Pseudepigrapha Psalad Psurgery VII: Second Peter

Chapter 1

• Verse 4: God "has given us [its] very great and precious promises..." Let's think about these great and precious promises, shall we? You get to avoid eternal torture in fire, which I'm sure most of us would count as a good thing. What else? Life in heaven, where presumably there are no more earthly pleasures: no sex, no food, no sleep, no lying around in bed on a weekend morning, no backrubs, no hot showers, no keggers, no striving toward a personal goal, none of the joy that corresponds to reaching a goal that you weren't sure of, no reading, no learning, no danger and therefore no adventure. Also, you get the knowledge that many people whom you love dearly are in excruciating, inescapable agony along with countless strangers you never met. And what will you do for all eternity? Worship Yahweh-Jesus, apparently unceasingly. That's all. Heaven is not a good place; the only attribute that makes it any better than hell is the lack of fire-torture. This is not a good god.
• Verse 5: Make every effort to add knowledge to your faith. Given the anti-education attitude so prevalent among Jesusianismists, it's a good thing that this epistle is a forgery.
• Verse 16: "We did not follow cleverly invented stories..." Now this is one that all Jesusianismists interpret incorrectly. They think that faux-Peter means, "The stories we told you were not invented." But surely he's not saying that, as that would be a lie, and there are no lies in the bible. What he really means is that the stories were invented un-cleverly.

Chapter 2

• Verse 3: "In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up." Can you say, "Institute for Creation Resarch?" "Discovery Institute?" "Creation Museum?"

Chapter 3

• Verse 10: "...the elements will be destroyed by fire..." This makes me think about the inerrancy of the bible. What can inerrancy mean when the claim contains a word that means something obviously false? Surely, by the word "elements", faux-Peter meant earth, air, fire, and water, but we now know those not to be elements. Or should we assume that the word elements is just a poor choice by modern translators? That it really should have been rendered "earth, air, fire, and water"? If so, then what will happen, for example, to the sun? Fire, you say? No. Fire is the result of a chemical reaction, the exchange of electrons between molecules. There is no fire on the sun. What happens there is nuclear fusion, which has nothing to do with electrons or chemistry. What will happen to the rest of the solar system? Surely none of it can be called "earth", can it? I can see that this is descending into science-geek mental masturbation. I'll spare you.