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!

Is This Blasphemy

NEW Michaelangelo painting Revealed?

Michaelangelo's lesser known, and many would say extremely blasphemous painting in the Sistene chapel.
Not revealed until now, but in an unheard of spirit of honesty for the church, it can now be seen on the ceiling of alter boy's changing rooms, and again in the priest's toilet.

Perhaps this is were it started to go horribly wrong for the Pontiff's Pompous Paedos.

Like father like father?

But is it blasphemy?
Or merely fatherly advice about cleanliness? After all, we well know the saying!
Or perhaps, he's just having a laugh about what he's making the Jewish brothers do?
Although, looking closer, it does look very suspiciously like the old man's after Adam's old man doesn't it?
I think what is most important to remember is - The only way one can consider the picture blasphemous is if one assumes two intellectual positions.
1. That the painting is a sufficient representation of 'God' and 'Adam' for any viewer to instantly assume that this is who they are meant to represent.
2. That the pose is sexual. If one assumed it to be instructional, it would not be offensive and thereby not blasphemous.
That's the problem with Blasphemy - it's totally subjective.

The author/creator of a work should never be held responsible for the observer/reader's perception.

This is one of the Too many questions

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

No Divine Evidence So No Benevolent God

This is an addendum to the Divine Evidence Laws to specifically address God's culpability for all this "stupid tribal rivalry" as raised in the explanation of Law 3.

Jew, Christian, Muslim, etc. whichever one's tradition, the creator god breathed his word and will into a 'prophet'.
What terrific jape was his game when he delivered these intransigently incompatible disparate paths?
Too choose to breathe different versions of his word and will to numerous tribes, knowing that very action would bring millions of senseless deaths, is at best unbelievably shortsighted and at worst totally evil!

A persons ability to comprehend a religious text is not a matter of choice - it's partly genetics, partly education - nature and nurture combine and then you either get 'it' or you don't. Can lack of faith, by one who is born too dim to understand, or too smart to ignore the faults, or why-ever else one might not be able to believe the man made texts, really be the work of a right and just god?
You'd think NOT wouldn't you!

All human's have a subconscious personal agenda, flaws born from life experiences and a lifetime's miscomprehensions and misconceptions of the meanings of words and phrases, so each human would write down a story they'd heard in their own 'style'.
This style would almost certainly not be written so that everyone would understand it; it would most likely not even be in the head of the writer to deliberately write it that way.
This makes the text an unsafe vessel of the meaning!
For an further illustration of what I mean, check out There is NO God - Official (then click the explanation link at the end).

Would a benevolent god choose to leave it up to a single flawed human to deliver the MEANING, the most important core, of the god's message?
You'd think NOT wouldn't you!

Remember, as the great majority 'believers' view it, their god is gambling with the individual's eternal damnation; gambling that the individual will have been born with the gene that allows him to decipher a message cloaked in thousands of years of other peoples interpretations. And, when one considers with the click of his fingers the god could have made it so that all readers inherently understood his words, to leave his "children's" decision to the whim of religious doctrine is some evil gamble!1
Surely it would have been much fairer of a benevolent God to make sure, by providing an indisputably divine text, that if an individual chooses to reject the god, then the individual has done so knowing, for sure, exactly what he is rejecting.

The religious argue that
proof denies faith
but for me, the very
absence of a blatantly divine text proves
that the god of the scriptures
cannot be benevolent.

(1) Of course he's not gambling; for the god of the scriptures it's ALL a sure thing - Check out Religious Free Will - The Ultimate Oxymoron, and Let's think about God - the multiverse's first bastard? for a closer look at this.
This is one of the Too many questions


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

Religious Free Will - The Ultimate Oxymoron

Human's are born a blank slate, our Free Will at birth includes not suffering an eternity in excruciating torment.
Religion takes away that intrinsic free will and replaces it with an illusory shackle.
"If in the eyes of an unknown arbiter your life adds up to 'bad person', you burn!"

True Free Will is...

The freedom to NOT follow a god
have no consequences of that free choice.

Limited free will is...

The freedom to not follow a god but suffer consequences.

Limited Free Will, which is also known as Oppression, is what religious belief offers - free will within boundaries and as we all know, a gilded cage is still a prison. I pity the religious for their comprehension of Free Will, and for their lack of understanding of their own scripture's landscape.

The religious creator god is hailed for knowing all things for all time. Such a being cannot help but therefore know the sum of a religious individuals earthly deeds, and therefore where the religious individual is going, Upstairs or Down, even before the religious individual's great great grandmother was born!! (And If he doesn't know what's going to happen, he cannot be the god of the scriptures!! ) So,

Where is the Free Will?
Think about it, NO choice that any religious individual makes throughout his life, can make any difference to the way the god knows it's going to turn out!
Nothing, absolutely nothing, the religious individual does, thinks, or believes in his earthly span will be able to change religious individuals eternal destination from the one foreseen by the god, so the individual's choices are irrelevant.

So Where's the Free Will?
Check out Let's think about God - the multiverse's first bastard? for a closer look at this, or,
for a Quantum exploration, God and the laws of Physics - All Alone in the Multiverse?

The religious version of free will restricts true free will to only one choice -

Live your earthly life without true free will (by following the rules of the doctrine) or suffer removal of your post-death free will forever.
Or to put it another way -

If you don't get into heaven, it's an automatic red card and off to hell with you.
Or, more succinctly -


There's no "third way" with religious Free Will,
no "eternity my way" option!

The religious concept of free will, is simply not free will!
Is it?
Can it honestly be described that way?
And if you say it can,
What would we then call the level of Free Will,
which does not impose those
'believe or burn' restrictions?
Free Will Plus?
Freeer Will?
Super Free Will?

Surely the ability to choose one's eternity is about free will?

There are so many other options -
  • I use my free will to choose have the ability to change at will from animal form to animal form, gaining experience of what it is like to be them for eternity.
  • I choose to be a box of chocolates for eternity - yes then the 'afterlife is like a box of chocolates' too. lol.
  • I choose to travel the stars as an ethereal observer for some of eternity then run a sweet shop in Yorkshire for ten years, then open ended millenia as a big pink butterfly.
  • I use my free will to choose to leave my choice about my eternity until after I've died.
  • I use my free will to choose no eternity for me.
  • I use my free will to choose to not take part in your petty power struggle! Why don't you just grow up! You're like a pair of toddlers fighting over a rusk! You want your heads banging together! Come on shake hands and make friends. Work out some sort of power sharing scheme or something! We are sick of this! Why should we have to suffer eternal tortures just because, you two can't settle your differences! Are you too stubborn, or too stupid to notice that if you two just kissed and made up, all the torture and torment could stop! Anyway - Whatever! I OPT OUT!
Religions demand that you play the god's game, by the god's rules, or when you die, if he thinks you've been a bad player you get tormented for eternity. The free will religion offers only exists within the parameters of the delicate sensibilities of the high priests of that doctrine, that is not FREE will but as I said, Oppression

Now here's the twister!

As we all really know, there is no god whatsoever, So that state of oppression is self-inflicted! Those who believe, want to, and do so freely! They choose to subjugate themselves beneath an oppressive regime of self imposed fear, so they can take succour and shelter in their self built gilded cage!
What brain disease causes such self-repression to be not only abundant within society, but also, until now (and possibly still now) expected and accepted as normal?

We are so doomed!

If you liked ths ponder on freewill, there's a deeper one here - "A Superposition of Quantifiable Causality"
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


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