Is God good or is the Devil evil? 

There is not a person to my recollection who accepts the view that God may, in fact, be a nasty individual and that the devil may be, in fact, kinder than the so-called  father of Mankind this is despite the obvious human suffering in the world and cries of pain that can be heard all around the world.

In this article, my aim will be to prove God is a kind being, evil or, just at best no use to the sons of man it should be noted that I as a person am no religious authority but just a pundit so do not take what I say as gospel. In my opinion, from a layman's biblical experience feel God is not as kind as people make him out to be and is in fact a nasty guy.

The reasons for me feeling like this are due to my recollection of several biblical stories most importantly the story of Adam and Eve where Adam and Eve eat apples from the tree of life as I believe it was called in this story God said Adam, and Eve could have anything except apples of the tree and the devil convinced Adam and Eve to eat the apples bringing sin into the world and God cast both humans out of the Garden of Eden.

It is widely accepted God was correct to do so as it was his hospitality Adam and Eve were the guests of, and as a result he was entitled to throw them out of his property if both humans did not follow his wishes well I beg to differ on this version of events and the devil being made out to be the bad guy. I t may be true that God is entitled to do as he wishes with his property but this does not give him the right to do so at the expense of human development.

Property can be bought and sold any day or in God's case be created at the click of his fingers while human mental growth could not have been if Adam and Eve did not eat the apples from the sacred tree with Satan's encouragement  so in a way it was kinder of the devil to encourage mankind to enlighten itself to the reality of the world  while God tried to keep mankind ignorant and naked.

Just because God has the power of life and death it surely does not mean he has the power to stop mankind from becoming nothing more than brainless chimps? after all it can be argued God was trying to prevent us from the worst like war and disease but in doing, so he was in my opinion preventing mankind from living up to its full potential.

We surely as a species can only become kinder and gentler and much more by experiencing tragedy, and it is hardly fair to be kept feeling one mono-emotion like Adam and Eve would have prior to being enlightened to their humanity in comparison to their ignorant monkey state before eating the apples of life.

God's treatment of Adam and Eve whose actions hurt no one but themselves no one else could be hurt by eating the apples except them is hardly condone-able in comparison to Satan, who wanted man to be liberated from his primitive state to be more than he was.

Being banned from the garden of Eden for becoming more than they were greater than robots eating and sleeping naked is just a authoritarian response of a bully who cannot get his way and because of God's actions of trying to limit mankind and throwing of a tantrum because the devil freed man from being slaves to his and her god imposed  condition make me say from such anecdotal evidence God is no nice guy, and the Devil seems like not such a bad guy.

Remember God let his own son be slaughtered despite him being able to save himself showing once again God may not be this magnificent patriarch/ being who is kind and caring and on many occasions, he has destroyed the world when he was not happy with what we were doing.

Last time I checked. How does what we do affect him? and what gives him the right to interfere on our personal affairs and lives considering it does not affect him as far as I know in any way.

If God were good, he would have surely allowed his own son to live and not ordered him to sacrifice himself to redeem man not only if each of had a son who we know could save himself, we would let him do so if he could as we would care about himself to do so. Furthermore, we would be humble and not pretentious to think we could redeem mankind from sin after all who is he to say if we are evil or in need of redemption. 

If God at least made an argument to us to why we needed redemption I might have a softer tone towards him but since he did not any interfered with his son's liberty to live and our personal liberty to run our own lives I 

have no real reason to be restrained in my criticism.

 

A few quite ones 

On a weekend, many of us enjoy a sociable drink at the pub or at home and by now we are used to having it at a reasonable price without standing at the bar to wait for it if that is our choice and to avoid such a annoyance, we go to the off licence or liquor store.

Even though most of us drink responsibly some of us sure as hell don't  and as a result ruins the night of others behaving like fools or the scum of the earth and just outright kill the mood of a magical, evening by punching a bystander or jumping on their car when stationary or in motion.

There is no denying binge drinking and drunken behavior are a problem, but they have always been in this article I shall be talking about why it is the problem it is using my native Ireland as, a case study and looking at the very recent decision of the Tory government in England to deal with compulsive drinking in England.

I shall assess whether there are reasons from my own native country's history for binge drinking and whether the UK governments' response is the correct way to address the issue or just a recipe, for punishing those of us who just like the odd pint.

In Ireland, the pint of Guinness is much a part of Irish DNA as anything but we Irish have always been portrayed as the drunken Irish man who slaps the wife into a corner after too many drinks, perhaps unfairly.

If you look at Irish history perhaps we have reason more than most to drink for 800 years, we were under British rule, and this perhaps does not explain our aversion towards a pint of plain but on a psychological, level if you consider the many losses the Irish suffered land, self-respect and banishment to peripheral land in what was once their own country it may not be entirely, unfair to say as people we may have turned to drink to escape the hardship of life.

As if we look at life on a personal basis, we ourselves have turned to drink to escape harsh realities or to make ourselves  feel somewhat better so my previous claim while may not be, the true cause of Ireland's drinking as drinking to excess continued in more prosperous times recently.

This, however, is proof perhaps as a country. we Irish are just predisposed to drinking more than others and perhaps drink problems should be addressed on a cultural basis rather than with sweeping evasive legislation.

The Tory government's idea of minimum alcohol pricing in which a price of 40p per unit will be brought in along with other legislation banning multiple bottles of wine for 10 pounds and a levy, on bars and clubs to pay for policing.

On a foundation of principle, I have no problem with the state trying to combat binge drinking but looking at the proposed legislation straight away as a Libertarian, I can see the unfairness of punishing, more moderate drinkers because of those who abuse alcohol, why should people who just want a beer or bottle of wine for a dinner party be punished because some people, get pissed and break windows?

Rather than go into a whole ethical debate, I will just say the reason it is strike  one against the UK government's plans in my opinion on an economic basis a levy on pubs and clubs to pay for policing, is a job killer in the industry as it will more than likely put people off going out to them if they are faced with higher costs.

Some clubs will be bigger drawers of a crowd than others because of important reasons such as price or entertainment, and this legislation will become critical as it forces many who cannot, compete to close causing job losses.

More important is the moral principle of if we let the state interfere in private business matters and personal lives are. Where will it stop? Once a precedent of trying to make the citizens behave, in a certain way through the jack boot of parliament trying to rule what we do and at what price we must pay to do something.

The question I think is are we were really free to do as we please without the state acting like our Daddy? Overall, I think the law will be a failure and is a bandage to cover gaping, social and cultural, cancers like mental illness and personal trauma as most people want drink because of price but rather abuse drink to escape brutal truths in their own personal realms while others just want to get pissed and will do so buying bootleg alcohol  on the black market.

Hot or not open relationships?

Most of us like to try things in the bedroom now and again and while times have changed and as a society, we have all become more open as people  the open relationship remains a taboo, something that the lecherous hubby wants just to get a bit on the side while the wife makes the tea.

I hope you will be pardon my crudeness in the opening paragraphs, but it seems to me the slightest hint of wanting to spice up a relationship is just a cop out for the male of the relationship, to get the leg over with the hot secretary at work.

For the purposes of this article, I shall explore if open relationships are a viable lifestyle choice for couples who are in a rut or who just like to have fun and whether or not they are indeed a viable, moral decision for those of you who have their consciouses keeping them awake at night.

For many couples, the spark in the relationship usually goes out of it after a while, and things become more like a chore rather than an alive feeling within of being part of something wonderful and good to enjoy this is especially true for people who have been married a long time.

An open relationship is defined as a 'sexual relationship or liaisons with the prior knowledge of your partner ' a simple but straightforward definition, however, in reality, the truth and dynamics, of such a relationship are never straight forward or simple usually when one agrees to such a relationship, there is an agreed set of rules and protocols followed to maintain the viability of, the couple who decides to pursue this lifestyle  choice relationship.

These rules can vary from couple to couple and are a lot like a contract stating who the partners can see and who is off-limits for, example, example the sister of the wife or girlfriend this way the couple ensures the survival of their relationship through an agreed set of terms and rules.

However, as in all things in life nothing is ever easy and when ego's clash or one partner feels they are getting little out of such a arrangement the foundations of the couples' relationship may, come apart and the beginning of recrimination and hurt may surface reaching its climax when the couple split in divorce or break up.

As in all break ups the end is always the hardest and perhaps if one wishes to keep their family together they should refrain from such a relationship with their children have at least, grown up or potentially suffer seeing their child being broken inside watching as their parents battle for custody.

On the other hand, an open relationship may work out well if both partners stick to the rules potentially breathing new life into a stale relationship with the couple now trusting each other, more than previously due to knowing even indulging in temptation there partner still wishes, to share what is most precious beyond lust with them love.

To other couples, such a idea may be repulsive and outright immoral personally I find it hard to say what is moral and what is not and base such a test on a hurt basis if such a relationship, is going to benefit one partner over the other it is therefore greedy on the other partner who wants it over the other to pursue the idea.

However, if the relationship style has potential to be of benefit to a relationship and will work out and not hurt anyone, then go for it however be warned the outcome rests with those involved and no one else.

To recap an open relationship can be of benefit if pursued with the right intentions involved and a couple are right to benefit from it, but as it is hard to see how a relationship between a couple works this claim cannot be verified, at all and as emotions take over from logic in pursuing such a relationship, catastrophic endings may arise.

Therefore, it is essential a couple decides to investigate if such a relationship works for them and perhaps give it a test run and before deciding to pursue an open relationship on a more permanent basis.    

Tips for pursuing an open relationship

Draw up a contract of rules before starting an open relationship

Talk to your partner openly and consider their feelings.

Draw up a list of best and worse outcomes and see if the benefits outweigh the negatives.

Stick to the rules