BAILING ON OR KILLING FOR YOUR WOMAN

What is the SOP (standard operating procedure) for standing up for your woman? Do all girls really like it in all cases even when it's irrational? Is it mostly done to feed ones need to project alpha male dominance A.K.A ego or out of a genuine desire to protect a loved one's dignity? Is a guy perceived to be more attractive if he is the extreme territorial type that goes like "if you even as much as look at my babe the wrong way, I don't care if you have a gun I'll punch you in the face"?

Men have done all sorts for women. From Menelaus of Sparta that started a full blown war in an attempt to snatch back his stolen babe to Chukwuemeka of Nnewi that punched the dude that slapped his babe at a party. An act which caused a chain-reaction of events that ended with 7 bodies 6 feet deep. Well, the Helen of troy gist might be a myth but the second one is a true story o! There is also the story of Adewale that took off and disappeared the second armed evil men showed up at the joint he was hanging out with his chic. Leaving the babe to fend off Kalashnikovs with her Ferragamo high heels.

I am asking this question because it seems like some girls expect too much. Not to mention, some are active trouble makers looking for who would be ever ready to shout "THIS!! IS!! SPARTA!!" on their behalf. I had this one experience where a babe that got robbed said to me in all frankness, "I just thank God you were not there because they had guns and I know you would have wanted to protect me and things would have gone badly."

Did you say they had guns? Protect with what? My bulletproof ribcage? Nawaoo.

Anyways, I'll like to know how una see these things. Feel free to suggest permissible levels of reaction in different scenarios.

Many argue it's stupid to overreact when there is a clear "existential threat." In that case they say the sensible thing to do is to put your beta abi gamma male dominance BS in your pocket.






PS: "Courage is not limited to the battlefield or the Indianapolis 500 or bravely catching a thief in your house. The real tests of courage are much quieter. They are the inner tests, like remaining faithful when nobody's looking, like enduring pain when the room is empty, like standing alone when you're misunderstood."

--Charles Swindoll

ARE CHRISTIANS GULLIBLE COWARDS IN PURSUIT OF IMAGINARY SELF INTERESTS?

God in heaven. I am about to blaspheme in your name. Don't sit there and watch me do this. Strike me dead before I can finish this sentence. Ok how about this sentence? You know what? I'll give you till the end of the post.

Well if you can read this I guess he/she/it is having an orgy or perhaps a hangover from a slumber party. Please no comments defending God. He clearly wouldn't do it for himself and no comments about that "thou shalt not test God" crap either. Any such comments as well as comments claiming I'm hell bound, makes the case this post intends to.

My last post got criticized for being somewhat cryptic. This one would keep metaphors to a minimum and avoid compound sentences. I'll try to reduce the "I don't know what he is talking about" effect. Was going to go full controversial today but I don't have the time to tackle the ensuing comments. So, the controversy dial is on moderate.

Enoch believes there is as much evidence for a God as there is for the Easter Bunny. And as stated in his last post, Enoch believes faith is just a cool word for subtle insanity. He lusts after being part of something larger than himself and the knowledge of a higher purpose but does not let that urge lead him to grab onto any belief regardless of its legitimacy just for the sake of quenching his longing. Enoch was born a catholic and developed doubts after he couldn't reconcile confessing his "sins" to a mere mortal like himself. That disgust formed the core of what grew to be his outright rejection of all things faith. Enoch believes that Kids should not be groomed in any one religion and so deserve the right to choose for themselves prejudice-free upon reaching adulthood. He also believes that Christians born into the faith are too conditioned to see the folly of their beliefs and later in life are often just too cowardly to reject it as the lie that it is. Cowardice that really isn't due to any fault of theirs.

My most amusing recurrent experience involves Christians trying to convince me of the existence of God with quotes from a book whose history they know little about (A book they believe without doubt solely because the book demands that they should while threatening death for doubting.) And this is true for a disproportionate number of christians. They know Paul, Mathew, Mark, Luke, john, etc But have rarely ever heard of Papias of Hierapolis, Irenaeus of Lyons, Eusebius of Caesarea or any other of the handful of early Christian scholars that determined who authored what book in the Gospels. $60 bucks says 80% of Christians reading this do not know these men and the role they played in putting together the New Testament. They rarely know&couldn't care less that modern historians can not confidently decipher authorship of the gospels.

You see, that is my problem. Even if you are determined to believe, don't you owe yourself at least 5 to 10 minutes worth of research to have an objective sense of the history of the book you want to believe? As I have said repeatedly on this blog and as I often ask Christians; Who wrote the New Testament books? How do you know so? If learned folks can't tell, how can you? Do you know there were several books claiming to be authored by the disciples that were rejected? How do you know those were not the real books? How do you know that the devil hasn't carried out a sinister plot designed for you to read& believe crap?

Shouldn't it give a devout follower of Christ cause for concern to learn that the three authors of the new testament that speak about the timing of Jesus' birth give inconsistent details? Mathew claims it was in the time of Herod who died 4BC. Luke claims it was in the time of Augustus whose reign began in AD6 and John throws his own dice and claims its 18BC. I have said it a million times and I will say it again. If those scholars had their own agenda or are of poor judgment how can anyone be certain of the authorship of the Gospels? And if you insist on believing anyway, how can you confidently believe stories about imaginary winged creatures and a human-esque God from the same people that can't get right the date of birth of their lord and savior who they walked the earth with? And even if it were authored by the real disciples why are we obliged to believe them and say not Joseph Smith or Muhammad etc?

Little parable:
Imagine you've got $200,001 in your pocket(huge pocket) and some dude wants to sell you a treasure map that leads to a billion dollar gold chest. He demands $200,000 for this map. The map has a scribbling on the right corner that claims it is authentic. It also makes one of those claims common to silly chain emails; "If you doubt this map and do not seek the treasure, you die in three days." Wouldn't it be gullible and cowardly to buy this map and believe it because the map itself claims its legit? Wouldn't it be just as cowardly to reject suggestions of subterfuge because you've spent all your life seeking the fictitious treasure? If the treasure was eternal life, wouldn't the map deserve the least bit of research and oodles of doubt?

Lets call a spade a spade. A good number of religious folks/Christians are just gullible cowards and others are driven by self interest to make it to heaven by all means. While some are cowards because of the fear of eternal damnation others are cowards because they've invested too much in a lie and are just too cowardly to cut their losses. Too scared to even consider an opposing idea let alone accept one as truth especially if it is more depressing than the lie they've embraced. Not to mention the ones that are too cowardly to imagine/handle life without a higher purpose. Too cowardly to see life as the empty struggle that it is, so they make up fact-free feelgood stories and believe them and call it having faith. Truth makes no accommodations for feelings.

About half a dozen more questions:

If the hell portion was taken out of religion how many religious followers would remain? If the heaven portion was taken out of religion, how many followers would loose motivation? If Jesus,Allah, yaweh, shows up with a global megaphone and goes like "Hey guys, we've decided heaven and hell were bad ideas. We hereby scrap them. see you later." How many religious folks would scream "Thank God!!" and how many would want to litigate?

Why does the Cristian God deem it necessary to threaten her creatures with eternal fire? And tantalize them with everlasting life? If she really wanted to know those that love her why doesn't she just leave the hell/heaven part out of her book and surprise us after death? Is there any such thing as an omnipotent omniscient being? Is such a being "wise enough to make a rock it can't lift?" I don't think any all powerful being that demands love and discipleship under the threat of eternal death deserves either. Creator or not, hellfire or hellfreezer; She should spend eternity alone or with her singing stones/whatever. But then she is no more real than the tooth fairy that controls the sphincter in my ass.


Is "Christian" a synonym for "gullible coward in pursuit of imaginary self-interests"?