.
We met the gal at a restaurant in a suburb about 30 minutes from the Southern house. Blair loves this place and I think was looking forward more to the meal than to any sex afterwards! We arrived first and the gal arrived about 15 minutes later. She was not fat, but not skinny. Darker skin, nice sized tits, grabable ass and decent face. We ate and talked and she seemed nervous. After dinner Blair and I asked if she wanted to get a room. To our surprise, she said “Yes.” We selected a nearby hotel and met there. I went in and got the room, while the girls waited outside.
The gal at the counter was a cute young blond. She asked how many adults and I told her three. Then she asked how many beds and I told her one. She gave an embarrassed knowing smile. There is no doubt she knew what we were (swingers), as this is one of several hotels near the club we frequent that has deals with the hotels for their members. We stayed at one on New Year’s Eve (that story is posted here as well). Anyway, I got the key, went out, got the girls, and the three of us paraded past the clerk on to our room.
We got in the room and briefly checked it out. It was fairly small and very basic, but the bed was a queen and that was all that we were really concerned about. There was a nice sized cushioned window shelf with a pillow and Blair took up residence there as I began seducing my prize.
I removed her glasses and held her, kissed her neck, her ear. Kissed her mouth full and hard. (She is an awesome kisser!). We started removing our clothing. I grabbed her and kissed her some more. I grabbed her soft breasts, her nipples erect. She noticed the window was opened and asked for Blair to close it. Naked, we laid on the bed and groped and kissed while Blair watched. I fingered her clit, sucked her breasts and grabbed her ass. My cock hardened as she caressed it with both hands. I grabbed a condom, put it on, and opened her gorgeous legs. I was so hard and she so very wet neither of us had to guide me in. It slid in easily. I pinned her wrists behind her head and started gliding in and out. I kissed her mouth, neck, ears and breasts while I fucked her with varying speed and thrust. I quickly learned she liked it better when I barely took it out before slamming back in as opposed to going out nearly all the way. I kept my body close to hers and stimulated her decent sized clit. We fucked for 45 minutes, at one point I put her on her hands and knees and fucked her doggie style. With her on her back again, she told me she wanted to see me cum. I obliged her with a long hard orgasm. I collapsed on her.
The three of us talked and then Blair went out to get us something from the pop machine. We drank our pop and talked about everything under the sun. Another 45 minutes went by. Blair was feeling worse and decided to get some air. (The cold actually helps her feel better). The black gal and I talked a bit more, and then started kissing and fondling again. I put on another condom and entered her again. I grabbed her tits with both hands and propped myself up. I fucked her hard. I grabbed her legs and lifted them up straight, but them together and fucked her like that. I opened her up again and pounded her hard and fast. Not wanting to leave Blair alone too long, I shot another load while I held this girl tight.
We got up and she checked her phone. We got dressed and walked out. As we passed the front desk, I handed the blond the key card and told her thanks, we were done. I walked the gal to her SUV. Blair had gone for a drive. As the gal drove away, I called for Blair to pick me up and we went to BEST BUY to do some shopping. When we got home, Blair went into our home office to install some upgrades we had bought for one of the computers. I got the AK-47 I had just purchased, and, having purchased it used, set about cleaning it (it needed it!) while I watched the movie “The Collector”. (Awesome movie! Highly recommend it.) I went to sleep early as I had to get up at 4am to head back to the Northern House for work. Later that night though, Blair woke me, and with the scent of the black gal still on me, we fucked each other’s brains out.
Blair met a couple on a site we frequent. After some correspondence, she had the guy over to the Southern house while I was asleep in the basement (she told him I was there). I could hear everything and was disappointed (as was the guy’s wife) that he and Blair did nothing but talk. He was nervous (may have been cause he knew I was there). Anyway… a few weeks later, she had him over again. This time I hid in a closet in the bedroom and she did not tell him I was there.
She met him at the door in a hot red teddy, covered by a robe. Not long after he arrived they made their way upstairs. After some chit-chat about the layout of the room it fell silent. Then I could hear them kissing, her being laid down on the bed… him licking and sucking her pussy and her breathy moans. They were at it for only half an hour and most of that time was spent with him licking her awesome pussy and her near screaming his name. At one point he did bend her over and fuck her doggie style. I heard the wet slap-slap of his skin against hers, and heard her breath being interrupted by his pounding. I also heard him asking her if that’s how she liked it!
After, they talked for ten minutes and she let him out. She came up after he had left and I took my sexual frustration out on her already soaked pussy. I pinned her wrists down and pounded her hard while she filled me in on what they had done (the parts I wasn’t able to see, only hear.) We’re trying to get him and his wife to come over. I really want to fuck her! Huge tits, cute face, and very shy! I think we will be seeing them soon… I can not wait to get my hands, mouth and cock on her!
The inability of superstitious religious fanatics to concede to the FACTS of science and abandon their silly, child-like fairy tales never ceases to amaze me. Thankfully, given enough time, the proliferation of scientific truths and common sense, propelled by global communication devices such as the internet, will eventually render fallacies such as religion, inert.
In the meantime, logical, clear-minded individuals like myself must continue to endure the ravings of the simple-minded, who stead fastly persist, (in the face of overwhelming EVIDENCE to the contrary), in their attempts to appease their imaginary god-friends with hocus-pocus rituals, chants and wasteful tithing, then insist on shoving these nonsensical-outdated-disproven traditions into the public realm, (as if the public realm needs more daydreams).
And, once again, in the center of the vortex of imaginarium, lies one of the most misguided souls on the planet, David Cloud. Once a normal, healthy individual, he was infected with the religious virus, and his mind was slowly wracked and rotted with delusions of fantasy and absurdity. In his latest Friday News segment, which can be viewed here:
http://www.wayoflife.org/index.html
Cloud states as one of many proofs of biblical nonsense, the resurrection of the son of the invisible man in the sky… who was actually the invisible man himself… but also a bird-spirit (dove), but non-the-less three are distinct entities… completely interconnected, but alas, not really… (Yeah… Logic at it’s finest…)
Cloud points out the numerous witnesses to the son of the god/bird who saw him alive after he was dead for several days… Wow! Finally! Indisputable concrete proof! Ask any Police Detective about witness reliability… Not worth a damn. So, lets examine the supposed perfect writings of the all-knowing, all-perfect, invisible man in the sky, shall we?
An even cursory examination of the bible will reveal that is was NOT authored by a flawless deity, but by painfully ignorant and shooting-in-the-dark, cave dwelling, child-minded humans who, without even the most fundamental scientific understanding, could only GUESS as to how the universe functioned. PERIOD. Let’s dig deeper… The bible states:
* Everything in it comes from god (2 timothy 3:16)
* god’s word is flawless (2 samuel 22:31) & psalms (12:6) & psalms (18:30) & proverbs (30:5)
Bearing the above in mind:
According to the creator of the universe, the Earth: Is flat, unmovable, supported by pillars, has edges, it is the CENTER of the universe, is covered with a firmament (a vault that covers the planet – hmm, wonder why our numbers space launches never encountered it??? – Cause it’s NOT there!) (1 samuel 2:8, job 9:6, job 38:4, isaiah 11:12, revelation 7:1, job 38:13, jeremiah 16:19, daniel 4:11, psalm 93:1-3, psalm 96:10 psalm 104:5, 1 chronicles 16:30, matthew 4:8) Obviously this is all a bunch of complete nonsense!
According to the creator of the universe: Ants have no ruler (proverbs 6:6-8) Wrong! Ant colonies have a queen!
According to the creator of the universe: The Mustard Seed is the smallest of seeds (matthew 13:31-32) . Um, WRONG. The Orchid seed, for one, is smaller.
According to the creator of the universe: Insects walk on four (4) legs (leviticus 11:20-23). No such a creature. Insects have six (6) legs.
According to the creator of the universe: arah had 775 sons (ezra 2:5), NO! Ooops, arah had 652 sons (nehemiah 7:10)
According to the creator of the universe: Judas died by hanging himself (matthew 27:5) NO! Ooops, Judas died by falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out (acts 1:18)
You get the idea… I could go on forever pointing out the errors and contradictions in a book supposedly created by a perfect being. For being the creator of everything, he certainly has a difficult time keeping his facts straight! Perhaps he should take some science classes at his local community college?!?
Britney Spears with her blatantly obvious ode to the swinging lifestyle! May the gods bless America and it’s freedoms!
Enjoy…
Britney Spears – 3 Lyrics
1, 2, 3
Not only you and me
Got one eighty degrees
And I’m caught in between
Countin’
1, 2, 3
Peter, Paul & Mary
Gettin’ down with 3P
Everybody loves ***
Countin’
Babe, pick a night
To come out and play
If it’s alright
What do you say?
Merrier the more
Triple fun that way
Twister on the floor
What do you say?
Are – you in
Livin’ in sin is the new thing (yeah)
www.musicloversgroup.com
Are – you in
I am countin’!
1, 2, 3
Not only you and me
Got one eighty degrees
And I’m caught in between
Countin’
1, 2, 3
Peter, Paul & Mary
Gettin’ down with 3P
Everybody loves ***
Countin’
Three is a charm
Two is not the same
I don’t see the harm
So are you game?
Lets’ make a team
Make ‘em say my name
Lovin’ the extreme
Now are you game?
Are – you in
Livin’ in sin is the new thing
Are – you in
I am countin’!
1, 2, 3
Not only you and me
Got one eighty degrees
And I’m caught in between
Countin’
1, 2, 3
Peter, Paul & Mary
Gettin’ down with 3P
Everybody loves ***
What we do is innocent
Just for fun and nothin’ meant
If you don’t like the company
Let’s just do it you and me
You and me
Or three
Or four
On the floor
Song Information
Released September 29, 2009
Recorded 2009
Length 3:33
Label Jive
Writers Max Martin, Shellback, Tiffany Amber
Producer Max Martin
Yeah, we know this is a few days late, but we’ve been busy…
New Year’s Eve was spent doing exactly what everybody wants to do on New Year’s Eve: Fucking, Drinking and Partying. Only Blair and I didn’t want it… We DID it…
We went to the bash being put on by our favorite swinger’s club down by our Southern house. We got a room at a hotel near the club (no drinking and driving!) and the club provided continual shuttle service back and forth all night!
We got there later than planned… Blair! We arrived at the club about 10pm. We immediately started “prowling” (checking out the scene, looking for potential hook-ups). The place was PACKED! Blair started in on her Yeager Bombs, and I with my Rum and Cokes, as we roamed shoulder to shoulder with HUNDREDS of gorgeous revelers. The admission price was $125.00 USD, but well worth it! The pool table had been removed and in its place was a huge table full of horderves and pastries. They had also opened up the massive upstairs.
As we ventured forth, my eyes locked with a short, pretty blonde. Her name was Mary, and although she wasn’t playing that night, I did end up making out with her several times and helped myself to her sweet little ass, as well as getting an eyeful (and handful) of her small but pretty breasts. Too bad, though, she would have been an interesting sex partner. I did end up making out and fooling around with Mary’s friend (don’t remember her name). She was so/so but I would have seriously considered having sex with her but I didn’t meet up with her til Blair and I were about to leave.
While Blair was waiting in the (endless) bar line, I met a great black couple. He was kinda goofy, but she was GORGEOUS! Pretty face, knock-out body! I had some serious flirt time with her! They were having a bad night for whatever reason, so I didn’t push wanting to get her naked and screaming. Blair wasn’t really interested in either one. Maybe next time…
As it turns out there was one unanticipated problem. The club offered a discount if you brought another couple with you. While that helped in boosting attendance numbers to the moon, it also had a “limitating effect”. People who brought others with them, were kinda obligated to stay with them. So, while the number of people was huge, the number of “available” people was hindered.
As midnight neared, Blair and I went into a room by ourselves. As midnight struck and the crowed roared, my gorgeous wife was on top of me, slowly riding me, an ever growing sexually intoxicated look of pleasure on her glowing face. After half an hour we stepped back out into the sexual malay.
We talked briefly with a naked couple in the hot-tub room. He was okay, she was very pretty, with niced-sized tits and a grabable ass. Blair and I signaled eachother covertly and we decided to pass on them. We headed over to the group room. In the center of this room are ten mattresses stacked as a pyramid. This is surrounded in a semi-circle of tent-like three walled bedrooms each with a different theme (jungle, etc…), the side facing the mattress pyramid is open for all to see. Between the pyramid and the rooms are various chairs and couches for spectators.
Having left Blair for a refill, I found her hanging out with a triple (a couple with another – in this case a guy), watching half a dozen couples fucking and sucking on the various levels of the mattress pyramid. The female of the triple was fairly cute and her and I made out and I helped myself to her decent sized tits. She in turn, helped herself to Blair’s tits. After awhile, Blair went to get a refill. She returned a half hour later with a couple of her own. She signaled me over and the four of us went into one of the rooms surrounding the pyramid.
The wife was cute with a full but nice body. I told her I just wanted to watch my wife get fucked. So her and I laid on the over-sized bed as Blair made out with and quickly got naked with the husband. As the husband finger-fucked my screaming wife into a squirting orgasm and climbed on top of her and thrust his condom covered cock into her cum-soaked pussy, his wife could no longer take it, and climbed on top of me and stripped me. With my swollen cock deep in her throat, and her husband now fucking Blair doggie-style, a crowd of on-lookers gazed with smiles. In the room next door, I could hear two couples. One girl asking the other if she could fuck her husband, the girl responding “Sure.” Moments later the husband asking the girl if she liked it hard the way he was giving it to her and her responding with moans…
I pushed my partner off of me and under me. And, with an almost agonizing and breathy plea, she begged me to fuck her. I fumbled with the condom, desperate for her pussy. I slammed my penis in her body in one hard thrust and she responded by arching her back and screaming. She tried to put her arms around me but I grabbed her wrists and pinned them behind her, hard. She looked at me with drunken hunger and told me to do whatever the fuck I wanted to her. I fucked her like an animal, pounding her pussy black and blue while next to us Blair was screaming to the husband how huge his cock was.
We laid there for a while, collected our clothes, exchanged numbers, and then Blair and I headed for the door. We caught the next shuttle back to our hotel, sharing it with a cute couple with heavy Austrailian accents.
Back at the hotel, we broke open the complimentary champaign and chocolates. We screwed for an hour then crashed. The next morning we chowed down on the complimentary breakfast, and headed home…
Check out theses links for Pat Condell videos. This guy is a HUGE asset to the reality movement! Articulate, interesting, intelligent and RIGHT ON THE MONEY!
Not only has the divinity of Christ been given up, but his existence as a man is being more and more seriously questioned. Some of the ablest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all. A commanding literature dealing with the inquiry, intense in its seriousness and profound and thorough in its research, is growing up in all countries, and spreading the conviction that Christ is a myth. The question is one of tremendous importance. For the Freethinker, as well as for the Christian, it is of the weightiest significance. The Christian religion has been and is a mighty fact in the world. For good or for ill, it has absorbed for many centuries the best energies of mankind. It has stayed the march of civilization, and made martyrs of some of the noblest men and women of the race: and it is to-day the greatest enemy of knowledge, of freedom, of social and industrial improvement, and of the genuine brotherhood of mankind. The progressive forces of the world are at war with this Asiatic superstition, and this war will continue until the triumph of truth and freedom is complete. The question, “Did Jesus Christ Really Live?” goes to the very root of the conflict between reason and faith; and upon its determination depends, to some degree, the decision as to whether religion or humanity shall rule the world.
Whether Christ did, or did not live, has nothing at all to do with what the churches teach, or with what we believe, It is wholly a matter of evidence. It is a question of science. The question is–what does history say? And that question must be settled in the court of historical criticism. If the thinking world is to hold to the position that Christ was a real character, there must be sufficient evidence to warrant that belief. If no evidence for his existence can be found; if history returns the verdict that his name is not inscribed upon her scroll, if it be found that his story was created by art and ingenuity, like the stories of fictitious heroes, he will have to take his place with the host of other demigods whose fancied lives and deeds make up the mythology of the world.
What, then, is the evidence that Jesus Christ lived in this world as a man? The authorities relied upon to prove the reality of Christ are the four Gospels of the New Testament–Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These Gospels, and these alone, tell the story of his life. Now we know absolutely nothing of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, apart from what is said of them in the Gospels. Moreover, the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. They are not called “The Gospel of Matthew,” or “The Gospel of Mark,” but “The Gospel According to Matthew,” “The Gospel According to Mark,” “The Gospel According to Luke,” and “The Gospel According to John.” No human being knows who wrote a single line in one of these Gospels. No human being knows when they were written, or where. Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief reasons for this conclusion are that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other three. It is shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord’s prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke.
But the Gospel of Mark, as we have it, is not the original Mark. In the same way that the writers of Matthew and Luke copied and enlarged the Gospel of Mark, Mark copied and enlarged an earlier document which is called the “original Mark.” This original source perished in the early age of the Church. What it was, who wrote it, where it was written, nobody knows. The Gospel of John is admitted by Christian scholars to be an unhistorical document. They acknowledge that it is not a life of Christ, but an interpretation of him; that it gives us an idealized and spiritualized picture of what Christ is supposed to have been, and that it is largely composed of the speculations of Greek philosophy. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are called the “Synoptic Gospels,” on the one hand, and the Gospel of John, on the other, stand at opposite extremes of thought. So complete is the difference between the teaching of the first three Gospels and that of the fourth, that every critic admits that if Jesus taught as the Synoptics relate, he could not possibly have taught as John declares. Indeed, in the first three Gospels and in the fourth, we meet with two entirely different Christs. Did I say two? It should be three; for, according to Mark, Christ was a man; according to Matthew and Luke, he was a demigod; while John insists that he was God himself.
There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.
There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels–the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ–were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of “Supernatural Religion,” one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: “After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ.” How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.
Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic–the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek–every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ’s disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts–such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived.
But while the Gospels were written several generations too late to be of authority, the original documents, such as they were, were not preserved. The Gospels that were written in the second century no longer exist. They have been lost or destroyed. The oldest Gospels that we have are supposed to be copies of copies of copies that were made from those Gospels. We do not know who made these copies; we do not know when they were made; nor do we know whether they were honestly made. Between the earliest Gospels and the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there is a blank gulf of three hundred years. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the original Gospels contained.
There were many Gospels in circulation in the early centuries, and a large number of them were forgeries. Among these were the “Gospel of Paul,” the Gospel of Bartholomew,” the “Gospel of Judas Iscariot,” the “Gospel of the Egyptians,” the “Gospel or Recollections of Peter,” the “Oracles or Sayings of Christ,” and scores of other pious productions, a collection of which may still be read in “The Apocryphal New Testament.” Obscure men wrote Gospels and attached the names of prominent Christian characters to them, to give them the appearance of importance. Works were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name of Christ. The greatest Christian teachers taught that it was a virtue to deceive and lie for the glory of the faith. Dean Milman, the standard Christian historian, says: “Pious fraud was admitted and avowed.” The Rev. Dr. Giles writes: “There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were then written with no other view than to deceive.” Professor Robertson Smith says: “There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views.” The early church was flooded with spurious religious writings. From this mass of literature, our Gospels were selected by priests and called the inspired word of God. Were these Gospels also forged? There is no certainty that they were not. But let me ask: If Christ was an historical character, why was it necessary to forge documents to prove his existence? Did anybody ever think of forging documents to prove the existence of any person who was really known to have lived? The early Christian forgeries are a tremendous testimony to the weakness of the Christian cause.
Spurious or genuine, let us see what the Gospels can tell us about the life of Jesus. Matthew and Luke give us the story of his genealogy. How do they agree? Matthew says there were forty-one generations from Abraham to Jesus. Luke says there were fifty-six. Yet both pretend to give the genealogy of Joseph, and both count the generations! Nor is this all. The Evangelists disagree on all but two names between David and Christ. These worthless genealogies show how much the New Testament writers knew about the ancestors of their hero.
If Jesus lived, he must have been born. When was he born? Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. He could not have been born during the administration of these tow rulers for Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod’s son. Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ’s birth. The fact is that the early Christians had absolutely no knowledge as to when Christ was born. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says: “Christians count one hundred and thirty-three contrary opinions of different authorities concerning the year the Messiah appeared on earth.” Think of it–one hundred and thirty-three different years, each one of which is held to be the year in which Christ came into the world. What magnificent certainty!
Towards the close of the eighteenth century, Antonmaria Lupi, a learned Jesuit, wrote a work to show that the nativity of Christ has been assigned to every month in the year, at one time or another.
Where was Christ born? According to the Gospels, he was habitually called “Jesus of Nazareth.” The New Testament writers have endeavored to leave the impression that Nazareth of Galilee was his home town. The Synoptic Gospels represent that thirty years of his life were spent there. Notwithstanding this, Matthew declares that he was born in Bethlehem in fulfillment of a prophecy in the Book of Micah. But the prophecy of Micah has nothing whatever to do with Jesus; it prophesies the coming of a military leader, not a divine teacher. Matthew’s application of this prophecy to Christ strengthens the suspicion that his Gospel is not history, but romance. Luke has it that his birth occurred at Bethlehem, whither his mother had gone with her husband, to make the enrollment called for by Augustus Caesar. Of the general census mentioned by Luke, nothing is known in Roman history. But suppose such a census was taken. The Roman custom, when an enrollment was made, was that every man was to report at his place of residence. The head of the family alone made report. In no case was his wife, or any dependent, required to be with him. In the face of this established custom, Luke declares that Joseph left his home in Nazareth and crossed two provinces to go Bethlehem for the enrollment; and not only this, but that he had to be accompanied by his wife, Mary, who was on the very eve of becoming a mother. This surely is not history, but fable. The story that Christ was born at Bethlehem was a necessary part of the program which made him the Messiah, and the descendant of King David. The Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, the city of David; and by what Renan calls a roundabout way, his birth was made to take place there. The story of his birth in the royal city is plainly fictitious.
His home was Nazareth. He was called “Jesus of Nazareth”; and there he is said to have lived until the closing years of his life. Now comes the question–Was there a city of Nazareth in that age? The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: “We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus’ time.” No certainty that there was a city of Nazareth! Not only are the supposed facts of the life of Christ imaginary, but the city of his birth and youth and manhood existed, so far as we know, only on the map of mythology. What amazing evidence to prove the reality of a Divine man! Absolute ignorance as to his ancestry; nothing whatever known of the time of his birth, and even the existence of the city where he is said to have been born, a matter of grave question!
After his birth, Christ, as it were, vanishes out of existence, and with the exception of a single incident recorded in Luke, we hear absolutely nothing of him until he has reached the age of thirty years. The account of his being found discussing with the doctors in the Temple at Jerusalem when he was but twelve years old, is told by Luke alone. The other Gospels are utterly ignorant of this discussion; and, this single incident excepted, the four Gospels maintain an unbroken silence with regard to thirty years of the life of their hero. What is the meaning of this silence? If the writers of the Gospels knew the facts of the life of Christ, why is it that they tell us absolutely nothing of thirty years of that life? What historical character can be named whose life for thirty years is an absolute blank to the world? If Christ was the incarnation of God, if he was the greatest teacher the world has known, if he came to cave mankind from everlasting pain–was there nothing worth remembering in the first thirty years of his existence among men? The fact is that the Evangelists knew nothing of the life of Jesus, before his ministry; and they refrained from inventing a childhood, youth and early manhood for him because it was not necessary to their purpose.
Luke, however, deviated from the rule of silence long enough to write the Temple incident. The story of the discussion with the doctors in the Temple is proved to be mythical by all the circumstances that surround it. The statement that his mother and father left Jerusalem, believing that he was with them; that they went a day’s journey before discovering that he was not in their company; and that after searching for three days, they found him in the Temple asking and answering questions of the learned Doctors, involves a series of tremendous improbabilities. Add to this the fact that the incident stands alone in Luke, surrounded by a period of silence covering thirty years; add further that none of the other writers have said a word of the child Jesus discussing with the scholars of their nation; and add again the unlikelihood that a child would appear before serious-minded men in the role of an intellectual champion and the fabulous character of the story becomes perfectly clear.
The Gospels know nothing of thirty years of Christ’s life. What do they know of the last years of that life? How long did the ministry, the public career of Christ, continue? According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, the public life of Christ lasted about a year. If John’s Gospel is to be believed, his ministry covered about three years. The Synoptics teach that Christ’s public work was confined almost entirely to Galilee, and that he went to Jerusalem only once, not long before his death. John is in hopeless disagreement with the other Evangelists as to the scene of Christ’s labors. He maintains that most of the public life of Christ was spent in Judea, and that Christ was many times in Jerusalem. Now, between Galilee and Judea there was the province of Samaria. If all but the last few weeks of Christ’s ministry was carried on in his native province of Galilee, it is certain that the greater part of that ministry was not spent in Judea, two provinces away.
John tells us that the driving of the money-changers from the Temple occurred at the beginning of Christ’s ministry; and nothing is said of any serious consequences following it. But Matthew, Mark and Luke declare that the purification of the Temple took place at the close of his career, and that this act brought upon him the wrath of the priests, who sought to destroy him. Because of these facts, the Encyclopedia Biblica assures us that the order of events in the life of Christ, as given by the Evangelists, is contradictory and untrustworthy; that the chronological framework of the Gospels is worthless; and that the facts “show only too clearly with what lack of concern for historical precision the Evangelists write.” In other words, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote, not what they knew, but what they imagined.
Christ is said to have been many times in Jerusalem. It is said that he preached daily in the Temple. He was followed by his twelve disciples, and by multitudes of enthusiastic men and women. On the one hand, the people shouted hosannas in his honor, and on the other, priests engaged him in discussion and sought to take his life. All this shows that he must have been well known to the authorities. Indeed, he must have been one of the best known men in Jerusalem. Why, then, was it necessary for the priests to bribe one of his disciples to betray him? Only an obscure man, whose identity was uncertain, or a man who was in hiding, would need to be betrayed. A man who appeared daily in the streets, who preached daily in the Temple, a man who was continually before the public eye, could have been arrested at any moment. The priests would not have bribed a man to betray a teacher whom everybody knew. If the accounts of Christ’s betrayal are true, all the declarations about his public appearances in Jerusalem must be false.
Nothing could be more improbable than the story of Christ’s crucifixion. The civilization of Rome was the highest in the world. The Romans were the greatest lawyers the world had ever known. Their courts were models of order and fairness. A man was not condemned without a trial; he was not handed to the executioner before being found guilty. And yet we are asked to believe that an innocent man was brought before a Roman court, where Pontius Pilate was Judge; that no charge of wrongdoing having been brought against him, the Judge declared that he found him innocent; that the mob shouted, “Crucify him; crucify him!” and that to please the rabble, Pilate commanded that the man who had done no wrong and whom he had found innocent, should be scourged, and then delivered him to the executioners to be crucified! Is it thinkable that the master of a Roman court in the days of Tiberius Caesar, having found a man innocent and declared him so, and having made efforts to save his life, tortured him of his own accord, and then handed him over to a howling mob to be nailed to a cross? A Roman court finding a man innocent and then crucifying him? Is that a picture of civilized Rome? Is that the Rome to which the world owes its laws? In reading the story of the Crucifixion, are we reading history or religious fiction? Surely not history.
On the theory that Christ was crucified, how shall we explain the fact that during the first eight centuries of the evolution of Christianity, Christian art represented a lamb, and not a man, as suffering on the cross for the salvation of the world? Neither the paintings in the Catacombs nor the sculptures on Christian tombs pictured a human figure on the cross. Everywhere a lamb was shown as the Christian symbol–a lamb carrying a cross, a lamb at the foot of a cross, a lamb on a cross. Some figures showed the lamb with a human head, shoulders and arms, holding a cross in his hands–the lamb of God in process of assuming the human form–the crucifixion myth becoming realistic. At the close of the eighth century, Pope Hadrian I, confirming the decree of the sixth Synod of Constantinople, commanded that thereafter the figure of a man should take the place of a lamb on the cross. It took Christianity eight hundred years to develop the symbol of its suffering Savior. For eight hundred years, the Christ on the cross was a lamb. But if Christ was actually crucified, why was his place on the cross so long usurped by a lamb? In the light of history and reason, and in view of a lamb on the cross, why should we believe in the Crucifixion?
And let us ask, if Christ performed the miracles the New Testament describes, if he gave sight to blind men’s eyes, if his magic touch brought youthful vigor to the palsied frame, if the putrefying dead at his command returned to life and love again–why did the people want him crucified? Is it not amazing that a civilized people–for the Jews of that age were civilized–were so filled with murderous hate towards a kind and loving man who went about doing good, who preached forgiveness, cleansed the leprous, and raised the dead–that they could not be appeased until they had crucified the noblest benefactor of mankind? Again I ask–is this history, or is it fiction?
From the standpoint of the supposed facts, the account of the Crucifixion of Christ is as impossible as is the raising of Lazarus from the standpoint of nature. The simple truth is, that the four Gospels are historically worthless. They abound in contradictions, in the unreasonable, the miraculous and the monstrous. There is not a thing in them that can be depended upon as true, while there is much in them that we certainly know to be false.
The accounts of the virgin birth of Christ, of his feeding five thousand people with five loaves and two fishes, of his cleansing the leprous, of his walking on the water, of his raising the dead, and of his own resurrection after his life had been destroyed, are as untrue as any stories that were ever told in this world. The miraculous element in the Gospels is proof that they were written by men, who did not know how to write history, or who were not particular as to the truth of what they wrote. The miracles of the Gospels were invented by credulity or cunning, and if the miracles were invented, how can we know that the whole history of Christ was not woven of the warp and woof of the imagination? Dr. Paul W. Schmiedel, Professor of New Testament Exegesis at Zurich, Switzerland, one of the foremost theologians of Europe, tells us in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, that there are only nine passages in the Gospels that we can depend upon as being the sayings of Jesus; and Professor Arthur Drews, Germany’s greatest exponent of the doctrine that Christ is a myth, analyses these passages and shows that there is nothing in them that could not easily have been invented. That these passages are as unhistorical as the rest is also the contention of John M. Robertson, the eminent English scholar, who holds that Jesus never lived.
Let me make a startling disclosure. Let me tell you that the New Testament itself contains the strongest possible proof that the Christ of the Gospels was not a real character. The testimony of the Epistles of Paul demonstrates that the life story of Jesus is an invention. Of course, there is no certainty that Paul really lived. Let me quote a passage from the Encyclopaedia Biblica, relative to Paul: “It is true that the picture of Paul drawn by later times differs utterly in more or fewer of its details from the original. Legend has made itself master of his person. The simple truth has been mixed up with invention; Paul has become the hero of an admiring band of the more highly developed Christians.” Thus Christian authority admits that invention has done its work in manufacturing at least in part, the life of Paul. In truth, the ablest Christian scholars reject all but our of the Pauline Epistles as spurious. Some maintain that Paul was not the author of any of them. The very existence of Paul is questionable.
But for the purpose of my argument, I am going to admit that Paul really lived; that he was a zealous apostle; and that all the Epistles are from his pen. There are thirteen of these Epistles. Some of them are lengthy; and they are acknowledged to be the oldest Christian writings. They were written long before the Gospels. If Paul really wrote them, they were written by a man who lived in Jerusalem when Christ is supposed to have been teaching there. Now, if the facts of the life of Christ were known in the first century of Christianity, Paul was one of the men who should have known them fully. Yet Paul acknowledges that he never saw Jesus; and his Epistles prove that he knew nothing about his life, his works, or his teachings.
In all the Epistles of Paul, there is not one word about Christ’s virgin birth. The apostle is absolutely ignorant of the marvellous manner in which Jesus is said to have come into the world. For this silence, there can be only one honest explanation–the story of the virgin birth had not yet been invented when Paul wrote. A large portion of the Gospels is devoted to accounts of the miracles Christ is said to have wrought. But you will look in vain through the thirteen Epistles of Paul for the slightest hint that Christ ever performed any miracles. Is it conceivable that Paul was acquainted with the miracles of Christ–that he knew that Christ had cleansed the leprous, cast out devils that could talk, restored sight to the blind and speech to the dumb, and even raised the dead–is it conceivable that Paul was aware of these wonderful things and yet failed to write a single line about them? Again, the only solution is that the accounts of the miracles wrought by Jesus had not yet been invented when Paul’s Epistles were written.
Not only is Paul silent about the virgin birth and the miracles of Jesus, he is without the slightest knowledge of the teaching of Jesus. The Christ of the Gospels preached a famous sermon on a mountain: Paul knows nothing of it. Christ delivered a prayer now recited by the Christian world: Paul never heard of it. Christ taught in parables: Paul is utterly unacquainted with any of them. Is not this astonishing? Paul, the greatest writer of early Christianity, the man who did more than any other to establish the Christian religion in the world–that is, if the Epistles may be trusted–is absolutely ignorant of the teaching of Christ. In all of his thirteen Epistles he does not quote a single saying of Jesus.
Paul was a missionary. He was out for converts. Is it thinkable that if the teachings of Christ had been known to him, he would not have made use of them in his propaganda? Can you believe that a Christian missionary would go to China and labor for many years to win converts to the religion of Christ, and never once mention the Sermon on the Mount, never whisper a word about the Lord’s Prayer, never tell the story of one of the parables, and remain as silent as the grave about the precepts of his master? What have the churches been teaching throughout the Christian centuries if not these very things? Are not the churches of to-day continually preaching about the virgin birth, the miracles, the parables, and the precepts of Jesus? And o not these features constitute Christianity? Is there any life of Christ, apart from these things? Why, then, does Paul know nothing of them? There is but one answer. The virgin-born, miracle-working, preaching Christ was unknown to the world in Paul’s day. That is to say, he had not yet been invented!
The Christ of Paul and the Jesus of the Gospels are two entirely different beings. The Christ of Paul is little more than an idea. He has no life story. He was not followed by the multitude. He performed no miracles. He did no preaching. The Christ Paul knew was the Christ he was in a vision while on his way to Damascus–an apparition, a phantom, not a living, human being, who preached and worked among men. This vision-Christ, this ghostly word, was afterwards brought to the earth by those who wrote the Gospels. He was given a Holy Ghost for a father and a virgin for a mother. He was made to preach, to perform astounding miracles, to die a violent death though innocent, and to rise in triumph from the grave and ascend again to heaven. Such is the Christ of the New Testament–first a spirit, and later a miraculously born, miracle working man, who is master of death and whom death cannot subdue.
A large body of opinion in the early church denied the reality of Christ’s physical existence. In his “History of Christianity,” Dean Milman writes: “The Gnostic sects denied that Christ was born at all, or that he died,” and Mosheim, Germany’s great ecclesiastical historian, says: “The Christ of early Christianity was not a human being, but an “appearance,” an illusion, a character in miracle, not in reality–a myth.
Miracles do not happen. Stories of miracles are untrue. Therefore, documents in which miraculous accounts are interwoven with reputed facts, are untrustworthy, for those who invented the miraculous element might easily have invented the part that was natural. Men are common; Gods are rare; therefore, it is at least as easy to invent the biography of a man as the history of a God. For this reason, the whole story of Christ–the human element as well as the divine–is without valid claim to be regarded as true. If miracles are fictions, Christ is a myth. Said Dean Farrar: “If miracles be incredible, Christianity is false.” Bishop Westcott wrote: “The essence of Christianity lies in a miracle; and if it can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or incredible, all further inquiry into the details of its history is superfluous.” Not only are miracles incredible, but the uniformity of nature declares them to be impossible. Miracles have gone: the miraculous Christ cannot remain.
If Christ lived, if he was a reformer, if he performed wonderful works that attracted the attention of the multitude, if he came in conflict with the authorities and was crucified–how shall we explain the fact that history has not even recorded his name? The age in which he is said to have lived was an age of scholars and thinkers. In Greece, Rome and Palestine, there were philosophers, historians, poets, orators, jurists and statesmen. Every fact of importance was noted by interested and inquiring minds. Some of the greatest writers the Jewish race has produced lived in that age. And yet, in all the writings of that period, there is not one line, not one word, not one letter, about Jesus. Great writers wrote extensively of events of minor importance, but not one of them wrote a word about the mightiest character who had ever appeared on earth–a man at whose command the leprous were made clean, a man who fed five thousand people with a satchel full of bread, a man whose word defied the grave and gave life to the dead.
John E. Remsburg, in his scholarly work on “The Christ,” has compiled a list of forty-two writers who lived and wrote during the time or within a century after the time, of Christ, not one of whom ever mentioned him.
Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced, was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life. Yet this philosopher, who must have been familiar with Herod’s massacre of the innocents, and with the preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things occurred; who wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed the very questions that are said to have been near to Christ’s heart, never once mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed Savior of the world.
In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on “The Antiquities of the Jews.” In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of “The Antiquities of the Jews” appeared, in which occurred this passage: “Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
Such is the celebrated reference to Christ in Josephus. A more brazen forgery was never perpetrated. For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen an Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that writer had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is know to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage in his “Evangelical Demonstration,” (Book III., p.124), in these words: “Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness.”
Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room. Josephus was a Jew–a priest of the religion of Moses. This passage makes him acknowledge the divinity, the miracles, and the resurrection of Christ–that is to say, it makes an orthodox Jew talk like a believing Christian! Josephus could not possibly have written these words without being logically compelled to embrace Christianity. All the arguments of history and of reason unite in the conclusive proof that the passage is an unblushing forgery.
For these reasons every honest Christian scholar has abandoned it as an interpolation. Dean Milman says: “It is interpolated with many additional clauses.” Dean Farrar, writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, says: “That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe.” Bishop Warburton denounced it as “a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too.” Chambers’ Encyclopaedia says: “The famous passage of Josephus is generally conceded to be an interpolation.”
In the “Annals” of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is another short passage which speaks of “Christus” as being the founder of a party called Christians–a body of people “who were abhorred for their crimes.” These words occur in Tacitus’ account of the burning of Rome. The evidence for this passage is not much stronger than that for the passage in Josephus. It was not quoted by any writer before the fifteenth century; and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of the “Annals” in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made in the eighth century–six hundred years after Tacitus’ death. The “Annals” were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after Jesus’ time–so the passage, even if genuine, would not prove anything as to Jesus.
The name “Jesus” was as common among the Jews as is William or George with us. In the writings of Josephus, we find accounts of a number of Jesuses. One was Jesus, the son of Sapphias, the founder of a seditious band of mariners; another was Jesus, the captain of the robbers whose followers fled when they heard of his arrest; still another Jesus was a monomaniac who for seven years went about Jerusalem, crying, “Woe, woe, woe unto Jerusalem!” who was bruised and beaten many times, but offered no resistance; and who was finally killed with a stone at the siege of Jerusalem.
The word “Christ,” the Greek equivalent of the Jewish word “Messiah,” was not a personal name; it was a title; it meant “the Anointed One.”
The Jews were looking for a Messiah, a successful political leader, who would restore the independence of their nation. Josephus tells us of many men who posed as Messiahs, who obtained a following among the people, and who were put to death by the Romans for political reasons. One of these Messiahs, or Christs, a Samaritan prophet, was executed under Pontius Pilate; and so great was the indignation of the Jews that Pilate had to be recalled by the Roman government.
These facts are of tremendous significance. While the Jesus Christ of Christianity is unknown to history, the age in which he is said to have lived was an age in which many men bore the name of “Jesus” and many political leaders assumed the title of “Christ.” All the materials necessary for the manufacture of the story of Christ existed in that age. In all the ancient countries, divine Saviors were believed to have been born of virgins, to have preached a new religion, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified as atonements for the sins of mankind, and to have risen from the grave and ascended into heaven. All that Jesus is supposed to have taught was in the literature of the time. In the story of Christ there is not a new idea, as Joseph McCabe has shown in his “Sources of the Morality of the Gospels,” and John M. Robertson in his “Pagan Christs.”
“But,” says the Christian, “Christ is so perfect a character that he could not have been invented.” This is a mistake. The Gospels do not portray a perfect character. The Christ of the Gospels is shown to be artificial by the numerous contradictions in his character and teachings. He was in favor of the sword, and he was not; he told men to love their enemies, and advised them to hate their friends; he preached the doctrine of forgiveness, and called men a generation of vipers; he announced himself as the judge of the world, and declared that he would judge no man; he taught that he was possessed of all power, but was unable to work miracles where the people did not believe; he was represented as God and did not shrink from avowing, “I and my Father are one,” but in the pain and gloom of the cross, he is made to cry out in his anguish: “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” And how singular it is that these words, reputed as the dying utterance of the disillusioned Christ, should be not only contradicted by two Evangelists, but should be a quotation from the twenty-second Psalm!
If there is a moment when a man’s speech is original, it is when, amid agony and despair, while his heart is breaking beneath its burden of defeat and disappointment, he utters a cry of grief from the depth of his wounded soul with the last breath that remains before the chill waves of death engulf his wasted life forever. But on the lips of the expiring Christ are placed, not the heart-felt words of a dying man, but a quotation from the literature of his race!
A being with these contradictions, these transparent unrealities in his character, could scarcely have been real.
And if Christ, with all that is miraculous and impossible in his nature, could not have been in vented, what shall we say of Othello, of Hamlet, of Romeo? Do not Shakespeare’s wondrous characters live upon the stage? Does not their naturalness, their consistency, their human grandeur, challenge our admiration? And is it not with difficulty that we believe them to be children of the imagination? Laying aside the miraculous, in the story of the Jewish hero, is not the character of Jean Valjean as deep, as lofty, as broad, as rich in its humanity, as tender in its pathos, as sublime in its heroism, and as touchingly resigned to the cruelties of fate as the character of Jesus? Who has read the story of that marvelous man without being thrilled? And who has followed him through his last days with dry eyes? And yet Jean Valjean never lived and never died; he was not a real man, but the personification of suffering virtue born in the effulgent brain of Victor Hugo. Have you not wept when you have seen Sydney Carton disguise himself and lay his neck beneath the blood-stained knife of the guillotine, to save the life of Evremonde? But Sydney Carton was not an actual human being; he is the heroic, self-sacrificing spirit of humanity clothed in human form by the genius of Charles Dickens.
Yes, the character of Christ could have been invented! The literature of the world is filled with invented characters; and the imaginary lives of the splendid men and women of fiction will forever arrest the interest of the mind and hold the heart enthralled. But how account for Christianity if Christ did not live? Let me ask another question. How account for the Renaissance, for the Reformation, for the French Revolution, or for Socialism? Not one of these movements was created by an individual. They grew. Christianity grew. The Christian church is older than the oldest Christian writings. Christ did not produce the church. The church produced the story of Christ.
The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real person. He is a combination of impossible elements. There may have lived in Palestine, nineteen centuries ago, a man whose name was Jesus, who went about doing good, who was followed by admiring associates, and who in the end met a violent death. But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing. This Jesus, if he lived, was a man; and if he was a reformer, he was but one of many that have lived and died in every age of the world. When the world shall have learned that the Christ of the Gospels is a myth, that Christianity is untrue, it will turn its attention from the religious fictions of the past to the vital problems of to-day, and endeavor to solve them for the improvement of the well-being of the real men and women whom we know, and whom we ought to help and love.
Scientific inquiry into the origins of Christianity begins to-day with the question: “Did Jesus Christ really live?” Was there a man named Jesus, who was called the Christ, living in Palestine nineteen centuries ago, of whose life and teachings we have a correct account in the New Testament? The orthodox idea that Christ was the son of God–God himself in human form–that he was the creator of the countless millions of glowing suns and wheeling worlds that strew the infinite expanse of the universe; that the forces of nature were the servants of his will and changed their courses at his command–such an idea has been abandoned by every independent thinker in the world–by every thinker who relies on reason and experience rather than mere faith–by every man of science who places the integrity of nature above the challenge of ancient religious tales.
Not only has the divinity of Christ been given up, but his existence as a man is being more and more seriously questioned. Some of the ablest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all. A commanding literature dealing with the inquiry, intense in its seriousness and profound and thorough in its research, is growing up in all countries, and spreading the conviction that Christ is a myth. The question is one of tremendous importance. For the Freethinker, as well as for the Christian, it is of the weightiest significance. The Christian religion has been and is a mighty fact in the world. For good or for ill, it has absorbed for many centuries the best energies of mankind. It has stayed the march of civilization, and made martyrs of some of the noblest men and women of the race: and it is to-day the greatest enemy of knowledge, of freedom, of social and industrial improvement, and of the genuine brotherhood of mankind. The progressive forces of the world are at war with this Asiatic superstition, and this war will continue until the triumph of truth and freedom is complete. The question, “Did Jesus Christ Really Live?” goes to the very root of the conflict between reason and faith; and upon its determination depends, to some degree, the decision as to whether religion or humanity shall rule the world.
Whether Christ did, or did not live, has nothing at all to do with what the churches teach, or with what we believe, It is wholly a matter of evidence. It is a question of science. The question is–what does history say? And that question must be settled in the court of historical criticism. If the thinking world is to hold to the position that Christ was a real character, there must be sufficient evidence to warrant that belief. If no evidence for his existence can be found; if history returns the verdict that his name is not inscribed upon her scroll, if it be found that his story was created by art and ingenuity, like the stories of fictitious heroes, he will have to take his place with the host of other demigods whose fancied lives and deeds make up the mythology of the world.
What, then, is the evidence that Jesus Christ lived in this world as a man? The authorities relied upon to prove the reality of Christ are the four Gospels of the New Testament–Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These Gospels, and these alone, tell the story of his life. Now we know absolutely nothing of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, apart from what is said of them in the Gospels. Moreover, the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. They are not called “The Gospel of Matthew,” or “The Gospel of Mark,” but “The Gospel According to Matthew,” “The Gospel According to Mark,” “The Gospel According to Luke,” and “The Gospel According to John.” No human being knows who wrote a single line in one of these Gospels. No human being knows when they were written, or where. Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief reasons for this conclusion are that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other three. It is shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord’s prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke.
But the Gospel of Mark, as we have it, is not the original Mark. In the same way that the writers of Matthew and Luke copied and enlarged the Gospel of Mark, Mark copied and enlarged an earlier document which is called the “original Mark.” This original source perished in the early age of the Church. What it was, who wrote it, where it was written, nobody knows. The Gospel of John is admitted by Christian scholars to be an unhistorical document. They acknowledge that it is not a life of Christ, but an interpretation of him; that it gives us an idealized and spiritualized picture of what Christ is supposed to have been, and that it is largely composed of the speculations of Greek philosophy. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are called the “Synoptic Gospels,” on the one hand, and the Gospel of John, on the other, stand at opposite extremes of thought. So complete is the difference between the teaching of the first three Gospels and that of the fourth, that every critic admits that if Jesus taught as the Synoptics relate, he could not possibly have taught as John declares. Indeed, in the first three Gospels and in the fourth, we meet with two entirely different Christs. Did I say two? It should be three; for, according to Mark, Christ was a man; according to Matthew and Luke, he was a demigod; while John insists that he was God himself.
There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.
There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels–the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ–were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of “Supernatural Religion,” one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: “After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ.” How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.
Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic–the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek–every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ’s disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts–such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived.
But while the Gospels were written several generations too late to be of authority, the original documents, such as they were, were not preserved. The Gospels that were written in the second century no longer exist. They have been lost or destroyed. The oldest Gospels that we have are supposed to be copies of copies of copies that were made from those Gospels. We do not know who made these copies; we do not know when they were made; nor do we know whether they were honestly made. Between the earliest Gospels and the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there is a blank gulf of three hundred years. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the original Gospels contained.
There were many Gospels in circulation in the early centuries, and a large number of them were forgeries. Among these were the “Gospel of Paul,” the Gospel of Bartholomew,” the “Gospel of Judas Iscariot,” the “Gospel of the Egyptians,” the “Gospel or Recollections of Peter,” the “Oracles or Sayings of Christ,” and scores of other pious productions, a collection of which may still be read in “The Apocryphal New Testament.” Obscure men wrote Gospels and attached the names of prominent Christian characters to them, to give them the appearance of importance. Works were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name of Christ. The greatest Christian teachers taught that it was a virtue to deceive and lie for the glory of the faith. Dean Milman, the standard Christian historian, says: “Pious fraud was admitted and avowed.” The Rev. Dr. Giles writes: “There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were then written with no other view than to deceive.” Professor Robertson Smith says: “There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views.” The early church was flooded with spurious religious writings. From this mass of literature, our Gospels were selected by priests and called the inspired word of God. Were these Gospels also forged? There is no certainty that they were not. But let me ask: If Christ was an historical character, why was it necessary to forge documents to prove his existence? Did anybody ever think of forging documents to prove the existence of any person who was really known to have lived? The early Christian forgeries are a tremendous testimony to the weakness of the Christian cause.
Spurious or genuine, let us see what the Gospels can tell us about the life of Jesus. Matthew and Luke give us the story of his genealogy. How do they agree? Matthew says there were forty-one generations from Abraham to Jesus. Luke says there were fifty-six. Yet both pretend to give the genealogy of Joseph, and both count the generations! Nor is this all. The Evangelists disagree on all but two names between David and Christ. These worthless genealogies show how much the New Testament writers knew about the ancestors of their hero.
If Jesus lived, he must have been born. When was he born? Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. He could not have been born during the administration of these tow rulers for Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod’s son. Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ’s birth. The fact is that the early Christians had absolutely no knowledge as to when Christ was born. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says: “Christians count one hundred and thirty-three contrary opinions of different authorities concerning the year the Messiah appeared on earth.” Think of it–one hundred and thirty-three different years, each one of which is held to be the year in which Christ came into the world. What magnificent certainty!
Towards the close of the eighteenth century, Antonmaria Lupi, a learned Jesuit, wrote a work to show that the nativity of Christ has been assigned to every month in the year, at one time or another.
Where was Christ born? According to the Gospels, he was habitually called “Jesus of Nazareth.” The New Testament writers have endeavored to leave the impression that Nazareth of Galilee was his home town. The Synoptic Gospels represent that thirty years of his life were spent there. Notwithstanding this, Matthew declares that he was born in Bethlehem in fulfillment of a prophecy in the Book of Micah. But the prophecy of Micah has nothing whatever to do with Jesus; it prophesies the coming of a military leader, not a divine teacher. Matthew’s application of this prophecy to Christ strengthens the suspicion that his Gospel is not history, but romance. Luke has it that his birth occurred at Bethlehem, whither his mother had gone with her husband, to make the enrollment called for by Augustus Caesar. Of the general census mentioned by Luke, nothing is known in Roman history. But suppose such a census was taken. The Roman custom, when an enrollment was made, was that every man was to report at his place of residence. The head of the family alone made report. In no case was his wife, or any dependent, required to be with him. In the face of this established custom, Luke declares that Joseph left his home in Nazareth and crossed two provinces to go Bethlehem for the enrollment; and not only this, but that he had to be accompanied by his wife, Mary, who was on the very eve of becoming a mother. This surely is not history, but fable. The story that Christ was born at Bethlehem was a necessary part of the program which made him the Messiah, and the descendant of King David. The Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, the city of David; and by what Renan calls a roundabout way, his birth was made to take place there. The story of his birth in the royal city is plainly fictitious.
His home was Nazareth. He was called “Jesus of Nazareth”; and there he is said to have lived until the closing years of his life. Now comes the question–Was there a city of Nazareth in that age? The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: “We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus’ time.” No certainty that there was a city of Nazareth! Not only are the supposed facts of the life of Christ imaginary, but the city of his birth and youth and manhood existed, so far as we know, only on the map of mythology. What amazing evidence to prove the reality of a Divine man! Absolute ignorance as to his ancestry; nothing whatever known of the time of his birth, and even the existence of the city where he is said to have been born, a matter of grave question!
After his birth, Christ, as it were, vanishes out of existence, and with the exception of a single incident recorded in Luke, we hear absolutely nothing of him until he has reached the age of thirty years. The account of his being found discussing with the doctors in the Temple at Jerusalem when he was but twelve years old, is told by Luke alone. The other Gospels are utterly ignorant of this discussion; and, this single incident excepted, the four Gospels maintain an unbroken silence with regard to thirty years of the life of their hero. What is the meaning of this silence? If the writers of the Gospels knew the facts of the life of Christ, why is it that they tell us absolutely nothing of thirty years of that life? What historical character can be named whose life for thirty years is an absolute blank to the world? If Christ was the incarnation of God, if he was the greatest teacher the world has known, if he came to cave mankind from everlasting pain–was there nothing worth remembering in the first thirty years of his existence among men? The fact is that the Evangelists knew nothing of the life of Jesus, before his ministry; and they refrained from inventing a childhood, youth and early manhood for him because it was not necessary to their purpose.
Luke, however, deviated from the rule of silence long enough to write the Temple incident. The story of the discussion with the doctors in the Temple is proved to be mythical by all the circumstances that surround it. The statement that his mother and father left Jerusalem, believing that he was with them; that they went a day’s journey before discovering that he was not in their company; and that after searching for three days, they found him in the Temple asking and answering questions of the learned Doctors, involves a series of tremendous improbabilities. Add to this the fact that the incident stands alone in Luke, surrounded by a period of silence covering thirty years; add further that none of the other writers have said a word of the child Jesus discussing with the scholars of their nation; and add again the unlikelihood that a child would appear before serious-minded men in the role of an intellectual champion and the fabulous character of the story becomes perfectly clear.
The Gospels know nothing of thirty years of Christ’s life. What do they know of the last years of that life? How long did the ministry, the public career of Christ, continue? According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, the public life of Christ lasted about a year. If John’s Gospel is to be believed, his ministry covered about three years. The Synoptics teach that Christ’s public work was confined almost entirely to Galilee, and that he went to Jerusalem only once, not long before his death. John is in hopeless disagreement with the other Evangelists as to the scene of Christ’s labors. He maintains that most of the public life of Christ was spent in Judea, and that Christ was many times in Jerusalem. Now, between Galilee and Judea there was the province of Samaria. If all but the last few weeks of Christ’s ministry was carried on in his native province of Galilee, it is certain that the greater part of that ministry was not spent in Judea, two provinces away.
John tells us that the driving of the money-changers from the Temple occurred at the beginning of Christ’s ministry; and nothing is said of any serious consequences following it. But Matthew, Mark and Luke declare that the purification of the Temple took place at the close of his career, and that this act brought upon him the wrath of the priests, who sought to destroy him. Because of these facts, the Encyclopedia Biblica assures us that the order of events in the life of Christ, as given by the Evangelists, is contradictory and untrustworthy; that the chronological framework of the Gospels is worthless; and that the facts “show only too clearly with what lack of concern for historical precision the Evangelists write.” In other words, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote, not what they knew, but what they imagined.
Christ is said to have been many times in Jerusalem. It is said that he preached daily in the Temple. He was followed by his twelve disciples, and by multitudes of enthusiastic men and women. On the one hand, the people shouted hosannas in his honor, and on the other, priests engaged him in discussion and sought to take his life. All this shows that he must have been well known to the authorities. Indeed, he must have been one of the best known men in Jerusalem. Why, then, was it necessary for the priests to bribe one of his disciples to betray him? Only an obscure man, whose identity was uncertain, or a man who was in hiding, would need to be betrayed. A man who appeared daily in the streets, who preached daily in the Temple, a man who was continually before the public eye, could have been arrested at any moment. The priests would not have bribed a man to betray a teacher whom everybody knew. If the accounts of Christ’s betrayal are true, all the declarations about his public appearances in Jerusalem must be false.
Nothing could be more improbable than the story of Christ’s crucifixion. The civilization of Rome was the highest in the world. The Romans were the greatest lawyers the world had ever known. Their courts were models of order and fairness. A man was not condemned without a trial; he was not handed to the executioner before being found guilty. And yet we are asked to believe that an innocent man was brought before a Roman court, where Pontius Pilate was Judge; that no charge of wrongdoing having been brought against him, the Judge declared that he found him innocent; that the mob shouted, “Crucify him; crucify him!” and that to please the rabble, Pilate commanded that the man who had done no wrong and whom he had found innocent, should be scourged, and then delivered him to the executioners to be crucified! Is it thinkable that the master of a Roman court in the days of Tiberius Caesar, having found a man innocent and declared him so, and having made efforts to save his life, tortured him of his own accord, and then handed him over to a howling mob to be nailed to a cross? A Roman court finding a man innocent and then crucifying him? Is that a picture of civilized Rome? Is that the Rome to which the world owes its laws? In reading the story of the Crucifixion, are we reading history or religious fiction? Surely not history.
On the theory that Christ was crucified, how shall we explain the fact that during the first eight centuries of the evolution of Christianity, Christian art represented a lamb, and not a man, as suffering on the cross for the salvation of the world? Neither the paintings in the Catacombs nor the sculptures on Christian tombs pictured a human figure on the cross. Everywhere a lamb was shown as the Christian symbol–a lamb carrying a cross, a lamb at the foot of a cross, a lamb on a cross. Some figures showed the lamb with a human head, shoulders and arms, holding a cross in his hands–the lamb of God in process of assuming the human form–the crucifixion myth becoming realistic. At the close of the eighth century, Pope Hadrian I, confirming the decree of the sixth Synod of Constantinople, commanded that thereafter the figure of a man should take the place of a lamb on the cross. It took Christianity eight hundred years to develop the symbol of its suffering Savior. For eight hundred years, the Christ on the cross was a lamb. But if Christ was actually crucified, why was his place on the cross so long usurped by a lamb? In the light of history and reason, and in view of a lamb on the cross, why should we believe in the Crucifixion?
And let us ask, if Christ performed the miracles the New Testament describes, if he gave sight to blind men’s eyes, if his magic touch brought youthful vigor to the palsied frame, if the putrefying dead at his command returned to life and love again–why did the people want him crucified? Is it not amazing that a civilized people–for the Jews of that age were civilized–were so filled with murderous hate towards a kind and loving man who went about doing good, who preached forgiveness, cleansed the leprous, and raised the dead–that they could not be appeased until they had crucified the noblest benefactor of mankind? Again I ask–is this history, or is it fiction?
From the standpoint of the supposed facts, the account of the Crucifixion of Christ is as impossible as is the raising of Lazarus from the standpoint of nature. The simple truth is, that the four Gospels are historically worthless. They abound in contradictions, in the unreasonable, the miraculous and the monstrous. There is not a thing in them that can be depended upon as true, while there is much in them that we certainly know to be false.
The accounts of the virgin birth of Christ, of his feeding five thousand people with five loaves and two fishes, of his cleansing the leprous, of his walking on the water, of his raising the dead, and of his own resurrection after his life had been destroyed, are as untrue as any stories that were ever told in this world. The miraculous element in the Gospels is proof that they were written by men, who did not know how to write history, or who were not particular as to the truth of what they wrote. The miracles of the Gospels were invented by credulity or cunning, and if the miracles were invented, how can we know that the whole history of Christ was not woven of the warp and woof of the imagination? Dr. Paul W. Schmiedel, Professor of New Testament Exegesis at Zurich, Switzerland, one of the foremost theologians of Europe, tells us in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, that there are only nine passages in the Gospels that we can depend upon as being the sayings of Jesus; and Professor Arthur Drews, Germany’s greatest exponent of the doctrine that Christ is a myth, analyses these passages and shows that there is nothing in them that could not easily have been invented. That these passages are as unhistorical as the rest is also the contention of John M. Robertson, the eminent English scholar, who holds that Jesus never lived.
Let me make a startling disclosure. Let me tell you that the New Testament itself contains the strongest possible proof that the Christ of the Gospels was not a real character. The testimony of the Epistles of Paul demonstrates that the life story of Jesus is an invention. Of course, there is no certainty that Paul really lived. Let me quote a passage from the Encyclopaedia Biblica, relative to Paul: “It is true that the picture of Paul drawn by later times differs utterly in more or fewer of its details from the original. Legend has made itself master of his person. The simple truth has been mixed up with invention; Paul has become the hero of an admiring band of the more highly developed Christians.” Thus Christian authority admits that invention has done its work in manufacturing at least in part, the life of Paul. In truth, the ablest Christian scholars reject all but our of the Pauline Epistles as spurious. Some maintain that Paul was not the author of any of them. The very existence of Paul is questionable.
But for the purpose of my argument, I am going to admit that Paul really lived; that he was a zealous apostle; and that all the Epistles are from his pen. There are thirteen of these Epistles. Some of them are lengthy; and they are acknowledged to be the oldest Christian writings. They were written long before the Gospels. If Paul really wrote them, they were written by a man who lived in Jerusalem when Christ is supposed to have been teaching there. Now, if the facts of the life of Christ were known in the first century of Christianity, Paul was one of the men who should have known them fully. Yet Paul acknowledges that he never saw Jesus; and his Epistles prove that he knew nothing about his life, his works, or his teachings.
In all the Epistles of Paul, there is not one word about Christ’s virgin birth. The apostle is absolutely ignorant of the marvellous manner in which Jesus is said to have come into the world. For this silence, there can be only one honest explanation–the story of the virgin birth had not yet been invented when Paul wrote. A large portion of the Gospels is devoted to accounts of the miracles Christ is said to have wrought. But you will look in vain through the thirteen Epistles of Paul for the slightest hint that Christ ever performed any miracles. Is it conceivable that Paul was acquainted with the miracles of Christ–that he knew that Christ had cleansed the leprous, cast out devils that could talk, restored sight to the blind and speech to the dumb, and even raised the dead–is it conceivable that Paul was aware of these wonderful things and yet failed to write a single line about them? Again, the only solution is that the accounts of the miracles wrought by Jesus had not yet been invented when Paul’s Epistles were written.
Not only is Paul silent about the virgin birth and the miracles of Jesus, he is without the slightest knowledge of the teaching of Jesus. The Christ of the Gospels preached a famous sermon on a mountain: Paul knows nothing of it. Christ delivered a prayer now recited by the Christian world: Paul never heard of it. Christ taught in parables: Paul is utterly unacquainted with any of them. Is not this astonishing? Paul, the greatest writer of early Christianity, the man who did more than any other to establish the Christian religion in the world–that is, if the Epistles may be trusted–is absolutely ignorant of the teaching of Christ. In all of his thirteen Epistles he does not quote a single saying of Jesus.
Paul was a missionary. He was out for converts. Is it thinkable that if the teachings of Christ had been known to him, he would not have made use of them in his propaganda? Can you believe that a Christian missionary would go to China and labor for many years to win converts to the religion of Christ, and never once mention the Sermon on the Mount, never whisper a word about the Lord’s Prayer, never tell the story of one of the parables, and remain as silent as the grave about the precepts of his master? What have the churches been teaching throughout the Christian centuries if not these very things? Are not the churches of to-day continually preaching about the virgin birth, the miracles, the parables, and the precepts of Jesus? And o not these features constitute Christianity? Is there any life of Christ, apart from these things? Why, then, does Paul know nothing of them? There is but one answer. The virgin-born, miracle-working, preaching Christ was unknown to the world in Paul’s day. That is to say, he had not yet been invented!
The Christ of Paul and the Jesus of the Gospels are two entirely different beings. The Christ of Paul is little more than an idea. He has no life story. He was not followed by the multitude. He performed no miracles. He did no preaching. The Christ Paul knew was the Christ he was in a vision while on his way to Damascus–an apparition, a phantom, not a living, human being, who preached and worked among men. This vision-Christ, this ghostly word, was afterwards brought to the earth by those who wrote the Gospels. He was given a Holy Ghost for a father and a virgin for a mother. He was made to preach, to perform astounding miracles, to die a violent death though innocent, and to rise in triumph from the grave and ascend again to heaven. Such is the Christ of the New Testament–first a spirit, and later a miraculously born, miracle working man, who is master of death and whom death cannot subdue.
A large body of opinion in the early church denied the reality of Christ’s physical existence. In his “History of Christianity,” Dean Milman writes: “The Gnostic sects denied that Christ was born at all, or that he died,” and Mosheim, Germany’s great ecclesiastical historian, says: “The Christ of early Christianity was not a human being, but an “appearance,” an illusion, a character in miracle, not in reality–a myth.
Miracles do not happen. Stories of miracles are untrue. Therefore, documents in which miraculous accounts are interwoven with reputed facts, are untrustworthy, for those who invented the miraculous element might easily have invented the part that was natural. Men are common; Gods are rare; therefore, it is at least as easy to invent the biography of a man as the history of a God. For this reason, the whole story of Christ–the human element as well as the divine–is without valid claim to be regarded as true. If miracles are fictions, Christ is a myth. Said Dean Farrar: “If miracles be incredible, Christianity is false.” Bishop Westcott wrote: “The essence of Christianity lies in a miracle; and if it can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or incredible, all further inquiry into the details of its history is superfluous.” Not only are miracles incredible, but the uniformity of nature declares them to be impossible. Miracles have gone: the miraculous Christ cannot remain.
If Christ lived, if he was a reformer, if he performed wonderful works that attracted the attention of the multitude, if he came in conflict with the authorities and was crucified–how shall we explain the fact that history has not even recorded his name? The age in which he is said to have lived was an age of scholars and thinkers. In Greece, Rome and Palestine, there were philosophers, historians, poets, orators, jurists and statesmen. Every fact of importance was noted by interested and inquiring minds. Some of the greatest writers the Jewish race has produced lived in that age. And yet, in all the writings of that period, there is not one line, not one word, not one letter, about Jesus. Great writers wrote extensively of events of minor importance, but not one of them wrote a word about the mightiest character who had ever appeared on earth–a man at whose command the leprous were made clean, a man who fed five thousand people with a satchel full of bread, a man whose word defied the grave and gave life to the dead.
John E. Remsburg, in his scholarly work on “The Christ,” has compiled a list of forty-two writers who lived and wrote during the time or within a century after the time, of Christ, not one of whom ever mentioned him.
Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced, was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life. Yet this philosopher, who must have been familiar with Herod’s massacre of the innocents, and with the preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things occurred; who wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed the very questions that are said to have been near to Christ’s heart, never once mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed Savior of the world.
In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on “The Antiquities of the Jews.” In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of “The Antiquities of the Jews” appeared, in which occurred this passage: “Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
Such is the celebrated reference to Christ in Josephus. A more brazen forgery was never perpetrated. For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen an Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that writer had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is know to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage in his “Evangelical Demonstration,” (Book III., p.124), in these words: “Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness.”
Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room. Josephus was a Jew–a priest of the religion of Moses. This passage makes him acknowledge the divinity, the miracles, and the resurrection of Christ–that is to say, it makes an orthodox Jew talk like a believing Christian! Josephus could not possibly have written these words without being logically compelled to embrace Christianity. All the arguments of history and of reason unite in the conclusive proof that the passage is an unblushing forgery.
For these reasons every honest Christian scholar has abandoned it as an interpolation. Dean Milman says: “It is interpolated with many additional clauses.” Dean Farrar, writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, says: “That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe.” Bishop Warburton denounced it as “a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too.” Chambers’ Encyclopaedia says: “The famous passage of Josephus is generally conceded to be an interpolation.”
In the “Annals” of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is another short passage which speaks of “Christus” as being the founder of a party called Christians–a body of people “who were abhorred for their crimes.” These words occur in Tacitus’ account of the burning of Rome. The evidence for this passage is not much stronger than that for the passage in Josephus. It was not quoted by any writer before the fifteenth century; and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of the “Annals” in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made in the eighth century–six hundred years after Tacitus’ death. The “Annals” were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after Jesus’ time–so the passage, even if genuine, would not prove anything as to Jesus.
The name “Jesus” was as common among the Jews as is William or George with us. In the writings of Josephus, we find accounts of a number of Jesuses. One was Jesus, the son of Sapphias, the founder of a seditious band of mariners; another was Jesus, the captain of the robbers whose followers fled when they heard of his arrest; still another Jesus was a monomaniac who for seven years went about Jerusalem, crying, “Woe, woe, woe unto Jerusalem!” who was bruised and beaten many times, but offered no resistance; and who was finally killed with a stone at the siege of Jerusalem.
The word “Christ,” the Greek equivalent of the Jewish word “Messiah,” was not a personal name; it was a title; it meant “the Anointed One.”
The Jews were looking for a Messiah, a successful political leader, who would restore the independence of their nation. Josephus tells us of many men who posed as Messiahs, who obtained a following among the people, and who were put to death by the Romans for political reasons. One of these Messiahs, or Christs, a Samaritan prophet, was executed under Pontius Pilate; and so great was the indignation of the Jews that Pilate had to be recalled by the Roman government.
These facts are of tremendous significance. While the Jesus Christ of Christianity is unknown to history, the age in which he is said to have lived was an age in which many men bore the name of “Jesus” and many political leaders assumed the title of “Christ.” All the materials necessary for the manufacture of the story of Christ existed in that age. In all the ancient countries, divine Saviors were believed to have been born of virgins, to have preached a new religion, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified as atonements for the sins of mankind, and to have risen from the grave and ascended into heaven. All that Jesus is supposed to have taught was in the literature of the time. In the story of Christ there is not a new idea, as Joseph McCabe has shown in his “Sources of the Morality of the Gospels,” and John M. Robertson in his “Pagan Christs.”
“But,” says the Christian, “Christ is so perfect a character that he could not have been invented.” This is a mistake. The Gospels do not portray a perfect character. The Christ of the Gospels is shown to be artificial by the numerous contradictions in his character and teachings. He was in favor of the sword, and he was not; he told men to love their enemies, and advised them to hate their friends; he preached the doctrine of forgiveness, and called men a generation of vipers; he announced himself as the judge of the world, and declared that he would judge no man; he taught that he was possessed of all power, but was unable to work miracles where the people did not believe; he was represented as God and did not shrink from avowing, “I and my Father are one,” but in the pain and gloom of the cross, he is made to cry out in his anguish: “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” And how singular it is that these words, reputed as the dying utterance of the disillusioned Christ, should be not only contradicted by two Evangelists, but should be a quotation from the twenty-second Psalm!
If there is a moment when a man’s speech is original, it is when, amid agony and despair, while his heart is breaking beneath its burden of defeat and disappointment, he utters a cry of grief from the depth of his wounded soul with the last breath that remains before the chill waves of death engulf his wasted life forever. But on the lips of the expiring Christ are placed, not the heart-felt words of a dying man, but a quotation from the literature of his race!
A being with these contradictions, these transparent unrealities in his character, could scarcely have been real.
And if Christ, with all that is miraculous and impossible in his nature, could not have been in vented, what shall we say of Othello, of Hamlet, of Romeo? Do not Shakespeare’s wondrous characters live upon the stage? Does not their naturalness, their consistency, their human grandeur, challenge our admiration? And is it not with difficulty that we believe them to be children of the imagination? Laying aside the miraculous, in the story of the Jewish hero, is not the character of Jean Valjean as deep, as lofty, as broad, as rich in its humanity, as tender in its pathos, as sublime in its heroism, and as touchingly resigned to the cruelties of fate as the character of Jesus? Who has read the story of that marvelous man without being thrilled? And who has followed him through his last days with dry eyes? And yet Jean Valjean never lived and never died; he was not a real man, but the personification of suffering virtue born in the effulgent brain of Victor Hugo. Have you not wept when you have seen Sydney Carton disguise himself and lay his neck beneath the blood-stained knife of the guillotine, to save the life of Evremonde? But Sydney Carton was not an actual human being; he is the heroic, self-sacrificing spirit of humanity clothed in human form by the genius of Charles Dickens.
Yes, the character of Christ could have been invented! The literature of the world is filled with invented characters; and the imaginary lives of the splendid men and women of fiction will forever arrest the interest of the mind and hold the heart enthralled. But how account for Christianity if Christ did not live? Let me ask another question. How account for the Renaissance, for the Reformation, for the French Revolution, or for Socialism? Not one of these movements was created by an individual. They grew. Christianity grew. The Christian church is older than the oldest Christian writings. Christ did not produce the church. The church produced the story of Christ.
The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real person. He is a combination of impossible elements. There may have lived in Palestine, nineteen centuries ago, a man whose name was Jesus, who went about doing good, who was followed by admiring associates, and who in the end met a violent death. But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing. This Jesus, if he lived, was a man; and if he was a reformer, he was but one of many that have lived and died in every age of the world. When the world shall have learned that the Christ of the Gospels is a myth, that Christianity is untrue, it will turn its attention from the religious fictions of the past to the vital problems of to-day, and endeavor to solve them for the improvement of the well-being of the real men and women whom we know, and whom we ought to help and love.
The following is in the “About Us” section on one of the swinger’s sites we belong to… Thought you would enjoy… True story!
– Blair got her swinging cherry popped! Congratulations Blair! No longer a swinging virgin!
What a night to remember! We’d been talking to this great couple for a few weeks, trying to coordinate a time to get together. Dee is a laid-back black guy, with a great body and a nice sized cock, and Heather is the salt to Dee’s pepper, a pretty white gal, with bright eyes, nice sized tits and an outgoing personality!
We finally found a time and we arrived at their place about 8pm. Being her first time, Blair was pretty nervous and had already started Yeagermeister therapy (Yeager Bombs) before we left. When we arrived Dee and Heather were still getting ready. This really helped to set the “non-formal/laid-back” tone that would dominate the night, and put everyone at ease.
They were very friendly and open and there was never a period of “uncomfortable silence”. Blair’s nervousness began to evaporate almost immediately. We plopped in a Will Smith movie and talked about everything from work and the rising cost of natural gas, to previous sexual encounters. Blair put down several more Yeager Bombs and Heather indulged some liquid-fire herself.
It was in the kitchen, during an alcohol refill session, that things started to heat up. Blair and Heather had been flirting most of the night. But Blair was apparently done with flirting and told Heather to “Come here.” And grabbed her and kissed her passionately! The kissing led to groping and I joined in. Dee was in another room and was informed he was missing some action! Soon Dee was in the mix, kissing and fondling Blair along with Heather as I watched. I grabbed Heather away for myself and watch Blair and Dee kiss and fondle each other. I kissed Heather hard and long, licking her neck and ears, making her moan loudly. (By the way… This girl can kiss!) I groped her ample breasts and grabbed her ass. With Will Smith now replaced by one of Dee’s 6 trillion pornos, as we went to the couch.
Blair’s jeans were soon on the floor and she was bent over the arm of the couch. Heather had a silver bullet in her pussy and Blair was sucking Dee’s cock. I was moving between sucking Heather’s tits and licking Blair’s pussy. We put Blair on her back and I fucked her while Heather sucked my balls and Blair blew Dee. This was the first time Blair has had two dicks in her at once! (Not the first time she’s had two guys at once!). Once we got Blair off we took a break and went out on the patio which over looked the main parking lot and where I got a double blow job from both girls! Blair had found a nurses outfit of Heathers and had it (almost) on. (See the photo in the public section… Note: I’ll see if I can find the pic and post it here) We then moved back inside to the bedroom. We all got naked quickly and started going at it, me with Heather, Blair with Dee.
I asked Blair what she wanted. She said she wanted to be fucked. She told Dee to put a rubber on. He complied and then he began dick-slapping her clit hard and fast until she squirted so much she was hit in the face with her own juices! Then I watched as he shoved his rigid cock into my woman and, with no regard for my presence, pleasured himself brazenly with my wife’s beautiful body, like a victorious invader ravaging and humiliating a helpless maiden, reaping the spoils of his conquest, as her defeated man is forced to watch!
But this was no ordinary ravaged maiden! This maiden was hungry for his black rod, only the second black cock she’s ever had, and openly, and with out shame, moaned and squealed her pleasure right in front of me! Between her purely primal moans and her stunned screams of “Oh god you’re so hard!” Blair has never screamed so loud before! (A fact that she has made sure was not lost on me! I now have the challenge to give her an even stronger and better orgasm to regain my status as number one! This is how we use “jealously” to continually make our sex life better! To insure it does not become stagnant.) Her cries of ecstasy no doubt both shocked and aroused the neighbors! (Get a copy of the 1933 King Kong, and listen to Fay Wray’s screams when she first sees the monster, multiply that by 5, and you’ll have a fair idea…) My cock is thicker, but he has me a bit on length, and he was using every bit of it on her that night and she orgasmed three times from his fucking!
But I was doing more than just watching! I had his woman under me! Naked, her legs spread wide, I pounded Heather mercilessly in retaliation for what was being done to my woman! I was turned on not only at the sight of my lady being fucked by another man, but also of her enjoying it and doing nothing to hide that enjoyment! As hard as I was pounding her she kept begging me to fuck her harder! I complied, knocking the breath from her lungs! She moaned non-stop through a powerful orgasm. I myself came hard, screaming as euphoria over took me, collapsing breathless onto my lover’s wet body.
We gathered our clothes up, strewn throughout the house, trying to pick out whose was whose. We said our goodbyes and promised to see each other again. A promise we certainly intend to keep, because as good as the sex was by itself, it was enhanced by the fact that the four of us connected on many levels besides the physical ones!
As we drove home, Blair and I talked about how much fun we had had! Blair was lit pretty well from the Yeager Bombs and she put the passenger seat back and put her shoeless feet on the dash. We stopped at on all night McDonalds and then home. It was 2:30am when we got there and Blair had to be at work at 7am. She did her best not to fall over in the shower as I washed her and then got her to bed. At 3am she was wide awake and talking and singing non-stop. Some how I got her up at 6:30am and she made it to work by 7am! I got to sleep the rest of the day. What a night!
I came across this article (linked below) from wayoflife.org, the website of David Cloud, champion of the invisible man in the sky, and despiser of all things even remotely hinting at being fun!
I read the article a few days ago and, as a result, started noticing all the things I do, say and see that, although perfectly acceptable to normal people, would cause a maelstrom of hysteric panic among some of the people of the (2,000 years late, and counting) invisible man in the sky… Now the article deals primarily with the evils of television and the pros of removing the wicked box from ones abode. However, it can be seen how the contents of the article could easily relate to other aspects of daily life… I think, in most cases, (certainly mine), strict adherence to the conventions set forth in the article would effectively shut down the average life as generally accepted in the United States and other first world countries.
If I had to pay even a minimal fine for every breach of superstitious protocol as prescribed in the below article, I would owe millions after just a few hours! In no particular order, consider the following…
* Both Blair and I were previously married! Scandalous!
* A couple weeks ago we were at a club! Which served alcohol! Played evil rock music! Had a pool table! And was designed for the express purpose to create an environment in which members had sex with other members! And at said club, my wife (and adulterer and whore just for being divorced and remarried) hooked me up with a gorgeous black girl, then put the condom on my cock while giving me a pep-talk (“Fuck her brains out! I want to hear her scream!”), and then watched, with the girl’s boyfriend while I fucked the chick silly! Oh is there no Hell hot enough for us?!!!?
* We watch, and allow Blair’s teenage children to watch, TV and movies, with zero regard for any kind of censorship! And… low and behold… the kids are A-B students who are loved and respected by their teaches, have never been in trouble with the law, are not involved in drugs, and are well on their way to leading full and rewarding lives! Without religion! Imagine that! Things that make you go “Hmmm”… (Could this be because instead of hiding things from kids (as is suggested numerous times in the below article and in many other pro-invisible man in the sky articles I have read through the years) the kids were exposed to the truths of life (good and bad) and then sat down, and in a straight-forward way, sometimes using the adult’s past experiences, shown why the bad is bad and the good is good…???)
* We play, and allow Blair’s kids to play, as do our friends and their kids, all manner of video games, including “Grand Theft Auto”, “Max Payne”, and “Guitar Hero”, too name a few… That is one fun night when a group of us and our kids get together and play those games! We have a blast! And, believe it or not, the kids, without the help of superstition, are able to differentiate between fantasy and reality! Wow!
* We listen to, and allow the kids to listen to, and assortment of music. And, surprise-surprise, again, with zero input for religion, (or maybe BECAUSE of of the lack? Hmmm…) there have been no suicide attempts! Amazing!
* Blair and I are open about sex. We don’t hide our desire and love for physical contact. The kids have been given a realistic, yet healthy respect for sex. Evil parental units! We should be hiding sex from them! Denying its very existence! The “Area 51″ of our lives! (Until such time as their “properly selected” (oh-yeah… the kids date too! Eeek!) mates have been “chosen”, and then, on their honeymoon, can they finally unleash (but not too much) their chemically propelled (and therefor irrepressible) sexual desires! (But only after first kneeling before the almighty (yet quite tardy) invisible man in the sky and begging that this nasty union of sinful sweaty bodies produce a blessing (aka, a child), and that it not feel too good… Lol!
* Not only do we have (several) televisions in our homes, we allow all of those sinful, skin-filled, new-age, booze drenched commercials to permeate into our field of vision and range of hearing… Okay…! Now this is one point that I have to agree with the sky people and their see-through deity… Commercials are fucking evil! Hate the damn things! If you lived your life as the corporate heads wanted you to (ie: as portrayed in commercials) you’d be fucking broke! Actually, I think that’s the way corporate heads would like it. If consumers are broke they’re spending-spending-spending… And if employees are broke (ie: In debt) then their ass belongs to the employer and the employer is in an awesome position to dictate unrelenting and uncompromising “policy”… (On the other hand, I have seen a few commercials that were nicely done and which I enjoyed)… But, bye-n-large (spelling anyone?), I’m going to have to get my fleas from the same dog as the jesus-freaks on this one…
* We participate in “mixed swimming”… Yes, that’s right, in our pool at the Southern house both male and females swim together… Shocking! The pool is one of the highlights of the summer and we spend countless hours enjoying it with family, friends and even the family dogs! To David Cloud and friends, this is paramount to a scandal of epic proportions! Surely the devil is at work here! Actually I think he’s too busy convincing the bible-bangers that the Earth is flat like the (not so good, and certainly not so accurate) book says… Until I started investigating the superstitious fringe, I had (as I would think most people) not even considered this to be an issue! Seems the more their tripe is scientifically exposed for the rubbish that it is, the silly just keep getting sillier…
* We openly flirt with attractive people as we go about our day and are frequently returned the favor… Let’s face it, everyone likes to be made to feel good! And nothing makes one feel good like being flirted with. After all, if one is being flirted with, the obvious connotation is that they are attractive, both for physical and personality attributes. Flirting with and being flirted with not only raises your ego and boosts your self esteem, but also serves as a reminder to your partner of how lucky they are, and inserts a tinge of disquiet in them that you are desirable to others. This maintains the spark of sexual desire that tends to cool over the years. Nothing pumps up ones sex life like perceived competition!
* Following up on the above paragraph, Blair and I are thoroughly familiar with each others sexual past… She has had some very wild times in her past, and so have I. Again, introducing competition into the mix keeps our sex alive and exciting! We flirt with each other, whispering stories or parts of stories to each other during seemingly inappropriate times (while shopping, etc…) creating sexual tension and excitement with the other… during the course of the day this builds and builds, until it can no longer be contained and the result is wild, aggressive, hungry sex, culminating in explosively loud, body wracking orgasms… Far more exciting then some ritualistic “becoming as one” nonsense…
* Sometimes (often!) the tension builds to the point where sex is needed like a dying man in the desert needs water! Fucking in bed is great, but fucking “wherever” is better! Reading the article below kills me with what these people are missing out on for nothing! Blair and I have had sex in an untold variety of wild places (the latest was several days ago in a busy parking lot at night, under a light and near a very busy street! In a rental car no less! Can you imagine if the next renters are religious fundamentalists? If they only knew what a sin-mobile they were carrying their children around in!) As responsible adults, there is nothing wrong with what Blair and I do! And an ancient book of superstition (one of hundreds!) can’t change that!
* Staying with the sexual tension and competition theme, Blair and I are swingers. Dawn is a gorgeous woman (most guess her age 10 less than actual), with a great sexually appealing body (tone legs, large breast)
and posses an enormous sexual apatite. I am quite handsome (thank you 
), with a tone muscular body (okay, on the way to getting it back), and (I’ve been told several times) a gorgeous, nicely thick cock… So we’re married. So that means sex suddenly becomes limited?!? We’re not 
looking to fall in love, just have physical fun! There is no stigma about going to a movie with another, there’s no stigma about going out to eat with another, there’s no stigma about hugging another hello or goodbye… Why should sex be different? Because Christianity says so. In Roman times having a meal with someone was considered more intimate than having sex with them! The Roman sexual handbook was quite different. There were no distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual. There was no “magic” age at which one was considered able to consent to sex. Prostitution was taxed like other business. Sexually, it was a glorious time! Superstition killed it! (See previous entry entitled “Sunday, National Topless Day” for another shot of Blair’s awesome breasts!)
* Our language is punctuated with “colorful metaphors” (Thank you Mr. Spock for that definition). While the sky-god worshipers will anger at even a seemingly innocuous phrase such as “Oh my god”, Blair and I (especially I) have been known to utter verbage that would make Joe Pesci blush. Now a hardened ghost-bird worshiping zealot would say that those who engage in colloquialisms are showing off their ignorance and inability to form complex thoughts… Excuse me? This coming from someone who (despite boundless scientific information to the contrary) believes in an invisible man in the sky who sent himself (in the guise of his son) to be killed for our faults that he gave us in the first place…?????????? I say, when you want to punctuate something you’ve said in the 21st century, an inevitable “fuck”, “damn”, or “shit” is a clear-cut way to do it…
* Blair has it… And flaunts it! Blair has large breasts, hot legs and a gorgeous face and has no problem showing them off. While the superstitious would have their women wearing the equivalent of feed bags for dresses (see the second link below), there is nothing wrong with feeling good about yourself and having others make you feel good! (See paragraph above regarding flirting!)
This article could go on and on for days, but I think the point had been made! The silly ranting of a 2,000 year old fairy tale and it’s resulting set of woefully outdated rules is sure to loose more and more ground in the realm of a technically advanced, increasingly scientifically based society. Every day sees more churches closing their doors for lack of followers, and the leaders of religions are forced to concede more and more of their beliefs to the disciplines of fact (the Earth is NOT the center of the universe, there is NOT a dome covering the Earth, Evolution is a fact, etc…). With the rapid transfer of information available today, surely we may in our lifetime, see the final embers of superstitious belief fade to black…
Here are the links:
First (the one this entry was based on) http://www.wayoflife.org/files/cd88e8c5b9a0c2ee77f1b6d0be796851-479.html
Second (love to see those tan lines…) http://www.wholesomewear.com/page-4.html
Amazing how time slips away…
A lot has happened since the last entry in October! Where-Oh-Where to begin?
Blair and I went to a swinger’s club on December 11th near the Southern House and I lived out my fantasy of “engaging in sexual relations with” (lol… fucking the brains out of!) a black girl!
She looked like a young Diana Ross, had large breasts, and a knock-out body! She was a tad ditzy but was very sweet, and quite a screamer! I pummeled her dark pussy, as Blair and the girl’s boyfriend (her name was Sherry?) looked on. Blair could not resist and ended up in bed with us finger-fucking the girl and licking and sucking her gorgeous legs…
I started on a nutrition and exercise program. I was on one two years ago and lost 80 lbs in 5 months. Then I got divorced and slid back and then some. No matter… Before Summer I will be below 180 lbs with under 10% body fat. There will undoubtedly be stumbling blocks, but as with the last time, I will prevail with my (near) lazer-lock focus! I will be posting my nutrition and exercise routine soon…
Blair is on the look-out for a part-time boyfriend to keep her occupied while I’m away during the week at our Northern House. She just can’t go a whole week without sex! Who can blame her! The phone sex just isn’t enough for her! Lol!
More to come soon!
It’s been quite a while since we’ve added a post here!
The new job is going well. I’m catching on quickly despite the extremely non-user friendly software that our multi-billion dollar company insists on using… I’ve encountered several personality conflicts within this new group, but otherwise all is fairly well here, and I am glad I made the move from the field to the office…
Last week I bought a very nice case for the Mossberg 500 on E-bay. Unfortunately, the seller is selling on a”drop shipping” set up (which he failed to disclosed) meaning he does not actually have the product at hand, he has to get it after he sells it. But his supplier apparently does not have the product either, so christ only knows when the damn thing will make its way here. You better believe a certain somebody is not going to get a very favorable feed back…
I was recently switched to an alternative medicine for my depression and it seems to work quite well without the drowsiness side-effects. This should make life more pleasant…
Yesterday (Saturday) I went with Blair’s father to his buddy’s shop to have the oil changed on my car and have it given a good once-over. A sound I’ve been hearing for a while may be a suspension problem but on the lift the front end was tight. Whatever the ghost problem, we’ll just have to wait for it to get worse to find it. In the mean time, the car is in great shape (for 130,000+ miles) and safe to drive.
After the shop we went to brunch (11:00 am) and then to mine and Blair’s favorite outdoor store where I put down $100.00 to layaway Blair’s CCW weapon, a Taurus Judge 45/410 Public Defender. Blair’s father’s cousin is co-owner of the shop and the two of them caught up and some things. Due to some very nice financial circumstances, by the end of this month, with the exception of the mortgage on the Southern house, Blair and I will be debt free! Yeah! This will mean plenty of cash for another weapon purchase for me!
Blair and I had date night last night. We went to see Zombieland with Woody Harrelson. (Let me clarify – We went to see the movie Zombieland staring Woody Harrelson, Woody Harrelson wasn’t actually with us.) Typical B-flick zombie affair, however extremely funny! Several hot babes, although little to no nudity (sux), and lots and lots of blood and guts. The theater was pretty full and the crowd nicely behaved…
Afterward it was kinky sex time. We went to a place nearby that had been a bar and is now some kind of religious something-or-other. Blair had-had sex (well, almost) behind the building years ago. What was a field behind the building’s small rear lot was now a condo complex, with a wooden fence between the two.
Years ago Blair had been at the bar with a guy and afterward he had bent her over his car behind the building and tried to scew her doggie-style. Now, I have a very nice sized cock, but apparently this guy was so big it wouldn’t fit in her. So anyway, her and I went back there and with her bent over against the fence, near where she had previously been almost fucked, I blew an ocean of cum into my wife’s gorgeous pussy. As we returned to our car two vehicles pulled up and pulled head first (headlights on) up to the fence where we had just fucked. A few minutes earlier and they would have had quite a show. There are some other areas over there that would offer great outdoor sex spots, so we will certainly be returning.
We promise to be more diligent with our blogging. Time to go grocery shopping, watch a movie and fuck…
In his Friday News Notes dated August 21, 2009, and titled “Atheist says Christians should only be allowed to express their faith in private”, David Cloud, prevailer of cave-man superstitious (long since scientifically disproven) lore, cynic against against all things not found in the (painfully obviously inaccurate) bible, and grasper at straws that his (over due by 2,000 years and having no independent historical confirmation) savior of saviors will return and grant he and his kind an orgy of eternal spiritual bliss, says that Atheist Jerry Coyne has a lot of nerve stating that Frances Collins (Head of the National Institute of Health – since resigned) should keep his religious views to himself and not go public with them.
Hmm. Perhaps Cloud should consult his own magic book of books on the subject of being public…
On the subject of public expression, let us consult the enchanted keeper of jesusness hocus-pocus-focus and see what we find…
Mathew 6:6 christ (the magic man himself!) states: “But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”
Gen 21:33 states: “And Abram planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the lord, the everlasting god.
Gen 24:63 states: “And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide”
These people (although obviously fictional and therefore lowering the value of all arguments against them as a waste of time, except for the fact that too much influence is still being pushed on us through political and other types of pressures.) practiced prayer in private!
P-R-I-V-A-T-E!
The son of the invisible man in the sky also berates the Pharisees for making a big show of praying in public. They were proud and ostentatious, so that others would see how spiritual they were.
As with many other subjects in the bible, those who dedicate their one and only lives to treating this work of obvious silly fiction as something worthy of their time, will no doubt be able to dig up discrepancies to the contrary that promote public prayer. But this is to be expected in a work that is full of discrepancies, holes, historical and scientific errors, and a myriad of other blatant and exceedingly obvious screw-ups.
In the 21st century it boggles the mind how ANYONE could still believe in these childish stories made up by a bunch of factually ignorant cavemen, doing their best to GUESS at how the universe was created and how it works.
In 1998 a Coelacanth, a fish once thought extinct, was photographed in Indonesia. Soon, live specimens had been tracked down. Before 1998 I would not have believed the rumors that the fish was still alive and well. However, after indisputable proof was given, I did what all open minded scientifically driven individuals would do. I changed my beliefs in accordance with the presentation of new facts. If the son of the invisible man in the sky comes down and presents indisputable proof of who he is, then I will change my view appropriately. Baring that, I’ll stick with the facts at hand.
Yeah-yeah… So I promised I’d add a new post on Friday. I’ve been at the Southern House all weekend and it’s really hard to work on my blog when I’m down here because things are so busy with the kids and such. Today will be a two-entry day while I scarf down some pizza and watch Sunshine Cleaning, a comedy-drama (comedy???) about two sisters with pathetic lives who make a go at starting a crime scene clean up company. The second entry will be the one I promised to have ready on Friday about “reviewing” one of David Cloud’s Friday New Notes.
Looks like Quicken is going to have to be rebuilt from scratch. The version I had on the laptop that crashed was so old, it could not be reloaded into my current operating system. I purchased the new version of Quicken and again, my old version was so outdated, I could not import the information from the back-up sticks into the new version of Quicken. Luckily I have everything on hard copy and rarely have to go back into history to get information, so all-in-all the damage is minimal. Blair tried really hard to make it work, but the version of Quicken I had was 10(?) years old, so there was simply nothing that could be done.
Blair and I had great sex Friday night! I blew two nice loads into her Missionary Position Style. Blair got off a couple of times too! I love fucking her Missionary Position Style cause I get to see her awesome facial expressions and her moans are not muffled like they are when I fuck her Doggie-Style and her face is in the pillows.
The sex was followed up with our traditional falling asleep to a movie. The movie was Rob Zombie’s Halloween. It had been specifically selected because Blair and I are planning to see Zombie’s follow-up, Halloween II, and Blair had yet to see the first one and it had been so long since I had seen the first one, I wanted to refresh before seeing the second one. So after the movie I get a craving for a Pepsi. So I go down to the kitchen and low-and-behold, no Pepsi. I know there’s some in the fridge in the basement. Now, I have a very logical mind, not prone to superstitions, fear of the dark, or a panicky feelings that the fictional killer in the movie I just saw will somehow pick me out of the millions who have also seen the movie and come after me… On the other hand, I’m not going out like a chump… I went back up to the bedroom, grabbed my .40 caliber Glock and made my way to the basement to retrieve my Pepsi.
What??? Like you’ve never done that? 8)
We went to a fast food restaurant last night (Saturday) and the waitress was flirting with us big time. She said she thought she knew us. Blair thinks she knows her from her job, so as a result, Blair put the kibosh on “getting to know her better”… Shame… She had average looks, but a great ass and small but firm looking breasts. Her name was Blair as well.
Now, on to the focus of this entry… I was a member of a nationally known fitness club for years. Due to circumstances, I find it necessary to find a club with more flexible hours. When my membership expired, I simply let it go. They made some desperate attempts to keep me but to no avail. This latest attempt however, takes the cake and really reinforces my contempt for corporate imperialism. When I had let the membership expire, I had some difficulty confirming that my membership was indeed expired and that I owed no more money on the contract. Thinking I was in the free and clear, the other day the greedy bastards sent me a monthly statement. It had a “current due” section and a “past due” section. At first glance it appeared as though I was behind on my contract payments. A closer examination of the fine print revealed the following: “…your membership has expired. This will be your last monthly statement unless you bring your account current by paying the amount due.” Fuckers! Basically what was actually being said behind the facade of twisted wordage was that if I paid the previous two month’s dues since my contract expired and paid the current month’s dues, I could renew my contract. That was a cheap fucking attempt at re-solicitation of my business…
I worked corporate for 10 years. I saw the “interpretation” of accuracy (we were not public, BUT were owned by a foreign company that WAS public) and the back stabbing of friends screwing each other over. I see little has changed over the years in regards to corporate America’s attitude toward — anybody…
