If you enjoy what you read here you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May
Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

God and the laws of Physics - All alone in the Multiverse?

God and the laws of Physics - All Alone in the Multiverse?
The concept of the Parallel dimensions is a theme well travelled by Science fiction writers. To name but five examples:-
  • Captain Kirk and crew met other versions of themselves in Star Trek.
  • The fantastically funny episode of Red Dwarf explored a parallel world where time ran 'Backwards'.
  • 'Sliders' entire concept was exploring alternate Earths via an inter-dimensional portal.
  • Samantha Carter gives various explanations of the 'multiverse' in Stargate, specifically in the 'Quantum mirror' episodes.
  • Dr Who's escapades with Rose Tyler.
The 'multiverse' comes in many guises with descriptions that combine the words 'Multiple, Alternate or Parellel' with 'worlds, earths, dimensions or realities', but all are born on the back of 'real' theoretical physics that's been around since the early twentieth century
As you'll know, if you've read my previous posts, my primary focus is on the supernatural landscape depicted in the earthly tenets, so this week I thought it would be fun to attempt a preliminary exploration of the concept of the multiverse as it may apply to that landscape.

Okay so it's my idea of fun! Snigger if you want...

As you probably have at least some childhood indoctrination of the landscape (you know the 'god' stuff) the start point, for those of you whom are not Sci-Fi aficionados, is a quick background to the relevant points of Quantum mechanics. So brace yourselves...


Form Wikipedia

"The idea of complementarity is critical in quantum mechanics. It says that light can be both a particle and a wave.
When the double slit experiment was performed, light acted in some cases as a wave, and some cases as a particle. Physicists had no convincing theory to explain this until Bohr and complementary came along. Quantum mechanics allows things that are completely opposite intuitively to each other to exist without problem."
Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics

"In layman's terms, this means that, in some sense, there is a very large, perhaps infinite, number of universes and that everything that could possibly happen in our universe (but doesn't) does happen in another universe."

What that means, for the purpose of this blog,
(just to make sure we're clear)
as Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests,
we live in a multiverse

(Many parallel universes super-imposed in our space and time)
where all possibilities play out
(Alternate realities, other possible outcomes of our reality)
then there must be -
  1. a universe where the god of the tenets (omni,omni,omni,eterni) exists.
  2. a universe where the god of the tenets (omni,omni,omni,eterni) exists but is what we would consider Satan.
  3. a universe where the god depicted in the tenets exists in not full but combination states (omni,omni)(omni, eterni)(etc.etc)
  4. a universe where the god of the tenets exists in single states (omni)(omni)(omni)(eterni)
  5. a universe where the god of the tenets exists as anything you'd like to think of
  6. a universe where the NO god exists.
  7. (a explanation of my shorthand 'omni, omni, omni, eterni' is listed here)
Now. We are led to believe that the deity of which the various tenets speak is a perfect being; this means that

Improvement is not required, not necessary or impossible.
BUT as each universe ONLY exists because of a 'difference', a 'god' that exists in all universes simultaneously, DIRECTLY opposes the theory - that means that
No god can be considered omnipresent!
The moment that the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics was proved true, it would negate the god concept outright, because it suggests ALL possibilities are played out in some universe or other anyway. MWI would make the concept of "god's will" irrelevant because
NO ONE'S will is being served
Even if one were to concede that a god made the multiverse, then 'his will' after that conception point would again amount to irrelevance because,

To make the point more personally relevant; If as the tenets suggest the human form has a soul, then every human in the multiverse must have either, one soul in each universe, or each body in each universe contains a fraction of single soul which is infinitely spread between universes - making a multi-dimensional 'ubersoul'!
( I think the latter is more likely, however, as we are philosophising on 'bleeding edge' of realities other possibilities may be equally likely. I'm a philosopher not a scientist! )
So we'll say, an ubersoul is spread across all its multiverse bodies.
What does that mean to the concept of the soul paying for the misdemeanours of life in an afterlife?
Well, if your soul-fraction in this universe is peace loving, then your soul-fraction in another universe is war loving.
If you don't stab that annoying person at work with a fork 400 times, another version of your soul does! (she probably deserved it anyway!)

But it's worse than that! EVERY possibility gets played out, so there are parallel realities where the victim gets stabbed 399 times, 1399 times, infinite times and in a range of circumstances that add up to everything from 'complete accident' to 'premeditated murder' or worse still to mass murder, if one extends the paradigm to include 'stabbing 400 people with a fork' instead of 'one person 400 times!!

Sorry! I wish I'd chosen better at the start of that example,
then there wouldn't have been quite so much of the stabbing and the killing.
Hey, I've just thought though, in some universes I did!! LOL.
Anyway, where was I?

The concept of the multiverse clearly prevents
ANYONE fulfilling ANY laws, let alone a god's!
Further, as no soul-fraction would be aware of it's ubersoul's ongoing tally of good or bad, no adjustments can be attempted, and any and all attempts would be instantly counteracted by the multiverse, making them irrelevant anyway! So NO ubersoul would be able to achieve a balanced quantity of moral and immoral events!

The more you believe in god in this dimension
the more atheist you become in another!

Which, I feel brings us to an end with a conclusion that as always isn't, but at least this time it brings with it a delightfully apt new perspective to a trite proverb

You're not damned if you do
and you're not damned if you don't!

This is one of the Too many questions


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"

Honour your father and Mother?

For this blog to be received in the spirit from whence it comes, I feel I should tell you some stuff; so that you know, I know whereof I speak.
I am 43 and have been lustfully (OH YES!) married for coming up to half my life and have two children, 20 female at Uni, 18 male at Tech-College now, Uni next year.

It says in various ways in the earthly tenets,

"Honour thy father and mother"

but it would be more egalitarian to say honour thy father and mother,

if they deserve it.

In an angry moment we have all heard a child say,

"I didn't ask to be born!"

Kinda rude that on first hearing, makes you a bit cross; that coming out of a child you've cared for, for X years! You wanna rant at the impertinent whipper-snapper -

"How dare you, I gave you life!"

But on the closer inspection it hurts because it's totally true! We all know that for any child to have been produced

two 'adults'

must have felt the passion rise and

got-it-on with gusto!

And, I would suggest, for the great majority of the world's population, that's me and you included (probably), in those very special all engulfing orgasmic events
cast your mind back to your most recent 'event'...................... ......................and we're back!
the idea of a baby and 18 years of care is not in your head (or any other part of your body! smirk!)

So, not only is the child's statement completely true from their perspective, it's also true from the parents. The kid did not ask for life,

the kid is the ADULT'S consequence!!

The kid should not have to feel thankful for being born, EVER. Why?
I think it sets the kid up to be 'unconditionally' subservient to a parental figure, leaving open a psychological 'door' through which 'THE MAN' later inserts Socio-religious structure - EVIL!

Whether your children honour you or not
should rest entirely on who and how YOU are!
NOT with the threat of eternal damnation!

This is one of the Too many questions


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"

Let us think about God

What do we know about him? - there's a ponder right there! - HIM? Do we know that? Anyway, we know what they say in the tenets about his works but what about 'him'; we don't seem to have any real details!
Most of the stuff we know seems to add up to merely a list of adjectives, loving, kind, caring, benevolent, forgiving etc. the list of his good and godly points is almost endless and all pointing (because of the lack of bad points) to a 'perfectly' nice being, but I guess the real persuasive power of this myth comes from four words in particular;
OmniscientInfinitely wise, All-knowing
OmnipresentBeing present everywhere at once
OmnipotentHaving unlimited power
EternalContinuing forever
Okay, so a fair compound of those four would give us:-
An infinitely wise all-knowing being of unlimited power
whom is at all places at all times.

If you think that's an unfair assessment let me know below.
Right, now we have something to work with -
Sounds great that doesn't it? At first glance, infinitely wise and all-knowing seems a stunning thing to be! You'd think so wouldn't you, but when you break it down into the reality of it, it's not so crash hot!
When you look at it in practical terms, 'total knowledge' means only one thing...
add into the mix the 'Eternal' nature of the beast and you get
He's supposed to exist in a permanent state of knowing everything that's going to happen in every tedious, uninspiring nanosecond of eternity!
The poor chap must be going 'off his tree'
with boredom of divine proportions!
Hang on a minute though, the 'going' suggests a linear aspect to God's life and if he's supposed to exist 'in all times at once' then he must be either stationary within time, or existing outside of time and, since a thing without time can only be in the state of being or not being, for the purposes of this muse, he may only be 'off his tree' or not.)
So, God's off his tree with incurable eternal divine boredom! Glad we got that sorted out!
Okay right, so, God decides to make a creature to break the monotony, which I'm sure you've guessed, is us. (YAY!) He gives us limited free will, winds us up and sends us off. NICE - All going well so far and the free will he has given us has given him the ability to?
Break the monotony?
OMNIPRESENT - everywhere at once!
He cannot be surprised, EVER!
He knows what is going to happen

in EVERY nanosecond.
And our perceived Free will crumbles into irrelevance; he knows which baby is going to HELL before it's conceived! He knew before he created Adam that the Babel tower would be raised, that Herod would slaughter in the search for his 'son', that Genghis Khan would ransack Asia, the Vikings would be known for Rape and Pillage, that the Nazis would wreak havoc and Witch-hunts in his name would see thousands of wise-women, midwives and herbalists slaughtered!!
Sorry to all the faithful here but he knew all that (and more) and he still set the ball rolling!

!!!*#@! What a callous BASTARD !@#*!!!
For all those of you whom are offended, I use the term 'bastard' in it's 'proper' sense - Unknown Father. I wonder why that's never in the list of things we know about him? Oh well it is now!! Hey we've learned something!!!
And don't give me that 'God moves in mysterious ways' crud! Take a look through history - his mysterious ways are wholly indistinguishable from...
No help whatsoever!
Anyway, we'll move on to his great sweetener; the place where all the 'good little boys and girls' get to spend eternity!


Even the greatest examples of humanity that we have ever produced would not have ANYTHING to offer to this guy. Take your pick of any top human from any field who has ever existed and imagine them performing for God. Michaelangelo could paint heaven, Shakespeare could write bespoke performances, Bach could compose something divine, and the The Beatles could play out of their skins, and GOD would remain unimpressed.
Worse! All the skills we value would be less than equal to anything he could produce himself - Michaelangelo would be no more than a painter and decorator, Shakespeare just a hack etc.

What would be the point?

NO surprises see; he ALWAYS knows exactly EVERYTHING!

Bearing that in mind, if you take it a step further:-
A huge proportion of the 'great' humans have been 'out-there', not part of the mainstream general populous; in fact, almost all greats could be considered ungodly, whether through drugs, alcohol, women, men, women and men, gambling, lying, cheating etc. All the sins no less!
Inevitably, those who follow rules are predictable so, for the kind of guy whose, you know, a know it all with all the T-shirts to prove it. What possible reason could there be for him to surround himself with what amounts to, for the most part, those in society whom are average; when a rebel, a 'not-so-great' example of his laws, is much more likely to come up with something new to brighten eternity for a guy who is immune to surprises!
So, not really any closer to defining what we know about him, still no facts see, just conjecture but it's not looking good for the old bastard.
I can't see any benevolent reason for wanting souls, and after this pondering the only conclusion I've really found is, Any god as described in the tenets would have no use for any member of the human race's skills or talents!
He must have another reason for wanting your soul?
This is one of the Too many questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"

God - Vengeful? Unbelievably Spiteful more like!

For ease of typing I am going to use man/ him. There is nothing misogynistic here, this applies equally to women.

When you meet a man for the first time, you don't immediately tell him your life story, it takes time to figure out if you can trust him.
After some period you may get so far as to call him friend, trust grows over time until maybe one day you may call him brother.
But even then it may be that you don't completely trust him, there may be some part of his personality that gives you, shall we say, pause for thought.

Much rarer you may find that a man is charismatic enough to lead a nation or wise enough to advise. This is not a man you know; you may trust him to do the work he excels at but you would still not automatically choose to call him friend or let him babysit your 14 yr old daughter.

Greater still a man may be so outstandingly clever that his thought changes the opinion of the whole planet, he may be the wisest person ever, but again, this does not mean you would be compatible as friends, you may choose to not tell him the most personal details of your past misdemeanours or victories etc.

And all of that is under the conditions of direct contact, where one can judge his merit directly and decide to accept him as a friend or not based on your own judgment of his compatibility with you. BUT

What do the supernatural tenets tell us?

Ignore your natural instinct, throw away everything you have spent years learning and

  • Accept GOD (a completely anonymous stranger) as friend, mentor and master!
  • Accept that some sort of prostration is required for him to accept you as friend!
  • Accept that if you don't want to 'play the way he says', you get to spend eternity - that's ETERNITY mind you, IN TORMENT! That's just SPITE!
  • Accept that there will be no chance of appeal, tribunal or parole from that torment!
  • Accept that you are not allowed to meet him face to face until after you're dead! (if you're lucky)
  • And finally
  • Accept it all merely from what is written by some other people you have never met and cannot meet.

And you didn't ask to be his 'friend' in the first place!
And the evidence to convince you is....?


And the reason they keep getting away with it?

Firstly It's so unbelievable it must be true - I mean you couldn't make it up could you; it's OBVIOUSLY a stretch of the imagination beyond human capabilities!!

And secondly, See my blog Religion - Refuge of the Weak and Powerless?

This is one of the Too many questions


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"

Humble - Why?

Some time ago I was forwarded an email which included a set of pictures showing the our comparative size in the universe, of our sun to various stars etc.
This brilliant video does the same but much better and in scrummy HD too!

"That's a bit of an eye-opener about the scale of it all", I was thinking as I scrolled down the email's list of pictures, gob-smacked wouldn't have been too strong a description.
I was happily enjoying thoughts of the science and scientific heroes who had brought us this wondrous vision of reality as I came to the message that ended the email. It had heavy religious overtones!! It said...

"Humbling isn't it."


'humbling' troubled me.

Grrrrrr!!!! I thought, "Can't these bloody religious nut-jobs leave anything unsullied? Why must they scrawl 'God was here' on everything?" 
Does a child feel humble before a playground?
Before anything?


Humble means 'Having or showing low estimate of one's own importance.'(the little Oxford dictionary) I thought Why should we be teaching that? So I checked out Humility on Wikipedia for a broader grounding and discovered very similar humility clauses in many tenets.

Why is it so important to society to teach children to cow-tow before they are even aware that they have the option to not?

I, as you know if you've read my previous posts, am fervently against the concept of a god, but this diminishing of humanity at infancy is wholly abhorrent to me; it's an evil that goes far beyond any of the tenets made-up creatures.

This is SOLELY about control.

WE are born 'not humble'1. yet within weeks of birth, the child's right of INDEPENDENT self-determination, which should be inalienable to all humans, is SOLD to the IDEA of being humble to something!1. I cannot say proud, which would be the correct antonym because that would, as surely as 'humble', suggest the each baby is born 'already in a condition' or, 'aware of a condition', that is more than merely alive!
This, as far as I am aware, is not possible without genetically encoded memory.

And at present, we have no PROOF that there is anything
other than ourselves in the universe.

(that's PROOF mind you, NOT mere evidence!)
What is there to be humble of? A bunch of rocks? Some gas?

So far all we know for sure is that on this planet a remarkable creature has become, a creature which has a currently unique feature, not seen in any other known location.

Thinking is the highest function in the universe; you cannot get any better than thinking, it's the best, the all-there-is, it is the ability beyond all abilities, a truly remarkable condition.

We should be proud that in the known and recognisable limits of existence we are the ONLY thinking being. BUT instead all the religious tenets teach 'humble, cow-tow, bow down, prostrate your smallness, you're unworthy'

Don't sign your or your innocent child's birthright away to the notion of humility.

THINKING is the most important development in the universe.

 We should be teaching that we are
 THE BEST THING IN EXISTENCE until the universe PROVES otherwise.

This is one of the Too many questions


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"

Religion - Refuge of the Weak and Powerless?

There are many reasons why the god mythos prevails, not least of which is indoctrination, but a very important factor is that we all have people we've lost, many of whom have left us with things unspoken, loose ends we wish we could tie up. Or worse, our life-partner or child is lost to us before it was right for them to go,

we feel injustice!

But to make sense of the hard life we endure whilst others around us prosper and, to maintain the fragile balance we call society, we must each CHOOSE to see the social structure or random disasters that happen to us as somehow fair and just; that

  • the rich man will get his poverty in the end
  • the invalid will somehow be granted a sportsman's strength.
  • those whom have broken the social conventions (murderer/rapists etc.) will be properly punished for the hurt they've caused.

That someone somewhere is keeping score of

all the times the world was mean to me!!!

All of us who were brought up in the clutches of religion but now call ourselves atheist, once struggled with the fact that to give up the god-fairy story, one must also give up the hope of seeing loved ones and friends again.

But then enlightenment strikes
and you realise that you are not giving anything up, the chance to see those missed was never there, it was merely a state of mind, a sociological construct; a way to help humans continue through their grief, 'They've gone to a better place', 'Grandad's with god now', 'Little jenny is playing with the angels' etc. etc. All merely ways in which well intentioned people put a plaster on the grief of a mourner. And in a weakened state, which mourner would not grasp that straw and take solace in the thought that the lost will be seen again?

In that moment when one first faces the terrifying proposition of

letting go of the ancestral security blanket
, one becomes a born again atheist, for we are all born unpolluted by socioreligious doctrine, one becomes aware that whatever else maybe true, one is alone in the universe, self reliant and mindful that
ALL actions taken from that point are down to you.
You are solely responsible, there is no forgiveness by an overseer, no sanctified reason behind your choice, no tenet to guide your options.

Whether you are GOOD or EVIL is in your hands.

For those who have broken the socioreligious brainwashing there is man made conscience
and only one philosophy

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason, and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, accept it and live up to it.


Have you the balls to stand against the tide of unfounded wishes?
Or, will you take refuge in the houses of the weak and powerless?

This is one of the Too many questions


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"

Meanwhile... in Jerusalem - AGAIN!

Day 666,666
of the BIG BROTHER special
from the Church of the holy sepulchre,
and the brothers are at it again!

Violence errupted when 'John Doe monk A' wanted to put his dolly in the crib and 'Jon Doe Monk B' said that wasn't fair and it was his turn!

Well, within moments the handbags and incense orbs were flying!

And, unfortunately, we can only expect these incidents and childish displays will increase as we approach the christmas silly season. With tensions running this high, the choice of who will get to play Mary in the cross-religion-panto, will be to say the least, politically delicate.
However, worse I think, the panto may have to be cancelled; it may be completely impossible
to find three wise men in any of the factions.

Can we say
Ludicrous Global Laughing Stock?

They should all be banished
and made to raise money for charity for a year,
the group that raised the most gets control.

I put this together, made me chuckle

Monks brawl at Jerusalem shrine - Sunday, 9 November 2008 Article Here

Fighting erupted between Greek Orthodox and Armenian monks at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the traditional site of Christ's crucifixion. Israeli police have had to restore order at one of Christianity's holiest sites after a mass brawl broke out between monks in Jerusalem's Old City.

This is one of the Too many questions


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Coexistence, Tolerance and Understanding

Coexistence, Tolerance and Understanding

I was going to have a day off today, but no, more religious nonsense drags me to my keyboard.
This time it's the Jews and Muslims! Who'd have thought it.

Row over Jerusalem Muslim cemetery
Saturday, 8 November 2008 - By Wyre Davies Article Here

Religious leaders in Jerusalem are warning of dangerous consequences after a decision by Israel's Supreme Court to allow the destruction of part of an ancient Muslim cemetery.
The graveyard has not been used for more than 50 years, but contains the bodies of some important Islamic figures.
Many of those bodies will now be disturbed to make way for a new Jewish "Museum of Tolerance".
Mohammed al-Dejani says the cemetery is older than the US

but that only means

The stunningly beautiful complex designed by Frank Gehry for the proposed $250m 'Museum of Tolerance' (Image: Wiesenthal Center)
Click Here for interactive tour.

My overarching opinion is, far too much respect is afforded to those whose life is over,

dead people no longer care where they lie.
Go ahead and move them, I bet not one word of complaint will be heard from the graveyard's occupants! (too flippant - oh well, it's said now!)
On this point, I have to agree with the statement by Rabbi Marvin Hier

"Jerusalem is a city built on top of thousands of bones - Jewish and Muslim," he said. "If we declared the whole of Jerusalem one huge cemetery, we'd never be able to build anything."

but not just about Jerusalem, dig anywhere on earth where people have previously occupied the location and you find bones. However he shows his true colours of intolerance and misunderstanding in an article by Jonathan Cook

'Rabbi Marvin Hier, initiator of the project, dismissed objections last week as cover for "a land grab by Islamic fundamentalists, who are in cooperation with Hamas".'

The land in question
is part of the waqf properties
seized by Israel after 1948!

Hark at the Pot calling the Kettle sooty arse!
Doesn't that mean that it was Muslim land to start with? How can they land grab their own land?

It's clear that neither of these religions are going away any time soon, so my overarching opinion above is clearly too radical for those whom put so much energy into perpetuating the past.
I suggest tolerance and respect from both sides; take a step towards each other!
If the Israeli authorities have it in their heads to allow the construction of what has been described as a 'centre for coexistence, tolerance and understanding' perhaps they should build it on the border between Israel and Palestine with a main entrance on each side of the divide!

Of course, the most obvious point is
When you are going to build a centre for tolerance and understanding,
and I hope you tolerate and understand my opinion here,
perhaps you should show some tolerance and understanding
of the people whose ancestors will mingle with the foundations
of your museum for tolerance and understanding


The 'Museum of Tolerance Online' is replete with tales of Jewish suffering, so, as today is Donate to the poppy appeal
Remembrance Sunday

(the 90th anniversary of the end of the first world war)

I give my respects to those
who kept and keep us free
at the cost of their own future

and ask a single question if you are Jewish

If, in the future, Poland became an Islamic state
and decided to found a 'Museum for Tolerance' on top of
the sites of the Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, or Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camps,
how would you feel?

Please if you are Jewish, talk to the Israeli government
and berate them for their unbelievable intolerance!

This is one of the Too many questions


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Rename the Seat of US Government?

Rename the Seat of US Government?

You've read my blogs, you know my style,

I am a egalitarian secular humanist democratic socialist

and I think that Barack Obama may just be America's saviour,
but Sometimes, Some things
are just too curious to leave un-blogged;

regardless of how 'edgy' they seem.

On the morning after the President elect Obama's historic victory as the first black American President, I was travelling to town and overheard a young girl at a bus stop ask her mother something, which made me smirk and at first, dismiss out of hand but as I walked and the mother shushed the child, I realised, as preposterous as it originally seemed

I could not shake the notion.

What did she ask?
Will they call it The Black House now?

So, I ask you my American friends, is there anything constitutionally, or otherwise, that sets in stone the name of the seat of your government or could it, for this term at least, be referred to, as the girl asked her mother, as The Black House?

And should it?
Would it be considered a mark of respect or derision?

I'm not US Citizen, so am unable to judge, but it begs a further question, should 'The White House' be renamed to reflect this historic occasion?

My personal opinion? If there is the slightest chance that the name of the US seat of government could be considered to be, even subconsciously, inhibiting those of a race that could not be described by the same label, it should be changed to remove that potential psychological barrier.

A more egalitarian description could be found,
there could be a vote by schoolchildren or something.

I've set up a poll if you want to vote

"Should 'The White House' be renamed
to reflect this historic occasion?"

Free Vote Caster from Bravenet.com

I hope no offence was taken as no offence was meant


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Free Vote Caster from Bravenet.com

The Religious in a Nutshell?

The Religious in a Nutshell?

Have you heard about 'Ladder-gate'?
I was gobsmacked and dangly of chin. I'd be laughing out loud if it wasn't so embarrassing.

Adult humans who believe in fairy stories
acting like rival gangs of childish monkeys.

It made the BBC news so perhaps others think so also!
I'd say enjoy but I just can't.....

This Ladder has been above the entrance
to the Church of Holy Sepulchre

since 19th Century!

The Deir al-Sultan monastery was built on part of the main church roof more than 1,000 years ago.
The modest collection of small rooms has been occupied by monks from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church since 1808.
But a recent engineering report by an Israeli institute found that the monastery and part of the roof were "not in a good condition" and that parts of the structure "could collapse, endangering human life".
Ownership of the monastery, however, is hotly disputed between the Ethiopians and the Egyptian Coptic Church, and the dispute is holding up much-needed repair work.

Unholy row threatens Holy Sepulchre
Sunday, 19 October 2008 - By Wyre Davies

Article HERE

An unholy row is threatening one of the most sacred places in Christianity - the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.
The centuries-old site, where many Christians believe Jesus was crucified, is visited by hundreds of thousands of pilgrims and tourists every year.
A recent survey says that part of the complex, a rooftop monastery, is in urgent need of repair, but work is being held up by a long-running dispute between two Christian sects who claim ownership of the site.
Within the main building, dark-robed monks with long beards chant and swing incense as they conduct ceremonies in the many small chapels and shrines.
There has been a church on this site for 1,700 years. Over the centuries it has been destroyed and rebuilt several times - but some parts are very old indeed.

Collapse risk
Various Christian denominations - Greek Orthodox, Armenians, Catholics, among others - have always jealously defended and protected their own particular parts of the site.
Disputes are not uncommon, particularly over who has the authority to carry out repairs.
For example, a wooden ladder has remained on a ledge just above the main entrance since the 19th Century - because no-one can agree who has the right to take it down.
The latest row is potentially much more serious.

Fight erupts in Jerusalem church
Sunday, 20 April 2008

Article HERE

Israeli police had to break up a fist fight that erupted between Greek and Armenian Orthodox clergymen at one of Christianity's holiest sites.
The scuffles broke out at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem on Orthodox Palm Sunday.
Brawls are not uncommon at the church, which is uneasily shared by various Christian denominations.
In this case, witnesses say an Armenian priest forcibly ejected a Greek priest from an area near the tomb of Jesus.
They say the attacker felt the Greek priest had spent too long at the tomb.
When police arrived to break up the fight, some were reportedly beaten back by worshippers using palm fronds.
Two Armenians were detained by police, prompting supporters to stage a rally in protest outside the police station.
Rivalry between the six different churches which grudgingly share the Holy Sepulchre dates back to the aftermath of the crusades, and to the great schism between Eastern and Western Christianity in the 11th Century.
Each denomination controls, and jealously guards, its own section of the labyrinthine site.

Holy war over Jerusalem church
Tuesday, 30 July, 2002 - By Mark Duffy

Article HERE

One of Christianity's holiest sites has been the scene of an unseemly punch-up between rival monks.
Fists flew in a row over the position of a chair on the roof of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, in the heart of Jerusalem.
For Christians, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre marks the site of Christ's burial and resurrection.
As such, it is one of Christianity's holiest places.
But for centuries it has also been the scene of furious rivalry between different Christian churches.
The latest fracas involved monks from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Coptic Church of Egypt, two groups which for years have been vying for control of the church's roof.
Things came to a head on Sunday when the Ethiopians objected to an Egyptian monk's decision to move his chair into the shade.
The Ethiopians said the move violated an agreement which defines the ownership of every chapel, lamp and flagstone in the church.
Eleven monks - seven of them Ethiopian, four Egyptian - were hurt in the violence which followed as the rivals hurled stones, iron bars and chairs at each other.

A microcosm of religious intolerance and misunderstanding
played out in 'The holiest city' by the high priests,
those 'most holy' proponents of tolerance on understanding.

What can you say but

There's a web page about the history of the ladder which includes any latest updates.
It's hosted by coastdaylight.com

This is one of the Too many questions


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

God - Just stupid? Or in League with Satan?

This is one of the biggest 'Too Many Questions'.
I have spoken to many theists, and so far, none have been able to answer a 3-pronged problem that's bothered me for a while.

1. Why hasn't God just 'dealt' with the Devil?

God is hailed as the supreme being remember, creator with power over ALL things so, why can the Big-beardy-grandad-good-guy, not just scrub the pesky-pointy-red-guy?
Is he not up to the job somehow?
Has the sly-red-one got some sort of voodoo defense grid goin on or what? ( Answers in the 'comments' please - no really I'd like to know!!! ) Because you see for me, if a God can't just deal with a Devil,

that's pretty shoddy for a supreme being in my book!

(Added 19/01/11)

There have been some readers, admittedly only those lost within the haze of the Christian magic story but some, who have complained that their 'teachings' tell that god has dealt with the devil, quoting something akin to "but he did deal with the devil, on the cross."

Firstly, in this instance, as is indicated above, the usage of the word 'dealt' carries the implied meaning of permanently terminated, killed, destroyed,'life'-span ended, a Devil who has ceased to be. This, is an Ex-Satan... That sort of dealt.
By assuming that what the 'teachings' tell is true instead of accepting the reality of the situation, that in this instance dealt means 'destroyed', isn't the believer guilty of deliberate faulty thinking? So that the believer can continue to believe the story in which they've so much invested, the believer chooses to ignore the clearly implied 'death' meaning of deal.

Secondly, if we look at the 'cross scenario' as 'a full answer', that as the Christians suggest, god has dealt with the devil there, then we may only conclude that the indignant Christian must have chosen to replace the meaning with an alternative. And, as I see it, the only other connotation moves 'dealt' into the realm of transaction, as in dealt fairly, business dealings etc.
But doesn't this alternative usage spawn a new paradigm? Does it not posit that Christians are following a god who did a deal with a devil?
That they do not notice, or choose to ignore, this new paradigm is a clear evidence that the religious person's default choice is to disregard reality in favour of protecting their investment in their after-death fantasy, and I feel supports the subject of Trial by Jury on Trial but that's probably the topic of an entirely different, and way longer, post.

(Added 19/01/11)

Anyway, as I said, I've never had a convincing answer for point 1, but as believers make the case that the status quo, god/heaven satan/hell, is a current depiction of the supernatural situation, we are obliged to take as read that for whatever reason

God is cosmically prohibited from actually dealing with the Devil.

So, to consider the implications of the supernatural landscape, as set out in a number of 'good books'; the stories tell us that if you're 'bad' you go to hell; that seems fair enough, kind of karmic you might say, baddies get their comeuppance etc.

2. But hang on a minute, why does that occur? Why should it be karmic?

Satan and God are supposed to be on opposite sides, aren't they?

So why would those sent to hell get punished?

Those following God's rules expect to be rewarded, surely satan would reward equally, those flouting his opponents rules! If you were at war with someone, would you do EXACTLY what your opponent wanted you to do? I doubt it, more likely one would flaunt and parade the flouting of the opponents wishes! So why does Satan accept the soul? I can only guess they must sustain him, give him power and strength.

If that is the case, the only conclusion is another question

3. Is God plain stupid or in league with Satan?"

Why doesn't God just relax the 'getting in to heaven' rules for a few millennia and starve Old Nick into oblivion.
It's what you'd do, the moment you realised it would work, and God, apart from being omniscient has been at this game with old nick for a good long while; so why hasn't he thought of it?

Well, according to the various tenets, we can rule out that he's too stupid or incapable of the task (Omnipotent remember) so, we must conclude that he's happy with the status quo; he doesn't actually want to defeat satan!

"Super-Grandad makes deal
with Bad-boy McPointy!"

Makes sense really, god gets all the nice-shiny-posh souls, perfectly suited to his 'pearly gates' image and satan gets the bad asses. Nice neat mutually beneficial scheme; both have souls enough to continue existing and the fear of the one place keeps the flock clinging to the hope of heaven.

Best confidence trick ever!

This is one of the Too many questions


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"

Necrolysis on Authonomy

Hi Friends,

I have a request this time, looking for some assistance.

As the writers amongst you know, the publishers slush-pile is almost impossible to scale.
I know, I've been knocking on publishers doors so to speak for some time now, to no avail. Grrr!
Recently however, Harper Collins started a website called Authonomy, a sort of social network come slush-pile. Loosely, People sign up to Authonomy, read authors work, leave comments etc and at the end of the month
the five novels most read by the website members
are passed to the Harper Collins editors.

It's entirely possible that a book
could get a publishing deal out of this.

So, I said I needed a favour.
I've written a novel
and uploaded the first two chapters to Authonomy.com

Click to join Authonomy and support Necrolysis

I reckon I'll need about 200 people to join up to Authonomy (It's completely free) and place Necrolysis on their 'Authonomy bookshelf' for Necrolysis to be seen by the editors. If you consider yourself my friend, or at least have enjoyed some of my blog posts, then this would be a great way to show it. Thanks in advance.

Whether you like my first 2 chapters or not, tell your friends who read or write. This could be a real opportunity for budding authors. Also, if you have a novel of your own (or part of one - there minimun for consideration is only 10 thousand words) whack it up on Authonomy then leave a note here, so that those who view this page can support you.

For a further taster of the flavour of Necrolysis
Join the fight to save humanity
It might take a minute to load if you have a slow connection


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,


If you enjoy what you read here
you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May

Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

Too Many Questions - Headlines