The story of “Balaam’s ass” makes Christianity (literally) asinine:

Fun-fact: both Christianity and Judaism involve a talking donkey:

At first the angel is seen only by the donkey Balaam is riding, which tries to avoid the angel. After Balaam starts punishing the donkey for refusing to move, it is miraculously given the power to speak to Balaam (Numbers 22:28), and it complains about Balaam’s treatment. At this point, Balaam is allowed to see the angel, who informs him that the donkey is the only reason the angel did not kill Balaam. Balaam immediately repents, but is told to go on.

Now, here’s the thing:

1.. Either you actually believe that the above events happened – or you don’t.

2. If you don’t actually believe that the above events happened (exactly as described) – then what does that  (necessarily) imply about any other specific event mentioned in “The” Bible?

See, there’s the problem: Constantinity (er, I mean “Christianity”) isn’t merely a “belief”-system centering around the notion of a Deity becoming human for the sole purpose of being killed – as a “blood sacrifice” TO APPEASE ITS OWN BLOOD-LUST.

That would be bad enough.

Arguably, Constantinity  (Er, I mean “Christianity”) would be both slightly less inane and more elegant from a theological perspective – with a few relatively minor changes:

  1. The first (extremely minor) change would involve ret-conning Yahweh as a COSMOLOGICAL THUG.  This would fit nicely with everything from the “Garden of Eden” nonsense right on down to the (nonexistent) global flood mentioned in the Noah’s ark thing: There is ABSOLUTELY NO (theological) need for “Satan”, given the antics of “Yahweh” as portrayed in the so-called “Old Testament”.
  2. The other (minor) change would involve “jesus” in essentially the same role as Prometheus from Greek mythology: a “superhuman” entity willing to intercede on humanity’s behalf, so as to HAM-STRING YAHWEH.

Quite frankly, the OT “God” is the cosmological equivalent of a petulant child gleefully burning ants with a magnifying glass, for no other reason than to see them burn.

At any rate, the above theological changes would at least make Constantinity (er, I mean “Christianity”) less dependent on gimmickry like Credo quia absurdum.

At any rate – back to Balaam’s ass.

Any so-called “Christian” needs to ask him or herself the following question:

Talking donkey: yes or no.



Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s