When I first got to college in 1994, my Bible was so thoroughly marked with underlined and cross-referenced verses I liked, I would just flip through it and re-read those parts. When I realized I was doing this, I decided to read the bible with a different approach: underlining the parts I didn’t like and cross-referencing inconsistencies.
My original objectives for this exercise were to solve any problems with the Bible that I might encounter and discover nuances in the Bible that I had previously overlooked. So, for example, I used the pages of who begat who to calculate with a high degree of accuracy when events in the Bible took place. The attention to detail in these chronologies are pretty amazing. Somehow, the very first humans were quickly able to discern the number of days in a year, use that information to keep track of how old they were when their children were born and preserve this data by passing it down through generations.
Another thing that happened with me around this age was that I started to develop what is commonly called “critical thinking skills” (and what neurologists would call my prefrontal cortex). One application of this is gaining an ability to intuit when something doesn’t quite seem right; even when you can’t put your finger on exactly what it is right away. As I began asking questions about the contents of the Bible, I expected to find answers, but instead found more questions.
The immediate result of Adam and Eve disobeying God is that they gain the ability to differentiate between good and evil- in other words, a conscience. The first thing they recognize as evil is nudity and, as a result, experience shame. Now, it doesn’t take an anthropologist to point out that embarrassment about ones own body is not an intrinsic but instead a cultural trait. Pondering this threw me for a loop. Could the Bible contain cultural and not necessarily universal values and truths? Could the Bible be suggesting the conscience was a genetic difference between Jews and cultures of the day that did not wear clothes? Could this story be laying the groundwork for an agenda that is primarily concerned with the feeling of shame?
In Genesis 6:6, it is written that God regrets creating humans. Perhaps this is another attempt at instilling shame in humans, but the bigger question is: how can an all-knowing being experience regret? It is literally not possible, unless it falls under the category of knowing you were going to regret something and doing it anyway, which would place the blame solely on God himself, making him both imperfect and unjust. God concludes the best solution to humans not living up to his expectations is to drown all but eight of them and also most of the animals. The Pentateuch is written very matter-of-factly, and the god in it remains terrifyingly unpredictable, which makes sense when coming from a time full of unexplainable and uncontrollable natural phenomena. This god’s idea of a righteous man is a guy who urges for his two daughters to be gang raped and then shortly thereafter, while mourning the death of his wife, gets drunk and impregnates both of them on consecutive nights. Soren Kirkegaard obsesses over this Old Testament god, and argues we should fear and respect him precisely because he is so scary.
The god of the New Testament, especially in the works attributed to John, is depicted as a more loving being. This conception of god poses a couple major problems: tragic and cruel things happen seemingly at random; he demands to be loved in return; hell exists… but this is the god most people today want to believe in. Christians are eager and enthusiastic about defending this god. Books are written on why this god behaves the way he does. And then this god of love is used to explain that the blood-thirsty Old Testament god also acted out of love, because they are the same god. This only makes sense if you strip the word “love” of all meaning, like an abuser who pleads his love for his wife after beating her. It is only the extremists of a religion that focus on the violent actions of their god and disregard the rest, and yet the majority, who focus on how patient, loving and forgiving their god is, do the exact opposite.
Perhaps the genius of the Bible lies in the ability it bestows to find and focus on verses that mirror whatever you happen to agree with, enabling your beliefs to be retained without further justification.
At the same time I was exploring this question of the nature of God, I discovered philosophy, and discovered the god from my childhood described by Plato (circa 428 – 347 BC) and Augustine of Hippo (AD 354 – 430). These two important figures theorize about and describe a very familiar supreme being, in terminology verbatim to what I heard in Sunday School growing up. I found this fascinating, because Christianity usually teaches that it relies only on the writings included in the Holy Bible. I began to research how the Bible had been compiled, edited, translated and used over the centuries, and discovered a fascinating and complex history. There are literally hundreds of different versions of the Vulgate (the first “official” Bible, written in Latin), for example, as it has undergone nearly constant revising from its inception in AD 382; one would be hard-pressed to find any two versions that are alike, even after the invention of the printing press. One motive for highlighting the importance of the Bible has been to get rid of religious and secular works and writings disliked by the religious leaders of the day- entire libraries full of one-of-a-kind books have been burned to the ground in the name of Christianity. The Bible canon idea has also been useful for discrediting and destroying Christian sects such as the Gnostics. The Protestant Christian Bible I grew up with, consisting of 66 works divided into Old and New Testaments, is not 2000 as I’d always assumed but less than 200 years old, dating back to the 1820s. (This modern compilation contains dozens of references to books no longer considered canon.)
Christianity insists the most important thing is to believe that there’s one God, and further, to believe he showed up in human form as his own son. Ultimately, this visit had to happen because God decided he wouldn’t forgive us unless blood was shed. This is another example of him being overly dramatic and inefficient- thankfully humans are not advised to emulate this policy. Who besides a death metal frontman would respond to a sincere apology with, “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness!” But in pondering this whole ideology, my main question became- why does God even care whether or not we believe in him? It seems really petty. Imagine Kris Kringle from the movie Miracle on 34th Street cursing people for not believing he’s the real Santa Claus. It would be antithetical.
Christians are quick to point out that it is impossible to comprehend anything about God, especially his motivations. Only God can judge, and we must assume God is always right. Any words humans use to describe God necessarily fall short, and so even the descriptions of God in the Bible fail to adequately capture or express his true nature. So regardless of what the Bible says about God, entertaining the possibility that their god could be flawed or non-existent is out of the question. Because God cannot be explained, he conveniently becomes the explanation for everything. The logical result is that the explanation for everything is that nothing can be explained. The irony of this is frequently lost on Christians, which can make trying to have a rational conversation with a Christian excruciatingly frustrating. Because there can be no answers, there needn’t be any questions. From a Christian perspective, the acquisition of knowledge is considered a futile distraction from “Truth,” which is yet another synonym for God. Far too often, religion provides little more than an excuse to remain ignorant.
I spent many late nights during my third year of college wrestling with this specific obstacle of how to contemplate a being beyond understanding with my friend Eric. At the same time, I was deeply engrossed in the works of Immanuel Kant. Kant was a genius at being able to work around unsolvable problems by exploring our limitations and what we can determine after accepting those limitations. One thing Kant writes extensively about is the concept of a priori knowledge, or knowledge that is not dependent upon experience but reason. For humans, he says, the purest form of what we can know a priori is limited to deductions regarding the conditions of possible experience. In other words, we can imagine a logically consistent universe without needing to experience that universe; this imagined yet consistent world needn’t have any connection to reality whatsoever, but the same rules that are necessary to make an imagined world consistent must also apply to ours, because otherwise our world would allow impossibilities. So, for example, once I use reason to conclude that, by definition, two plus two must equal four, I can also conclude that if I pick up two sticks with one hand and two sticks with the other, then I must be holding four sticks.
The exciting thing about this, for me, is it demonstrates that humans can both recognize logical consistencies and discover things to be true that we neither believe nor experience to be true. For example, Albert Einstein composed his theory of general relativity by first imagining a universe consisting of an observer in free fall. When he applied the necessary conditions derived from that imagined universe to ours, he discovered, among other things (like the existence of black holes), its calculations could only be accurate if our universe was expanding, which he didn’t think was true, so he applied an alteration to the formula (known as the cosmological constant)… but just over a decade later Georges Lemaître and Edwin Hubble separately discovered a method of measuring the distances between stars and found that our universe is expanding. So while it may be true that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, nor are our ways his ways, (Isaiah 55:8) the knowledge we can acquire and possess is not absolutely limited by our activities and thoughts.
But now our conversation must turn from knowledge to faith, because that is the way these conversations go. Faith acts both as a bridge between the known and unknown and like a placebo to alter outcomes. Faith turns our dreams into realities and presents evidence for our theories (to reword the famous verse Hebrews 11:1). The first hurdle regarding faith as it pertains to Christianity is that Christians almost universally assume they have a monopoly on it. They don’t. Taking a mathematical formula created in an imaginary world and applying it to ours requires a leap of faith. But, for Christians, holding onto faith in God is of utmost importance because the alternative is disbelief, and those who don’t believe burn in hell.
Christians will resort to reiterating their faith as way of expressing their contempt for anything that might challenge their assumptions about or limitations imposed by reality. It is used as a get-out-of-jail-free card to insist that our understanding is not only paltry but irrelevant. They will, for example, declare that, by faith, the impossible IS possible. Although, whether or not something is possible is obviously not determined by whether it is declared to be so, certain things can be logically determined to be impossible- a square cannot be round, to cite a famous example. In this regard, the impossible cannot be possible in the same way that A cannot equal B. To deny this is, quite simply, a refusal to allow that a word can have a concrete definition. If we cannot define terms, everything is meaningless, logic does not exist and anybody who says they can read this random string of shapes is a liar (because we cannot, for example, determine that “p” is anything more than a line and a circle). The improbable is possible; the impossible is, by definition, not impossible. It would be absurd to expect or assume that even an all-powerful being could do the impossible.
When it comes to something like predicting the future, it is true that our knowledge is feeble, but there’s not much that we understand less than time. Knowledge and faith are never mutually exclusive, and as we learn, our dependence on faith decreases. With knowledge, we can evolve from faith healers to doctors. (Medical science is fully aware of the miracle of faith healing- they call it the Placebo Effect.) Jesus, in Matthew 14:31, suggests that anyone with faith in him can walk on water (and this is demonstrated literally, not figuratively), which at least implies that everyone who cannot walk on water is a hypocrite and going to hell. Most, like the disciples other than Peter in the story, get around this by simply not trying to walk on water, but “faith without works is dead.” (James 2:17) Walking on water is a truly useful skill, and would give Christians a huge advantage in both commerce and evangelism. It should be extremely rare for a Christian to drown relative to the general population. If it were true that anyone who believes in Jesus could walk on water, there is no way they wouldn’t be doing it. There will always be a few people who do truly believe they can walk on water, like those parents who let their kids die while praying for them instead of taking them to the hospital, but the majority realize, even if they won’t admit it, that while faith is a powerful and necessary force, knowledge more often than not trumps faith.
God wants not only to be believed in but obeyed. As the number of pages in my Bible marked with bizarre tales and inconsistencies rivaled those I had marked in high school because I agreed with them, I began to question whether God was qualified to handle a leadership role. This was a being who ordered the mass genocide of the people who had raised Moses, sparing only the female virgins for the soldiers to keep as slaves (Numbers 31). The Bible is pro-slavery throughout (although because it is so diplomatically written, the New Testament book of Philemon, a letter given to accompany a slave Paul had ordered to return to his master, asking the master to forgive him for having escaped, is often misinterpreted as being anti-slavery). Christians will explain that God had to make compromises because he had to make laws that fit within the constraints of the culture of the day, but this is utterly ridiculous. Why would someone with ultimate authority have to compromise? God refrained from standing up for basic human rights because that was too radical an idea for the day and the timing wasn’t right? Who was he afraid of offending- the status quo? This same god created a world in which the women in it exist to keep men company- without consulting Adam first.
Contrary to what the Bible teaches, I steadfastly believe (have faith) that mass genocide is never and never has been an acceptable course of action by anyone, for any reason. If God himself dropped down from heaven and ordered me to prove my loyalty by killing anyone, let alone my own child, I would like to think I’d refuse… even if promised blessings or threatened torture. As I write this, I am reminded of Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, by Hannah Arendt. It should be required reading for every person on the planet. I first read it in 1997, three years into my critical analysis of the Bible. It is an examination of a Nazi at a war crimes trial that determines the key personality traits of a man guilty of committing horrific atrocities were that he couldn’t think for himself and was ambitious.
People will point to Biblical prophecies as proof that it’s divinely inspired. Unfortunately, when you eliminate prophecies that were written about after they were fulfilled (which could simply be cases of revisionist history) and prophecies that haven’t happened yet, there is not much to point at. Using prophecies whose foretelling and fulfillment are both written about in the Bible to prove the Bible is true and accurate involves a fallacy of circular logic whereby one must first assume the Bible is true and accurate. In fact, many of the prophecies in the Bible were not fulfilled, such as that the land of Egypt would be abandoned for forty years (Ezekiel 29) or that Jesus would remain dead for three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40). The latter is a great example of how the Bible works: almost every Christian will tell you that Jesus was buried for three days and three nights while they simultaneously celebrate Jesus’ death on the evening before the Sabbath after nightfall (Mark 15:42) and resurrection before dawn on the day after the Sabbath (John 20:1), which is a span of one day and two nights. (Without hesitation or research, Christians will explain how, for that time or culture, three days and three nights was the same as one day and two nights, with is as absurd and desperate as it gets.) It’s not even close to three days and three nights, and yet, somehow, a blind-spot is created which causes almost everybody to ignore the facts and focus on the story. Not the story in the Gospels- which disagree with each other on many details such as who discovered the empty tomb- but a story that is not written anywhere but which lives solely in the public consciousness.
Christians will claim God has never broken a promise. In reality, he promised Abraham he’d give Abraham’s descendents the territory between the Nile and Euphrates (Genesis 15:18). Most people today simply assume this “promised land” is modern-day Israel, but it is actually a huge expanse of land stretching from Egypt to Iraq that the Arabian Peninsula sits between. Christians will immediately explain that the descendents of Abraham never actually owned all that land because of their wickedness, but Deuteronomy 9:5 specifically guarantees that the original promise will be kept regardless of the wickedness of the descendents. Today, another world war would be required to fulfill this promise. Frighteningly, a large number of Christians would support this war, even though Israel has nuclear weapons. Humans generally would prefer to discover justifications for their assumptions rather than truth or peace.
Some will admit that the Bible is necessarily fallible because it was written by humans. (Notice the ever-present theme of human fallibility.) I would counter that if God wanted a perfect work with no way of parlaying excuses, he could have given Moses a whole bunch of tablets containing his laws, instead of just one copy to be kept in a box and destined to be lost- especially after Moses immediately destroyed the original tablet. Even Jesus could have written his own Bible and handed out 5000 copies along with the fish and bread. Any number of writing methods could have been utilized which would have been better adept at avoiding egregious errors like Aaron dying twice and being buried in two places.
Jesus said, “If you don’t believe me, believe the things I do.” My mom correctly points out that the best thing about Christianity is that it encourages some people to do great things like provide humanitarian aid, and I wholeheartedly appreciate this benefit… that many religions and non-religious charity organizations also provide. I’m personally suspicious of anyone unwilling to do charitable work unless inspired by a supreme being, but Christianity teaches everybody is inherently wicked, and so Christians are skeptical that anyone can do good without a supreme being’s influence. Regardless, my exploration into Christianity was more interested in its truth than its utility, and these are two separate questions.
In all my years growing up in the church, I never witnessed a miracle, with the possible exception of one time when I was about eight our car wouldn’t start in the church parking lot and some guy appeared to help push start it and when that worked my dad stopped to thank him but he had disappeared. I heard about miracles all the time, however. Others will frequently state they’ve witnessed “all kinds” of miracles, but when pressed, fail to come up with anything specific that’s uniquely attributable to the god of Christianity.
In the old days (9th century BC), Elijah puts on a highly publicized miracle-working contest where he mocks 450 prophets of Baal who futilely attempt to have their god light an altar. Elijah then dumps buckets of water on an altar and prays to God, who promptly sends not only fire from heaven to light it but, after another prayer, rain to put it out and end a famine. A chilling part of the story that conveniently gets overlooked is that Elijah has the 450 prophets put to death, but it is a key point in part because it leads to our introduction of Jezebel, who remains an interesting sub-plot right up until she is thrown out a window, trampled on and eaten by dogs.
Even though Matthew 18:19 says God will grant any request asked by two or more people, these days it is considered blasphemous to assume a prayer will be answered, because while it’s okay to ask, who are we to tell God what to do? Preachers will explain that our prayers are answered either yes, no or wait. This answer is not literal of course- it just means that something we ask for will either happen now, happen later or not happen. I cannot help but notice everything that is not prayed for also happens now, later or not at all. In other words, that claim is a tautology (true by definition).
Miracles are claimed in every religion. Christians will usually not deny these but instead remind that Satan can perform miracles, too. These are always called “false miracles,” but are virtually indistinguishable from God’s miracles. This is why we have to be really careful not to be fooled by Satan- because he is virtually indistinguishable from God. (One of the few depictions of Satan in the Bible is in the book of Job, which begins with Satan visiting God in Heaven and, after a discussion beginning with, “What have you been up to?” God and Satan place a friendly wager….) Just as God provides a useful one word blanket explanation for how everything other than God exists, Satan is an easy way to categorize evidence to the contrary as being a deception.
In the book of Judges, Gideon asks God to perform three tests in order to prove his authenticity. The second and third tests are for God to have morning dew on a wool fleece but not on the ground and vice versa. Out of desperation, I decided to replicate this experiment. I took a wool blanket outside on a summer evening, sat on it and prayed. I ended up falling asleep on the blanket and it was wet when I awoke at dawn. Excitedly, I reached out to feel the grass around me and much to my surprise… it was also wet. I immediately began sobbing. Then I thought, well maybe this is some sort of test, so I repeated the experiment for two more nights- although on those occasions I just left the blanket out and slept inside. Those ensuing days were an intense emotional roller coaster of frustration, betrayal, denial and anger. By the third morning of nature following the laws of nature, I felt stupid for having actually thought God existed and simultaneously a sense of peace from being liberated from having to worry about it anymore.
When Jacob wrestled with God, he was punished with a physical injury but rewarded with a new identity. I received no punishment but the same reward. Admitting to myself that everything I’d been taught, believed and preached made more sense if it wasn’t true was probably the most difficult and courageous thing I’ve ever done. Whenever Christians who knew me growing up find out I am no longer a Christian, they automatically assume this is due to ignorance or a lack of faith or self-control, and usually bizarrely note that I seem angry. Christians can really be extraordinarily arrogant, but to be fair, a lot of effort has gone into convincing them non-Christians are ignorant, unhappy (or suffering “false happiness”), reckless and angry. In reality, I decided for myself beyond a reasonable doubt, after intensive research and examination over the course of three years, that that vast majority of the Bible was a work of fiction, and the god described by it was not only extremely inconsistent but something less than admirable. I have come to believe shame is instilled and continuously reinforced by Christianity because the only people who need something external to believe in are those you do not believe in themselves.
Mark 4:22 says, “For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open.” There are a ton of things in the Bible that most Christians would rather ignore than ponder or discuss. Simply insisting that humans aren’t qualified to question the Bible is unreasonable- we were deemed qualified to write it, after all. When it comes to religion, legitimacy should be too important a concern for any of its scriptures to be treated flippantly. Having faith that something is true does not make it so, nor is seeking knowledge demonstrative of a lack of faith. Having faith is admirable- remaining stubbornly ignorant is not; neither is forcing or expecting religious fervor to be revered above factual knowledge or universal human rights. I don’t think it’s unfair to suggest that perhaps crediting all actions and opinions to a silent, invisible, superior being is little more than a way of avoiding personal responsibility. Christians should be able to ask themselves, “Would my actions and opinions be defensible and justified if I didn’t have someone else to pin them on?” I think a lot of Christians could benefit from having more humility in admitting their beliefs are held despite unanswered questions instead of insisting they have all the answers and wanting to impose them on everybody else.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Why Christians Should Support Gay Marriage in America
There are several places in the Bible that state homosexual sex is wrong. The New Testament characterizes marriage as a union of a man and a woman. For these reasons and others, it is reasonable to concede that Christianity was founded with the premise that marriage between gay people within the Christian Church was not an accepted concept. Therefore, it is understandable for a Christian pastor or priest to refuse to authorize or bless the union of a gay couple in a Christian ceremony. After all, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America prevents the government from interfering with religious practices. What the scriptures do not address, however, is the situation as it pertains to marriage recognized, not by the Christian Church, but by a contemporary, secular government.
In addition to, or, as part of protecting everybody’s right to practice whichever religion they choose, the First Amendment explicitly states that any one specific religion’s beliefs cannot be taken into consideration when making federal laws. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….” The First Amendment is not a suggestion, but is itself a federal law. Jesus Christ indicated that both government laws and God’s should be followed, even though he trusted neither tax collectors nor religious leaders. When asked if taxes should be paid, he replied, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” (Matthew 22:21)
Within Christianity, it is understood that a marriage is a union recognized and sanctified by God. Our government, on the contrary, recognizes marriage as a legally binding contract between two people which can be used to gain things like tax benefits, inheritance rights, child custody rights and immigration privileges. These are two distinct roles that we umbrella under the same term. To determine whether a Christian should desire for the legal form of marriage to include homosexuals, we can, and must, ponder Jesus’ teachings.
The longest transcription we have of Jesus’ teachings is known as the Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew, chapters 5-7. A second, similar sermon is found in Luke, chapter 6. These are the most concrete and clear directives from Jesus to be found in the Bible. In these speeches, Jesus demonstrates that there is a distinction between earthly and heavenly values. One major theme is to treat non-followers as brethren even while living according to standards beyond those of non-followers. In fact, treating those who oppose you with love is precisely one way of upholding these higher standards. Jesus clarifies that these high standards should not be demanded, or even expected, of others. He gives several examples that if another chooses evil, it should be met with love.
Most are familiar with Jesus’ command to not judge. Luke 6:37 reads, “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” The severity of this command becomes evident when it is cross-referenced with Matthew 6:15: “If you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” Jesus is not concerned with the decisions of those uninterested in following him, not because he doesn’t love them, but because he is uninterested in earthly pursuits, gains and rituals. This is why he says to a man who wanted to bury his father instead of getting on a boat with him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.” (Matthew 8:22) Jesus sole focus is on being holy himself.
Jesus recognizes earthly laws cannot reflect heavenly values. God judges that which mankind cannot see; even our thoughts. When asked by a group of religious leaders and teachers if an adulteress should be stoned according to Jewish law, Jesus replies, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7) This compels the group to leave, and then Jesus, left alone with the woman, does something extraordinary. According to his own criteria, Jesus could have stoned the adulteress himself, but he instead measures her against those who had just left- and deems her equal to them. “Jesus straightened up and asked her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ ‘No one, sir,’ she said. ‘Then neither do I condemn you,’ Jesus declared. ‘Go now and leave your life of sin.’” (John 8:10-11) The Bible does not indicate whether Jesus' advice was taken.
Critics will argue that Jesus’ statement in Matthew 7:6 to not give that which is sacred to dogs is proof that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. The first rebuttal to this is that the scriptures make clear that God condemns all sin equally, so if it is interpreted that marriage, as a sacred thing, should not be given to those who are not Christians, it follows that ALL marriage involving non-Christians should not be allowed. James 2:8-13 says, “If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘You shall not murder.’ If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” Again, we see a clear separation between earthly judgment and heavenly judgment, and that our earthly judgments should be tempered with both mercy and neighborly love, leaning in favor of giving freedom. It is precisely this kind of sacred wisdom that Jesus is suggesting only his followers can understand in Matthew 7:6. His followers should not bother attempting to impose the high standards they should hold themselves to on non-followers.
The only type of marriage the Bible explicitly condemns is re-marriage after a divorce, unless the divorce was because of unfaithfulness (Matthew 19:11). This is why, in the church where I grew up, my pastor once refused to perform the ceremony of a divorcé who wanted to remarry. That pastor probably shared his belief that God would not consider such a marriage sacred. The cultural reality, however, is that he could not say, “You can’t get married,” because in fact, that couple could have walked straight to the courthouse– or any number of other churches– and received a legal document binding them to laws and privileges pertaining to marriage as recognized, though not by God, by the lesser authority operating as the United States of America. In Matthew 19:8, Jesus explains that divorce itself was only allowed as a concession to placate human weakness. This exemplifies Jesus’ understanding that earthly laws, specifically those pertaining to marriage, are necessarily an imperfect compromise.
The sanctity of marriage is completely independent from the earthly laws governing it. Man has no authority to decide what is sacred. It is God, not man, who decides whether a marriage will be recognized and blessed by Him, and God’s judgment waits in heaven. It is understandable that a church, which should seek to reflect God’s laws as closely as possible, would refuse to perform a gay marriage ceremony. For the same reasons, that church could also justifiably refuse to remarry someone who had been divorced, all non-believers and even a person wearing a wedding dress made of a fiber blend (Leviticus 19:19)
The righteous person described and demonstrated by Jesus is loving, generous and humble; not worrying about the things of this world but instead focusing on and striving toward inner perfection. Jesus compared false teachers to wolves in sheep’s clothing and thorn bushes offering fruit (Matthew 7:15-16), and was criticized for associating with and befriending sinners: “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.” (Matthew 11:19) Kindness toward sinners is always the right course of action while insolence is always the wrong one. The life of a Christian should focus not on demonstrating one’s own virtues, but on charitably giving of oneself to others, meeting their needs and even wants. “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” (Matthew 5:40)
While marriage as described in the Bible is an opportunity offered by the church, marriage described by governmental law is something else entirely. While it is against the fallible, earthly laws of America to take Jesus’ opinion under consideration when making laws, singling out homosexuals by restricting them of rights given to every other American citizen is inconsistent with Jesus’ teachings. Homosexuals should be treated the same as every sinner, which includes all of us. “Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” (1 John 4:7-8)
But what do I know; I'm an atheist.
In addition to, or, as part of protecting everybody’s right to practice whichever religion they choose, the First Amendment explicitly states that any one specific religion’s beliefs cannot be taken into consideration when making federal laws. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….” The First Amendment is not a suggestion, but is itself a federal law. Jesus Christ indicated that both government laws and God’s should be followed, even though he trusted neither tax collectors nor religious leaders. When asked if taxes should be paid, he replied, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” (Matthew 22:21)
Within Christianity, it is understood that a marriage is a union recognized and sanctified by God. Our government, on the contrary, recognizes marriage as a legally binding contract between two people which can be used to gain things like tax benefits, inheritance rights, child custody rights and immigration privileges. These are two distinct roles that we umbrella under the same term. To determine whether a Christian should desire for the legal form of marriage to include homosexuals, we can, and must, ponder Jesus’ teachings.
The longest transcription we have of Jesus’ teachings is known as the Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew, chapters 5-7. A second, similar sermon is found in Luke, chapter 6. These are the most concrete and clear directives from Jesus to be found in the Bible. In these speeches, Jesus demonstrates that there is a distinction between earthly and heavenly values. One major theme is to treat non-followers as brethren even while living according to standards beyond those of non-followers. In fact, treating those who oppose you with love is precisely one way of upholding these higher standards. Jesus clarifies that these high standards should not be demanded, or even expected, of others. He gives several examples that if another chooses evil, it should be met with love.
Most are familiar with Jesus’ command to not judge. Luke 6:37 reads, “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” The severity of this command becomes evident when it is cross-referenced with Matthew 6:15: “If you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” Jesus is not concerned with the decisions of those uninterested in following him, not because he doesn’t love them, but because he is uninterested in earthly pursuits, gains and rituals. This is why he says to a man who wanted to bury his father instead of getting on a boat with him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.” (Matthew 8:22) Jesus sole focus is on being holy himself.
Jesus recognizes earthly laws cannot reflect heavenly values. God judges that which mankind cannot see; even our thoughts. When asked by a group of religious leaders and teachers if an adulteress should be stoned according to Jewish law, Jesus replies, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7) This compels the group to leave, and then Jesus, left alone with the woman, does something extraordinary. According to his own criteria, Jesus could have stoned the adulteress himself, but he instead measures her against those who had just left- and deems her equal to them. “Jesus straightened up and asked her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ ‘No one, sir,’ she said. ‘Then neither do I condemn you,’ Jesus declared. ‘Go now and leave your life of sin.’” (John 8:10-11) The Bible does not indicate whether Jesus' advice was taken.
Critics will argue that Jesus’ statement in Matthew 7:6 to not give that which is sacred to dogs is proof that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. The first rebuttal to this is that the scriptures make clear that God condemns all sin equally, so if it is interpreted that marriage, as a sacred thing, should not be given to those who are not Christians, it follows that ALL marriage involving non-Christians should not be allowed. James 2:8-13 says, “If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘You shall not murder.’ If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” Again, we see a clear separation between earthly judgment and heavenly judgment, and that our earthly judgments should be tempered with both mercy and neighborly love, leaning in favor of giving freedom. It is precisely this kind of sacred wisdom that Jesus is suggesting only his followers can understand in Matthew 7:6. His followers should not bother attempting to impose the high standards they should hold themselves to on non-followers.
The only type of marriage the Bible explicitly condemns is re-marriage after a divorce, unless the divorce was because of unfaithfulness (Matthew 19:11). This is why, in the church where I grew up, my pastor once refused to perform the ceremony of a divorcé who wanted to remarry. That pastor probably shared his belief that God would not consider such a marriage sacred. The cultural reality, however, is that he could not say, “You can’t get married,” because in fact, that couple could have walked straight to the courthouse– or any number of other churches– and received a legal document binding them to laws and privileges pertaining to marriage as recognized, though not by God, by the lesser authority operating as the United States of America. In Matthew 19:8, Jesus explains that divorce itself was only allowed as a concession to placate human weakness. This exemplifies Jesus’ understanding that earthly laws, specifically those pertaining to marriage, are necessarily an imperfect compromise.
The sanctity of marriage is completely independent from the earthly laws governing it. Man has no authority to decide what is sacred. It is God, not man, who decides whether a marriage will be recognized and blessed by Him, and God’s judgment waits in heaven. It is understandable that a church, which should seek to reflect God’s laws as closely as possible, would refuse to perform a gay marriage ceremony. For the same reasons, that church could also justifiably refuse to remarry someone who had been divorced, all non-believers and even a person wearing a wedding dress made of a fiber blend (Leviticus 19:19)
The righteous person described and demonstrated by Jesus is loving, generous and humble; not worrying about the things of this world but instead focusing on and striving toward inner perfection. Jesus compared false teachers to wolves in sheep’s clothing and thorn bushes offering fruit (Matthew 7:15-16), and was criticized for associating with and befriending sinners: “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.” (Matthew 11:19) Kindness toward sinners is always the right course of action while insolence is always the wrong one. The life of a Christian should focus not on demonstrating one’s own virtues, but on charitably giving of oneself to others, meeting their needs and even wants. “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” (Matthew 5:40)
While marriage as described in the Bible is an opportunity offered by the church, marriage described by governmental law is something else entirely. While it is against the fallible, earthly laws of America to take Jesus’ opinion under consideration when making laws, singling out homosexuals by restricting them of rights given to every other American citizen is inconsistent with Jesus’ teachings. Homosexuals should be treated the same as every sinner, which includes all of us. “Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” (1 John 4:7-8)
But what do I know; I'm an atheist.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Fear of Another Planet
Hearing others speaking a foreign language makes me wish I knew another language. Lately, I have been enjoying the opportunity to learn from Spanish-speaking co-workers. Therefore, it makes no sense to me that anyone would instead wish they were speaking English. Further, I think the root problem with this way of thinking is a systemic issue fundamental to a major criticism of mine regarding American society in general: “You need to learn my ways,” is the same as, “I need to remain ignorant.”
While dangerous activities and chemical addictions are probably best avoided, the biggest risk to gaining experiences is discovering that your assumptions about them were incorrect. I believe that is exactly what frightens people about the unknown; they don’t want to risk feeling obliged to change. Resistance to change can make sense in an evolutionary sense- an unyielding, unreasonable desire to preserve a way of life is often the only thing that prevents its annihilation.
Human survival throughout history has depended upon the coordination of a minority possessing ingenuity with a majority possessing a brazen, stubborn fighting spirit. Being generous and open-minded does not make one a good soldier. I am currently reading Homage to Catalonia, by George Orwell, which is a first-hand account of the operations of an atheist army unit in Spain during their Civil War, and it really highlights the importance of obediently following orders, and the benefits of them being followed because of genuine convictions rather than fear of retribution.
The default position for most is to justify and defend their current state of being. We can feel a sense of betrayal for appreciating things outside of our declared preferences. We immediately point out apparent flaws by contrasting novel things from established likes. We tend to accentuate the positives in our own experiences and the negatives in the experiences of others. It is extremely difficult for some to admit they don’t like something because they are biased against it. We are so used to this, in fact, that it can be creepy when someone unflinchingly declares a bias. We tend to prefer justifying our beliefs with largely irrelevant and retroactively applied rationalizations. We actively seek out and latch onto claims that support our presuppositions as well as those that refute anything contrary to them.
This is purely conjecture, but I’m guessing we possess a genetic chemical reaction that resists admitting the need to change. Apologizing or admitting mistakes is often accompanied by a horrible feeling of sickness in the pit of the stomach, heart palpitations and even dizziness. Stubborn steadfastness seems wired into our DNA.
As a culture, we are taught that it is more important to convince others of our competence than it is to be competent. There seems nothing more offensive than those who refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of our point of view. This requires an egocentric desire for the other to forfeit theirs. Instead of acknowledging that multiple perspectives can be valid even when incompatible, we demand for ourselves to be right and them to be wrong. Those who are not with us, or like us, are against us.
I am not a poker player, but I can see why it appeals to a certain demographic. There are two ways to win: either by having the better hand or convincing the other players that you do. While being dealt good cards is largely luck, bluffing is a skill. It relies upon letting another know almost all the facts, but withholding the most important detail. It is important to remember that in everyday life, that important detail may remain hidden for everyone, but we will tend to assume we know what it is. Effective bluffers succeed by convincing themselves that they are telling the truth. Although this seems absurd, succeeding at pulling the wool over another’s eyes suggests that convincing another of a thing makes a thing correct.
One of the better TEDTalks is about being wrong, and the speaker, Kathryn Schulz, asks, “How does it feel to be wrong?” She receives several answers from the audience, and then declares that those answers are wrong. They answered what it feels like to realize you are wrong. Her point is sublime: Being wrong feels exactly the same as being right. Understanding this simple fact helps understand why we tend to assume we’re right. Ms. Schulz points out that, in the present tense, it is extraordinarily difficult to think of anything we’re wrong about. We dismiss contrary opinions by assuming those who possess them are ignorant, stupid or evil, in that order.
I recently overheard a white lady declare (to a black man), “Black Conservativism is on the rise, and will continue to grow. More people just need to be educated.” It is patently offensive whenever someone assumes anyone with different life experiences than theirs are ignorant. It is impossible to have a valid frame of reference for how another’s life experiences affect their point of view, and it is equally impossible to assume our different life experiences have somehow given us a more valid perspective than another’s. Those motivated to dispel their agenda are not interested in educating. They gleefully latch onto everything that supports their claims without ever objectively considering the possibility that they could be wrong by dismissively mocking anything contrary to their agenda, which inevitably leads to distortions of logic. Rush Limbaugh is a great propagandist to listen to in order to practice identifying logical fallacies. He simultaneously warns against being brainwashed by the “lamestream” media and promotes turning off programs you don’t agree with. In other words, he wants to be the one doing the brainwashing.
We often assume different is evil. In fact, the “garbage in, garbage out” excuse is actively provided as justification for avoiding anything different. Not only is this claim heavily exaggerated, but whoever is deciding for you what is and isn’t garbage is invariably full of it. The criteria for what is deemed garbage is always dependent upon the bias of the person making the judgment. Some people attempt to circumvent this by attributing their judgments to higher powers, which has proven a startlingly successful tactic for getting others to subscribe to one’s beliefs. There is moral objectivity to be found, since we are all connected by existing as human beings and should therefore treat one another as equals, which means the exploration of certain sources of enjoyment should be strictly avoided. That does not preclude the possibility that even those things could be found enjoyable, but acknowledges that there are things more important than enjoyment.
Gods and deities are unchanging. There is nothing sinister in this; it is simply a result of them representing archetypes and ideals. Tellingly, unchanging personas are also an integral element in comedies. In Christianity, the most fundamental teaching is to believe in Jesus’ divinity and obey his teachings while leaving behind our own desires. This seems to promote change, but it is revealing that the greatest desire of an all-powerful being is to be believed. Considering the utter inconsequentiality of whether or not we believe the legitimacy of the existence of one supreme creator and judge, it is absurd to think such a being would care in the least. It would seem inconceivable for there to be a real-world scenario in which the benefits of a generous or self-sacrificing act was contingent upon the recipient acknowledging the act had been done. Instead of incorporating a logical construction of a supreme being, Christianity ensures that the ideal nature everyone should aspire toward regards being believed as the single most important concern. The most fundamental teaching in Christianity is not to be right, but to believe that you’re right and persist in that belief, with asceticism proving tenacity. I can’t fathom how that ideology can be perceived as anything but frightening.
Humans tend to enjoy repeating catchy, easy-to-remember phrases, regardless of their validity.
Sound bites are highly successful at comforting us, because they make decisions seem simple and straight-forward. Our willingness to grasp onto a well-constructed sentence leads to a bandwagon mentality where we side with whoever is more eloquent or witty. People will actually prefer responses that artfully dodge questions over those that give direct answers. Anybody who has used the internet has experienced its convenience for finding and flaunting whatever echoes our perspective, and the popularity of a so-called meme’s dependence upon its clever and accessible packaging, regardless of how dubious the information it contains.
Another interesting affect of the internet which hinders change is its use of direct marketing. It suggests things we may want to purchase based on the words we type. This limits our introduction to unfamiliar ideas, interests and activities. Google, for example, prioritizes searches according to things we have clicked on in the past, which becomes an obstacle for conducting further research into unexplored internet content. This gives the impression of a small world without that much to explore.
One frequent method for defending conservatism is by placing artificial limitations on things by declaring the way they are “supposed” to be. Many styles of music can be dismissed by stating, “Music is supposed to have a melody.” The fear of bats is justified because, “Mammals aren’t supposed to be able to fly.” People will proudly, and without a shed of irony, declare what “freedom” means. These claims are humorous in part because they give the impression that a thorough scientific analysis was done before their conclusion was drawn. How can you argue with the way things are supposed to be? It’s like arguing with the way a word is supposed to be spelled without the benefit of it being verifiable.
I have heard people summarize a foreign culture by declaring, “They’ll never change.” This immediately makes me wonder when they themselves are planning on changing. We aim to improve by honing our current selves into what we currently perceive as an improvement, but we assume that the ideologies underlying our existence will remain constant. Therefore, change not only threatens to throw a major monkey wrench in our plans, but seems to render our lives up until any change a complete waste of time. Somehow, we assume persisting with our convictions justifies them, and instead of accepting the option of wasting only a part of our life, we instead waste the entirety of it.
While we desperately cling to our own convictions and encourage everyone to follow their dreams in general, we are veritably obsessed with discouraging others when their specific dreams differ from ours. The obstacles and challenges in any course of action that differs from one we have ever taken are instantly elaborated upon. If, on the other hand, someone wants to explore something that we have fond memories of, we simply tell them they’d love it and should go for it. Why is that?
Goals and priorities that contrast from ours befuddle us. When I was a motivated drummer, others with drumming styles similar to my own tended to annoy me, whereas I obsessed over those whose drumming attained what mine aspired to be. But my opinion of drummers that I couldn’t really relate to was all over the map. Since judgments tend to be relative, it is nearly impossible to make sense of things without a frame of reference that we can relate to. For example, it is widely assumed by Americans that everyone wants the “American Dream,” so there tends to be a lot of confusion in America why people from other countries would be proud of their own heritage. We assume others share our desires or are misguided. There is nobody scarier than he who is truly convinced that everyone should pursue the same goals as him, as those who value homogeneity are most willing to commit atrocities against those who don’t fit in.
We are compelled to think of ourselves as both a unique and integral member of society. We seek worth, validity and justification, without which our lives are meaningless. We want to be extraordinary and lead extraordinary lives. Basically, we want to be better and more important than everyone else. So, we create a world in which we are. We get so caught up in our world that the possibility that another would also desire worth, validity or justification is regarded as an incompatible impossibility and forgotten. In our world, we perceive the way things are while others wander aimlessly and babble incoherently. The best thing we can do, for their sake, is convince them to believe us and follow our lead.
We are so convinced of our own correctness that discovering we are wrong often feels magical. This is more comfortably experienced in an imaginary, fictional scenario, as it doesn’t threaten our actual convictions, which is why things like mystery books are so popular. It is a shame that discovering that another is right doesn’t have the same effect, but can instead lead to resentment. We tend to underestimate both others and ourselves, and in both cases we tend to blame the other. We are just as quick at passing judgment for the shortcomings of others as we are at declaring things done by others are out of our reach. Both reinforce ways in which we can’t relate to others.
If we are willing to change the paradigm from one of seeking the joys of being blessed toward the magic of finding truth, fulfilling discoveries await us. Times spent attempting to demonstrate superiority are missed opportunities of getting to know some interesting people, learn some fascinating things and experience some profound sensations.
While dangerous activities and chemical addictions are probably best avoided, the biggest risk to gaining experiences is discovering that your assumptions about them were incorrect. I believe that is exactly what frightens people about the unknown; they don’t want to risk feeling obliged to change. Resistance to change can make sense in an evolutionary sense- an unyielding, unreasonable desire to preserve a way of life is often the only thing that prevents its annihilation.
Human survival throughout history has depended upon the coordination of a minority possessing ingenuity with a majority possessing a brazen, stubborn fighting spirit. Being generous and open-minded does not make one a good soldier. I am currently reading Homage to Catalonia, by George Orwell, which is a first-hand account of the operations of an atheist army unit in Spain during their Civil War, and it really highlights the importance of obediently following orders, and the benefits of them being followed because of genuine convictions rather than fear of retribution.
The default position for most is to justify and defend their current state of being. We can feel a sense of betrayal for appreciating things outside of our declared preferences. We immediately point out apparent flaws by contrasting novel things from established likes. We tend to accentuate the positives in our own experiences and the negatives in the experiences of others. It is extremely difficult for some to admit they don’t like something because they are biased against it. We are so used to this, in fact, that it can be creepy when someone unflinchingly declares a bias. We tend to prefer justifying our beliefs with largely irrelevant and retroactively applied rationalizations. We actively seek out and latch onto claims that support our presuppositions as well as those that refute anything contrary to them.
This is purely conjecture, but I’m guessing we possess a genetic chemical reaction that resists admitting the need to change. Apologizing or admitting mistakes is often accompanied by a horrible feeling of sickness in the pit of the stomach, heart palpitations and even dizziness. Stubborn steadfastness seems wired into our DNA.
As a culture, we are taught that it is more important to convince others of our competence than it is to be competent. There seems nothing more offensive than those who refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of our point of view. This requires an egocentric desire for the other to forfeit theirs. Instead of acknowledging that multiple perspectives can be valid even when incompatible, we demand for ourselves to be right and them to be wrong. Those who are not with us, or like us, are against us.
I am not a poker player, but I can see why it appeals to a certain demographic. There are two ways to win: either by having the better hand or convincing the other players that you do. While being dealt good cards is largely luck, bluffing is a skill. It relies upon letting another know almost all the facts, but withholding the most important detail. It is important to remember that in everyday life, that important detail may remain hidden for everyone, but we will tend to assume we know what it is. Effective bluffers succeed by convincing themselves that they are telling the truth. Although this seems absurd, succeeding at pulling the wool over another’s eyes suggests that convincing another of a thing makes a thing correct.
One of the better TEDTalks is about being wrong, and the speaker, Kathryn Schulz, asks, “How does it feel to be wrong?” She receives several answers from the audience, and then declares that those answers are wrong. They answered what it feels like to realize you are wrong. Her point is sublime: Being wrong feels exactly the same as being right. Understanding this simple fact helps understand why we tend to assume we’re right. Ms. Schulz points out that, in the present tense, it is extraordinarily difficult to think of anything we’re wrong about. We dismiss contrary opinions by assuming those who possess them are ignorant, stupid or evil, in that order.
I recently overheard a white lady declare (to a black man), “Black Conservativism is on the rise, and will continue to grow. More people just need to be educated.” It is patently offensive whenever someone assumes anyone with different life experiences than theirs are ignorant. It is impossible to have a valid frame of reference for how another’s life experiences affect their point of view, and it is equally impossible to assume our different life experiences have somehow given us a more valid perspective than another’s. Those motivated to dispel their agenda are not interested in educating. They gleefully latch onto everything that supports their claims without ever objectively considering the possibility that they could be wrong by dismissively mocking anything contrary to their agenda, which inevitably leads to distortions of logic. Rush Limbaugh is a great propagandist to listen to in order to practice identifying logical fallacies. He simultaneously warns against being brainwashed by the “lamestream” media and promotes turning off programs you don’t agree with. In other words, he wants to be the one doing the brainwashing.
We often assume different is evil. In fact, the “garbage in, garbage out” excuse is actively provided as justification for avoiding anything different. Not only is this claim heavily exaggerated, but whoever is deciding for you what is and isn’t garbage is invariably full of it. The criteria for what is deemed garbage is always dependent upon the bias of the person making the judgment. Some people attempt to circumvent this by attributing their judgments to higher powers, which has proven a startlingly successful tactic for getting others to subscribe to one’s beliefs. There is moral objectivity to be found, since we are all connected by existing as human beings and should therefore treat one another as equals, which means the exploration of certain sources of enjoyment should be strictly avoided. That does not preclude the possibility that even those things could be found enjoyable, but acknowledges that there are things more important than enjoyment.
Gods and deities are unchanging. There is nothing sinister in this; it is simply a result of them representing archetypes and ideals. Tellingly, unchanging personas are also an integral element in comedies. In Christianity, the most fundamental teaching is to believe in Jesus’ divinity and obey his teachings while leaving behind our own desires. This seems to promote change, but it is revealing that the greatest desire of an all-powerful being is to be believed. Considering the utter inconsequentiality of whether or not we believe the legitimacy of the existence of one supreme creator and judge, it is absurd to think such a being would care in the least. It would seem inconceivable for there to be a real-world scenario in which the benefits of a generous or self-sacrificing act was contingent upon the recipient acknowledging the act had been done. Instead of incorporating a logical construction of a supreme being, Christianity ensures that the ideal nature everyone should aspire toward regards being believed as the single most important concern. The most fundamental teaching in Christianity is not to be right, but to believe that you’re right and persist in that belief, with asceticism proving tenacity. I can’t fathom how that ideology can be perceived as anything but frightening.
Humans tend to enjoy repeating catchy, easy-to-remember phrases, regardless of their validity.
Sound bites are highly successful at comforting us, because they make decisions seem simple and straight-forward. Our willingness to grasp onto a well-constructed sentence leads to a bandwagon mentality where we side with whoever is more eloquent or witty. People will actually prefer responses that artfully dodge questions over those that give direct answers. Anybody who has used the internet has experienced its convenience for finding and flaunting whatever echoes our perspective, and the popularity of a so-called meme’s dependence upon its clever and accessible packaging, regardless of how dubious the information it contains.
Another interesting affect of the internet which hinders change is its use of direct marketing. It suggests things we may want to purchase based on the words we type. This limits our introduction to unfamiliar ideas, interests and activities. Google, for example, prioritizes searches according to things we have clicked on in the past, which becomes an obstacle for conducting further research into unexplored internet content. This gives the impression of a small world without that much to explore.
One frequent method for defending conservatism is by placing artificial limitations on things by declaring the way they are “supposed” to be. Many styles of music can be dismissed by stating, “Music is supposed to have a melody.” The fear of bats is justified because, “Mammals aren’t supposed to be able to fly.” People will proudly, and without a shed of irony, declare what “freedom” means. These claims are humorous in part because they give the impression that a thorough scientific analysis was done before their conclusion was drawn. How can you argue with the way things are supposed to be? It’s like arguing with the way a word is supposed to be spelled without the benefit of it being verifiable.
I have heard people summarize a foreign culture by declaring, “They’ll never change.” This immediately makes me wonder when they themselves are planning on changing. We aim to improve by honing our current selves into what we currently perceive as an improvement, but we assume that the ideologies underlying our existence will remain constant. Therefore, change not only threatens to throw a major monkey wrench in our plans, but seems to render our lives up until any change a complete waste of time. Somehow, we assume persisting with our convictions justifies them, and instead of accepting the option of wasting only a part of our life, we instead waste the entirety of it.
While we desperately cling to our own convictions and encourage everyone to follow their dreams in general, we are veritably obsessed with discouraging others when their specific dreams differ from ours. The obstacles and challenges in any course of action that differs from one we have ever taken are instantly elaborated upon. If, on the other hand, someone wants to explore something that we have fond memories of, we simply tell them they’d love it and should go for it. Why is that?
Goals and priorities that contrast from ours befuddle us. When I was a motivated drummer, others with drumming styles similar to my own tended to annoy me, whereas I obsessed over those whose drumming attained what mine aspired to be. But my opinion of drummers that I couldn’t really relate to was all over the map. Since judgments tend to be relative, it is nearly impossible to make sense of things without a frame of reference that we can relate to. For example, it is widely assumed by Americans that everyone wants the “American Dream,” so there tends to be a lot of confusion in America why people from other countries would be proud of their own heritage. We assume others share our desires or are misguided. There is nobody scarier than he who is truly convinced that everyone should pursue the same goals as him, as those who value homogeneity are most willing to commit atrocities against those who don’t fit in.
We are compelled to think of ourselves as both a unique and integral member of society. We seek worth, validity and justification, without which our lives are meaningless. We want to be extraordinary and lead extraordinary lives. Basically, we want to be better and more important than everyone else. So, we create a world in which we are. We get so caught up in our world that the possibility that another would also desire worth, validity or justification is regarded as an incompatible impossibility and forgotten. In our world, we perceive the way things are while others wander aimlessly and babble incoherently. The best thing we can do, for their sake, is convince them to believe us and follow our lead.
We are so convinced of our own correctness that discovering we are wrong often feels magical. This is more comfortably experienced in an imaginary, fictional scenario, as it doesn’t threaten our actual convictions, which is why things like mystery books are so popular. It is a shame that discovering that another is right doesn’t have the same effect, but can instead lead to resentment. We tend to underestimate both others and ourselves, and in both cases we tend to blame the other. We are just as quick at passing judgment for the shortcomings of others as we are at declaring things done by others are out of our reach. Both reinforce ways in which we can’t relate to others.
If we are willing to change the paradigm from one of seeking the joys of being blessed toward the magic of finding truth, fulfilling discoveries await us. Times spent attempting to demonstrate superiority are missed opportunities of getting to know some interesting people, learn some fascinating things and experience some profound sensations.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Act Up
“I think that we're showing the proper compassion and concern, so I can't tell you where [the widespread feeling that our administration is not doing enough about AIDS is] coming from, but I am very much concerned about AIDS and I believe that we’ve got the best researchers in the world out there at NIH working the problem. We're funding them- I wish there was more money, but we're funding them far more than anytime in the past.... So I think the appeal is, 'Yes, we care,' and the other thing is, part of AIDS it’s one of the few diseases where behavior matters, and I once called on somebody, ‘Well, change your behavior- if the behavior you’re using [is] prone to cause AIDS, change the behavior.’ The next thing I know one of these Act Up groups is out saying, ‘Bush ought to change his behavior.’ You can’t talk about it rationally!” - George Bush, first presidential debate, 1992
I grew up in a Pentecostal church, which surrounded me with dedicated people holding strong convictions. I also grew up in America in the 80’s, when millions of lives were being lost to the AIDS epidemic. At that time, my church and my government had the same policy: AIDS wasn’t the problem, homosexuality was.
My church preached that AIDS had been allowed by God as a punishment upon immoral sinners. The only cure was for these sinners to turn from their wicked ways and accept Jesus as their eternally loving and forgiving savior. Church-goers prayed, not for the disease to be cured, but for homosexuals to stop being gay.
It seems absurd that I should even have to explain how this is totally psychotic.
I don’t know how many of these people ever got to know anyone with full-blown AIDS. I have, and let me tell you, the symptoms of the disease are absolutely appalling. You don’t sit at their bedside and think, “I hope they don’t die.” Instead, you mortifyingly find yourself thinking, “How aren’t they dead yet?” and realize death isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The experience is profound, sad and humbling. AIDS is a disease you want not wish upon your greatest enemy… unless you were totally heartless.
Heartless is a term we use the way we do because Aristotle thought the heart controlled our sensory-perceptions and movements (and that the brain regulated blood temperature), and consequently our heart both evaluated our environment and determined our actions. In fact, the single reason why Western medical practices didn’t evolve for centuries was because of a persistent, unquestioning faith in Aristotle’s works on anatomy and medicine, which, it turns out, were completely wrong. When a solution to a problem is presented by a highly regarded source, it never occurs to most to question or validate that solution, even when it is completely unfounded or doesn’t actually solve anything.
The constitutional government of the United States of America, being a direct result of the Age of Enlightenment, understood this, and was designed with a system of checks and balances in order to force it to question itself and not rely on any single authority, including religious authority. In fact, the First Amendment forbids any law to be made as a result of religious bias and grants all individuals the right to practice whatever religion they choose, as opposed to officially declaring one superior to another. There is a very simple reason why this is a good thing, and it was incidentally stated by my mother when I mentioned I was writing this: Religions do not offer the possibility that they can be wrong. This explains both why religious people don’t understand how everybody doesn’t agree with them and why non-religious people don’t understand how religious people are so persistent. (It is worth noting that the framers of the Constitution were understandably less concerned with authoritarianism than in another rebellion. Hence, it was also designed to avoid mob rule.)
There is nothing greater to be feared than an entity that does not concede the possibility it can be wrong, except for those willing to unreservedly accept its teaching. Blind obedience to authority is the quickest route to committing abominable acts, because when we are simply following orders, we do not feel as culpable for our own actions. This is not simply my opinion: it is a well-researched psychological fact demonstrated, for example, by the Milgram experiments.
Pickpockets don’t steal by distracting you from your valuables; they do it by drawing your attention to something seemingly more important than your valuables. We are incapable of perceiving things outside of our focus. The simplest method for bringing about human cruelty is to distract humans from empathy by presenting something seemingly more important.
There is a documentary by Russian filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov, the premise of which is to ask his daughter the same five questions on each of her birthdays. This seems innocent enough, except this was being done during a time when it was illegal to shoot home movies in the Soviet Union. Mikhalkov justifies his subversion because he is convinced of the importance of an honest, uncensored understanding of how government policies affect the views of (at least one of) its citizens. At one point, however, he begrudgingly scraps the project, realizing it could be putting his daughter in danger. His explanation of this decision is sublime: “No idea is worth life of child.”
I feel the most important thing for everyone to understand is that none of our beliefs, ideologies, notions, actions, activities, pursuits, assumptions, theories, etc. should ever be considered more important or valid than any single living human being. When a human life is in the balance, every opinion is always less important than that life, and that life takes priority over every opinion. You don’t have to approve of a lifestyle, relate to a culture or agree with a point of view in order to evince unconditional respect and solidarity for humankind.
I recently heard contempt defined as displaying moral superiority, and that is precisely the person I find most contemptible. (Interestingly, the judicial use of contempt refers to someone who blatantly disregards authority.) This is a paradox I find myself struggling to reconcile, because I would have to honestly admit that I feel I am morally superior to those who feel they are morally superior. Perhaps this demonstrates a truth that we should all be wary of: everyone is capable of not only justifying but actually committing atrocities. None of us are immune to conviction’s ability to blind. I don’t know whether evil exists, but I am convinced its antonym is informed empowerment.
Dogmatic, socially conservative and exploitative people, to name a few, tend to fear education. Unfamiliar culture, art, literature, language, music, sport and food are avoided and disdained by those who want to maintain the status quo. This sort of egocentricity should never be trusted, because it is always guided by ulterior motives. It is, in fact, NOT a small world, but a diverse and complicated one, and that scares the crap out of a lot of people.
Judging the American generation that came after the baby boomers as having no wars to fight is skewed. The reality is that the privilege to choose whether or not to join in the battles their generation faced was offered to a wider percentage of Americans, especially white, middle-class, non-socialist, heterosexual males. There will always be those whose greatest concern is to avoid confrontation. There is a word for those people: cowards. This does not apply to subversives who skillfully avoid getting caught. Tact is an admirable trait that appreciates the importance of understanding the appropriate time for action. Too often, however, days, weeks, years, decades and even centuries go by with nary a person riling against a wrong. Cowards are those who feel every problem can be circumvented by patting themselves and others on the back and saying, “good job!”
Heroes, on the other hand, are those in groups like Act Up, who, in defiance of authority, sought out and negotiated ways to expedite the search for AIDS treatments, ultimately saving millions of lives.
I grew up in a Pentecostal church, which surrounded me with dedicated people holding strong convictions. I also grew up in America in the 80’s, when millions of lives were being lost to the AIDS epidemic. At that time, my church and my government had the same policy: AIDS wasn’t the problem, homosexuality was.
My church preached that AIDS had been allowed by God as a punishment upon immoral sinners. The only cure was for these sinners to turn from their wicked ways and accept Jesus as their eternally loving and forgiving savior. Church-goers prayed, not for the disease to be cured, but for homosexuals to stop being gay.
It seems absurd that I should even have to explain how this is totally psychotic.
I don’t know how many of these people ever got to know anyone with full-blown AIDS. I have, and let me tell you, the symptoms of the disease are absolutely appalling. You don’t sit at their bedside and think, “I hope they don’t die.” Instead, you mortifyingly find yourself thinking, “How aren’t they dead yet?” and realize death isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The experience is profound, sad and humbling. AIDS is a disease you want not wish upon your greatest enemy… unless you were totally heartless.
Heartless is a term we use the way we do because Aristotle thought the heart controlled our sensory-perceptions and movements (and that the brain regulated blood temperature), and consequently our heart both evaluated our environment and determined our actions. In fact, the single reason why Western medical practices didn’t evolve for centuries was because of a persistent, unquestioning faith in Aristotle’s works on anatomy and medicine, which, it turns out, were completely wrong. When a solution to a problem is presented by a highly regarded source, it never occurs to most to question or validate that solution, even when it is completely unfounded or doesn’t actually solve anything.
The constitutional government of the United States of America, being a direct result of the Age of Enlightenment, understood this, and was designed with a system of checks and balances in order to force it to question itself and not rely on any single authority, including religious authority. In fact, the First Amendment forbids any law to be made as a result of religious bias and grants all individuals the right to practice whatever religion they choose, as opposed to officially declaring one superior to another. There is a very simple reason why this is a good thing, and it was incidentally stated by my mother when I mentioned I was writing this: Religions do not offer the possibility that they can be wrong. This explains both why religious people don’t understand how everybody doesn’t agree with them and why non-religious people don’t understand how religious people are so persistent. (It is worth noting that the framers of the Constitution were understandably less concerned with authoritarianism than in another rebellion. Hence, it was also designed to avoid mob rule.)
There is nothing greater to be feared than an entity that does not concede the possibility it can be wrong, except for those willing to unreservedly accept its teaching. Blind obedience to authority is the quickest route to committing abominable acts, because when we are simply following orders, we do not feel as culpable for our own actions. This is not simply my opinion: it is a well-researched psychological fact demonstrated, for example, by the Milgram experiments.
Pickpockets don’t steal by distracting you from your valuables; they do it by drawing your attention to something seemingly more important than your valuables. We are incapable of perceiving things outside of our focus. The simplest method for bringing about human cruelty is to distract humans from empathy by presenting something seemingly more important.
There is a documentary by Russian filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov, the premise of which is to ask his daughter the same five questions on each of her birthdays. This seems innocent enough, except this was being done during a time when it was illegal to shoot home movies in the Soviet Union. Mikhalkov justifies his subversion because he is convinced of the importance of an honest, uncensored understanding of how government policies affect the views of (at least one of) its citizens. At one point, however, he begrudgingly scraps the project, realizing it could be putting his daughter in danger. His explanation of this decision is sublime: “No idea is worth life of child.”
I feel the most important thing for everyone to understand is that none of our beliefs, ideologies, notions, actions, activities, pursuits, assumptions, theories, etc. should ever be considered more important or valid than any single living human being. When a human life is in the balance, every opinion is always less important than that life, and that life takes priority over every opinion. You don’t have to approve of a lifestyle, relate to a culture or agree with a point of view in order to evince unconditional respect and solidarity for humankind.
I recently heard contempt defined as displaying moral superiority, and that is precisely the person I find most contemptible. (Interestingly, the judicial use of contempt refers to someone who blatantly disregards authority.) This is a paradox I find myself struggling to reconcile, because I would have to honestly admit that I feel I am morally superior to those who feel they are morally superior. Perhaps this demonstrates a truth that we should all be wary of: everyone is capable of not only justifying but actually committing atrocities. None of us are immune to conviction’s ability to blind. I don’t know whether evil exists, but I am convinced its antonym is informed empowerment.
Dogmatic, socially conservative and exploitative people, to name a few, tend to fear education. Unfamiliar culture, art, literature, language, music, sport and food are avoided and disdained by those who want to maintain the status quo. This sort of egocentricity should never be trusted, because it is always guided by ulterior motives. It is, in fact, NOT a small world, but a diverse and complicated one, and that scares the crap out of a lot of people.
Judging the American generation that came after the baby boomers as having no wars to fight is skewed. The reality is that the privilege to choose whether or not to join in the battles their generation faced was offered to a wider percentage of Americans, especially white, middle-class, non-socialist, heterosexual males. There will always be those whose greatest concern is to avoid confrontation. There is a word for those people: cowards. This does not apply to subversives who skillfully avoid getting caught. Tact is an admirable trait that appreciates the importance of understanding the appropriate time for action. Too often, however, days, weeks, years, decades and even centuries go by with nary a person riling against a wrong. Cowards are those who feel every problem can be circumvented by patting themselves and others on the back and saying, “good job!”
Heroes, on the other hand, are those in groups like Act Up, who, in defiance of authority, sought out and negotiated ways to expedite the search for AIDS treatments, ultimately saving millions of lives.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Sermon
Sometime while I was in high school, during which I frequented not only church but all manner of Pentecostal gatherings aimed at keeping teens sober, celibate and, most importantly, charitable, a story began circulating. I heard it three times: Not long ago, there was a science teacher at a high school who got into a debate about evolution with a Christian student… Were this story factual, not only would it have been a simple task to name the school where this occurred, but they certainly would have done so. Instead, we are led to unquestioningly believe that teachers everywhere are trying to lead Christians away from “The Truth” by not only forcing evolution upon them, but actively attacking Christianity. Reducing the debate to the historical accuracy of the Book of Genesis versus Darwinian evolution and calling it Creationism versus evolution is already a win for Christians, as doing so slyly and unjustifiably eliminates any exploration into the validity of the thousands of other creation stories found in every culture throughout history. It’s the same technique used to argue the existence of an eternal, omnipotent creator while immediately disregarding the possibility of the existence of any god or gods other than the one they envision, ironically ignorant that their description is not even found in the Bible, but is an ultimate Idyllic being proposed by the Neo-Platonists in the 3rd century AD.
The teacher insisted that the Laws of Physics will always win out over supernatural forces. To prove this point, he held up an egg… Where the hell did the science teacher suddenly get an egg? What kind of egg? These nagging questions were never addressed. However, this story always made sure to stress the dangers of knowledge. Christians despise education; it is counter to their agenda. Secular teachers are all only trying to deceive, confuse and discourage you. It is preferable to blindly assume you are right and everybody else is wrong. Research for Christians seems to consist of finding others who agree with what they already believe or, more accurately, want to believe.
”If I drop this egg,” the teacher declared, “it will fall to the ground and break every time.” “Not if God wills otherwise,” the student countered…” Anyone like myself who had grown up in the Church already anticipated one thing about the outcome of this story- the teacher wasn’t going to drop the egg. If there was one thing Jesus was an exemplar of, it was weaseling out of debates. A popular dodge in Christianity is a Scripture verse Jesus used to ignore the taunts of a demonic spirit he saw after fasting in the desert for 40 days: Thou shalt not tempt (always misconstrued as, or to mean, “test”- one of those times when people who can’t even tell you what language the statement was originally written in suddenly become experts in translation) the Lord thy God. This kind of thing makes it hard to believe that people at the time compared Jesus to Elijah, who incessantly mocked the followers of Baal while publically pitting their god to a test against his (before having them killed).
Parables are stories used to explain beliefs but disguised to make it sound like they prove them. This subterfuge was, according to The Gospels, Jesus’ favorite tactic. Seemingly every opinion can be reduced to a comparison with a wheat farmer or fisherman. It shouldn’t be all that difficult to work out that how many seeds a Roman farmer plants has nothing to do with the price of beans in China, so to speak. I suspect Jesus’ tendency to avoid answers with unnecessary explanative examples is why Christians often confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. In a supreme illustration of egocentricity, they will assume that any failure to agree with their point of view is due solely to a misunderstanding of what their point of view is. Further, they seem to insist, although not in these exact words, that, “My ignorance (somehow) acts to demonstrate God’s infinite wisdom; therefore my words will always be wanting enough that you will likely never understand that I am right and you are wrong. (Of course, if you don’t believe me, you will burn forever in hell.)” They spend a lot of time making up excuses for retaining coherency in their beliefs, and no time verifying any of them. They are not even interested enough in Jesus to peruse any of the plethora of stories about him and quotes accredited to him other than the four included in the modern Bible, and they don’t research the provenance of those, either.
”Feel free to drop the egg and see what happens,” the student challenges, “but allow me to pray first.” The teacher laughed and acquiesced… See how persecuted we poor Christians are, having to beg permission to pray in school? It is a God-given right that we should be allowed to pray (as long as these prayers are to the God of Christianity). Don’t try and confuse us by pointing out that this is circular logic. Also, don't point out that this particular debate regards compulsory faculty or peer-led religious liturgy in public schools and not the right of an individual to pray in school. We are so easily confused! ”Dear Jesus,” the child prayed, “if it be your will, let the egg not break when it is dropped. And, at the same time, let the teacher be instantly struck down dead for his disbelief…” Okay, whoa there, kid. Either he’s bluffing or he is psychotic. Either way, he should definitely be expelled for publicly announcing his wish that a teacher be killed. Presumably, if we are to adhere to the lesson of this story, even overt threats are okay as long as they’re in the name of the Christian God.
Rattled and shaking, the teacher carefully placed the egg on his desk and stutteringly began a lesson on another topic…. Christians are in deep denial regarding those that believe differently than them; assuming they must be unhappy, desperate immoral villains living in fear. Most non-Christians would unflinchingly splatter the egg.
The punctum saliens of this quaint little tale, according to everybody I heard tell it, is that people’s belief in God is actually stronger than their disbelief. Why then didn’t the kid just simply agree to have the teacher drop the egg? The teller of this transparently fictional story could have easily wrapped it up by claiming the egg bounced around the room like silly putty. Problematically, most would be hard-pressed to believe that ending. Ironic.
Nobody really follows Jesus’ teachings. His solution for how to pay taxes, for example, was to catch a fish and pull a gold coin out of its mouth. If you truly believe in the Christian God, you should try that and let me know how it goes. If you don’t try it or it doesn’t work, then you don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus- and that’s according to the canonized teachings of Jesus. But I’m sure you’re too busy smugly reading about Elijah and how he mocked the impotence of Baal….
The teacher insisted that the Laws of Physics will always win out over supernatural forces. To prove this point, he held up an egg… Where the hell did the science teacher suddenly get an egg? What kind of egg? These nagging questions were never addressed. However, this story always made sure to stress the dangers of knowledge. Christians despise education; it is counter to their agenda. Secular teachers are all only trying to deceive, confuse and discourage you. It is preferable to blindly assume you are right and everybody else is wrong. Research for Christians seems to consist of finding others who agree with what they already believe or, more accurately, want to believe.
”If I drop this egg,” the teacher declared, “it will fall to the ground and break every time.” “Not if God wills otherwise,” the student countered…” Anyone like myself who had grown up in the Church already anticipated one thing about the outcome of this story- the teacher wasn’t going to drop the egg. If there was one thing Jesus was an exemplar of, it was weaseling out of debates. A popular dodge in Christianity is a Scripture verse Jesus used to ignore the taunts of a demonic spirit he saw after fasting in the desert for 40 days: Thou shalt not tempt (always misconstrued as, or to mean, “test”- one of those times when people who can’t even tell you what language the statement was originally written in suddenly become experts in translation) the Lord thy God. This kind of thing makes it hard to believe that people at the time compared Jesus to Elijah, who incessantly mocked the followers of Baal while publically pitting their god to a test against his (before having them killed).
Parables are stories used to explain beliefs but disguised to make it sound like they prove them. This subterfuge was, according to The Gospels, Jesus’ favorite tactic. Seemingly every opinion can be reduced to a comparison with a wheat farmer or fisherman. It shouldn’t be all that difficult to work out that how many seeds a Roman farmer plants has nothing to do with the price of beans in China, so to speak. I suspect Jesus’ tendency to avoid answers with unnecessary explanative examples is why Christians often confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. In a supreme illustration of egocentricity, they will assume that any failure to agree with their point of view is due solely to a misunderstanding of what their point of view is. Further, they seem to insist, although not in these exact words, that, “My ignorance (somehow) acts to demonstrate God’s infinite wisdom; therefore my words will always be wanting enough that you will likely never understand that I am right and you are wrong. (Of course, if you don’t believe me, you will burn forever in hell.)” They spend a lot of time making up excuses for retaining coherency in their beliefs, and no time verifying any of them. They are not even interested enough in Jesus to peruse any of the plethora of stories about him and quotes accredited to him other than the four included in the modern Bible, and they don’t research the provenance of those, either.
”Feel free to drop the egg and see what happens,” the student challenges, “but allow me to pray first.” The teacher laughed and acquiesced… See how persecuted we poor Christians are, having to beg permission to pray in school? It is a God-given right that we should be allowed to pray (as long as these prayers are to the God of Christianity). Don’t try and confuse us by pointing out that this is circular logic. Also, don't point out that this particular debate regards compulsory faculty or peer-led religious liturgy in public schools and not the right of an individual to pray in school. We are so easily confused! ”Dear Jesus,” the child prayed, “if it be your will, let the egg not break when it is dropped. And, at the same time, let the teacher be instantly struck down dead for his disbelief…” Okay, whoa there, kid. Either he’s bluffing or he is psychotic. Either way, he should definitely be expelled for publicly announcing his wish that a teacher be killed. Presumably, if we are to adhere to the lesson of this story, even overt threats are okay as long as they’re in the name of the Christian God.
Rattled and shaking, the teacher carefully placed the egg on his desk and stutteringly began a lesson on another topic…. Christians are in deep denial regarding those that believe differently than them; assuming they must be unhappy, desperate immoral villains living in fear. Most non-Christians would unflinchingly splatter the egg.
The punctum saliens of this quaint little tale, according to everybody I heard tell it, is that people’s belief in God is actually stronger than their disbelief. Why then didn’t the kid just simply agree to have the teacher drop the egg? The teller of this transparently fictional story could have easily wrapped it up by claiming the egg bounced around the room like silly putty. Problematically, most would be hard-pressed to believe that ending. Ironic.
Nobody really follows Jesus’ teachings. His solution for how to pay taxes, for example, was to catch a fish and pull a gold coin out of its mouth. If you truly believe in the Christian God, you should try that and let me know how it goes. If you don’t try it or it doesn’t work, then you don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus- and that’s according to the canonized teachings of Jesus. But I’m sure you’re too busy smugly reading about Elijah and how he mocked the impotence of Baal….
Monday, June 20, 2011
Expectations
I remember plenty of random occurrences. One of them was a late spring day in high school. I noticed the grass was getting tall and mowed it. The front yard AND the backyard, as I proudly and quickly pointed out to my dad after he got home from work. “Okay, that’s great,” he said. “You know,” he added after a pause, “you shouldn’t really expect to be praised for doing what’s expected of you.” That is a life truth I’ve held onto since.
One of Jesus’ teachings according to the New Testament is that humans were created unequally, and those who have been gifted with more (presumably intelligence, skill, wealth, beauty, etc.) are expected to accomplish, produce or deliver more (presumably guidance, succor, philanthropy, chastity, etc.). Jesus’ convictions are overrated, to state it mildly.
According to Genesis in the Old Testament, toil was created as punishment after humans gained independence by learning the difference between right and wrong. The transgression was that this was achieved by disobeying a direct order and trusting a creature other than God. The irony is that God had lied, telling Adam and Eve the fruit of the tree would bring not discernment but death, while the other creature had revealed the truth.
While the man made from dust and the woman made from a rib made from dust did in fact not die as a direct result of eating the fruit, God later on placed an angel with a flaming sword to prevent the couple from eating from another tree which presumably would have granted them eternal life, which he possibly hadn’t even told them about, but the need for its existence in the first place demonstrates that Adam and Eve were never immortal. Some 930 years later, Adam died, and while the exact cause of death is unstated, it was the same year as a physically impossible yet reportedly extremely disastrous flood. When Eve died was not considered noteworthy. No jury ever compiled would ever find that snake responsible for murder, or any other crime for that matter.
Honestly, I don’t know how anybody can read Genesis and then take any of the rest of the Bible seriously. I suppose that’s why most people skim over most of it as well as the rest of the Pentateuch.
The point of the lesson is that we (Jews, really) are expected to obey the one-and-only, unnamable, unstoppable, vitriolic God no matter what. The reality of the lesson is what the big G says is not all that trustworthy. I’d expect more from a being of God’s magnitude. He’ll get no praise from me. There’s no reason God should be expecting it anyhow.
One of Jesus’ teachings according to the New Testament is that humans were created unequally, and those who have been gifted with more (presumably intelligence, skill, wealth, beauty, etc.) are expected to accomplish, produce or deliver more (presumably guidance, succor, philanthropy, chastity, etc.). Jesus’ convictions are overrated, to state it mildly.
According to Genesis in the Old Testament, toil was created as punishment after humans gained independence by learning the difference between right and wrong. The transgression was that this was achieved by disobeying a direct order and trusting a creature other than God. The irony is that God had lied, telling Adam and Eve the fruit of the tree would bring not discernment but death, while the other creature had revealed the truth.
While the man made from dust and the woman made from a rib made from dust did in fact not die as a direct result of eating the fruit, God later on placed an angel with a flaming sword to prevent the couple from eating from another tree which presumably would have granted them eternal life, which he possibly hadn’t even told them about, but the need for its existence in the first place demonstrates that Adam and Eve were never immortal. Some 930 years later, Adam died, and while the exact cause of death is unstated, it was the same year as a physically impossible yet reportedly extremely disastrous flood. When Eve died was not considered noteworthy. No jury ever compiled would ever find that snake responsible for murder, or any other crime for that matter.
Honestly, I don’t know how anybody can read Genesis and then take any of the rest of the Bible seriously. I suppose that’s why most people skim over most of it as well as the rest of the Pentateuch.
The point of the lesson is that we (Jews, really) are expected to obey the one-and-only, unnamable, unstoppable, vitriolic God no matter what. The reality of the lesson is what the big G says is not all that trustworthy. I’d expect more from a being of God’s magnitude. He’ll get no praise from me. There’s no reason God should be expecting it anyhow.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Faith and Hope
In medicine, there is a well-established phenomenon known as “the placebo effect.” The health of a person suffering from almost any ailment, including cancers and psychoses, can be measurably improved 33% of the time and even healed completely merely by convincing a patient that they are being cured. This demonstrates the very real and potent effectiveness of both faith and hope. Reinforcing an optimistic belief increases its intensity, which will actually increase its effectiveness. Increasing its effectiveness in turn increases its intensity even more! Simply believing something will happen to you will heavily increase the odds that it actually will happen to you, and believing it more will make it more likely to happen. Similarly, hoping for something to happen will inspire you to bring it about, in what is called a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” Inspirational speakers make billions of dollars every year exploiting these realities by telling audiences about these realities.
Thinking something is true will make it appear true from your perspective. This is known as bias. Our senses are designed predicatively, so that we often actually see, hear, taste, etc. what we believe we are seeing, hearing, tasting, etc. This is why reliable experiments can only be done using “blind” testing and control groups. This is why it is so difficult for any human justice system to be impartial. Our lives are defined by our prejudices. What we experience today affects how we experience tomorrow.
Faith has its limits. Believing in something doesn’t make it objectively true. One’s convictions only affect and are affected by one’s own (mental and physical) realities and experiences. Another’s belief that I will be healed, for example, only affects my health insofar as they are able to convince me that their opinion has validity.
The previous sentence will have acted as a red flag to many. The power of faith is so profound, the object of that faith will be adhered to no matter how absurd it is. I am of the minority that doesn’t believe in supernatural phenomena. Harry Houdini spent the latter part of his life offering a huge reward to anyone who could perform a supernatural act, to no avail. Things perceived by us as miracles are occurrences with likelihoods which can be calculated by laws of probability. It is not only possible but inevitable that eventually someone will, for example, win the lottery. Your chances of doing so will remain the same whether you are a psychic, a prophet or an atheist. People have a lot of misconceptions regarding odds. Did you know, for example, the 5 year survival rate for prostate cancer is 98%? That means 98 of every 100 people who had gotten prostate cancer in the past five years are blathering on about how it’s a miracle they’re still alive.
A Muslim friend recently claimed we don’t believe in magic in America because the government keeps its powers hidden. He didn’t provide any evidence to support this claim, and I find it a bit ridiculous. If magic existed, our government would be stockpiling voodoo dolls instead of nuclear arms. I defy anybody who believes in miracles to actually perform one.
Several blind tests have demonstrated remote prayer to have no effect whatsoever. While believers will insist this is incorrect, you won’t see any of them performing objective experiments on their own. The truth is they don’t want to know the truth. Humans are generally more comfortable believing what they want to hear than going to the trouble of researching claims for authenticity. This is in part because the powers of faith and hope are not based at all on what is believed or hoped in, but instead on how strongly any belief or hope is held. The major gripe I have with religion is that instead of encouraging others to have faith and hope, they insist others have faith in hope in the same things they have faith and hope in.
Thinking something is true will make it appear true from your perspective. This is known as bias. Our senses are designed predicatively, so that we often actually see, hear, taste, etc. what we believe we are seeing, hearing, tasting, etc. This is why reliable experiments can only be done using “blind” testing and control groups. This is why it is so difficult for any human justice system to be impartial. Our lives are defined by our prejudices. What we experience today affects how we experience tomorrow.
Faith has its limits. Believing in something doesn’t make it objectively true. One’s convictions only affect and are affected by one’s own (mental and physical) realities and experiences. Another’s belief that I will be healed, for example, only affects my health insofar as they are able to convince me that their opinion has validity.
The previous sentence will have acted as a red flag to many. The power of faith is so profound, the object of that faith will be adhered to no matter how absurd it is. I am of the minority that doesn’t believe in supernatural phenomena. Harry Houdini spent the latter part of his life offering a huge reward to anyone who could perform a supernatural act, to no avail. Things perceived by us as miracles are occurrences with likelihoods which can be calculated by laws of probability. It is not only possible but inevitable that eventually someone will, for example, win the lottery. Your chances of doing so will remain the same whether you are a psychic, a prophet or an atheist. People have a lot of misconceptions regarding odds. Did you know, for example, the 5 year survival rate for prostate cancer is 98%? That means 98 of every 100 people who had gotten prostate cancer in the past five years are blathering on about how it’s a miracle they’re still alive.
A Muslim friend recently claimed we don’t believe in magic in America because the government keeps its powers hidden. He didn’t provide any evidence to support this claim, and I find it a bit ridiculous. If magic existed, our government would be stockpiling voodoo dolls instead of nuclear arms. I defy anybody who believes in miracles to actually perform one.
Several blind tests have demonstrated remote prayer to have no effect whatsoever. While believers will insist this is incorrect, you won’t see any of them performing objective experiments on their own. The truth is they don’t want to know the truth. Humans are generally more comfortable believing what they want to hear than going to the trouble of researching claims for authenticity. This is in part because the powers of faith and hope are not based at all on what is believed or hoped in, but instead on how strongly any belief or hope is held. The major gripe I have with religion is that instead of encouraging others to have faith and hope, they insist others have faith in hope in the same things they have faith and hope in.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Convent
Catholics have devised an ingenious method for recruiting free labor in exchange for room and board by taking advantage of the limited opportunities and insecurities of women who have had a relationship go bad or affair exposed and institutionalizing them inside a convent. Many women have been forced into convents by relatives as a way of punishment and to be “educated.” Others simply find themselves with nowhere else to go. Christians predictably stress the notion of penance: the idea that one should make good as compensation for behaving foolishly. The main duty of a Christian is to indoctrinate others. In business, this is called a pyramid scheme. In religion, it’s called a cult.
Christianity preys heavily on ignorance, insecurity, guilt and fear. It is very adept at exploiting the misfortunate by opportunistically enlisting the confused, stressed and vulnerable with the promise of guidance, success and love. Instead of considering or respecting the desires of individuals, Christianity claims to know what is best for everybody. By following God instead of your own impulses, you will find peace. Religion can be considered little more than a means of shirking personal responsibility.
They’ve established a notion that there are things nobody should ever do and calls them “sins.” Conveniently for anybody wanting to point out the flaws in others, most of these have to do with seeking enjoyment or indulging instinctual impulses, most notably sex. It stresses that flaws should and will be punished, while strict discipline and obedience will lead to an honorable life after death. This militaristic way of thinking is only useful for someone raising and training an army. Think about that!
After experiencing a personal relationship gone wrong, having a place you can stay for free with food provided and a roof over your head in relative peace and quiet while being able to distract yourself by spending your time serving your fellow man sounds idyllic. And probably no two things are more successful at making you feel better about yourself than being accepted as part of a group and helping others.
Another nice thing about a convent is that you don’t have to worry about personal one-on-one affection and intimacy. Real love makes you vulnerable and leads to disappointment. When grand ambitions leave you feeling helpless with your faith in humankind shattered, it is tempting to resign to a simple life where little opportunity is given for anything to go wrong. With religion, you can simply imagine yourself being loved while keeping a professional distance from it. It’s nice to feel safe from disillusionment. Eschewing responsibility in favor of reliance on an omnipotent, omni-present being who controls the fate of all and loves you personally can seem very safe and comforting, even if that being is suspiciously invisible and non-communicative.
The offering of something to believe is especially seductive and vivid after one is confronted with betrayal or the folly of one’s own assumptions. While nihilism is an ironic concept, I consider it a noble pursuit. It’s pathetic to assume one must believe in something, so if one belief system falls flat, it is a necessity to pick another one. The notion that having made mistakes somehow proves there’s a god is laughable. To quote The Big Lebowski: “Just because we’re bereaved, that doesn’t make us saps.”
Disappointment is a potent libido destroyer. The celibate nature of a convent can actually seem a refreshing change immediately after exiting a disastrous relationship. After all, the desire for sex was a major incentive for starting the relationship to begin with. Perhaps that means sex is bad after all, right? Following that logic, it stands to reason anything enjoyable has the potential to lead to disappointment, whereas asceticism will never let you down- it simply keeps you there while providing the illusion that desires are tamable and fate is under control. Life in a convent encourages you to let go of possessions and carnality, which is exactly the situation you’re likely to find yourself confronted in after a relationship falls apart anyway, unless you find/already have another relationship to pursue. Living alone, especially if you’ve never done it before, is pretty daunting. You don’t have to live alone in a convent!
I don’t buy into the concept of karma. Christians prefer to call it retribution. There are simply far too many assholes living comfortable lives to buy into any sort of cosmic justice. While it’s nice to suppose that someone who has wronged us has it coming back to them, wishful thinking should never be mistaken for actuality. Future behaviors or circumstances do not somehow cancel out or balance past blunders. Believing this is a gross misunderstanding of time.
I don’t understand how one would get out of a convent. I can’t think of a career where it is helpful to put “nun” on your resume. A convent isn’t designed to help women get back on their feet, but a cleverly devised trap in which fears are reinforced, suffering is celebrated, disillusionment with the world is encouraged and a promised reward not arriving until after death. Indeed, a convent seems the perfect place to be for someone who would rather be dead.
Epilogue
There are as many degrees of foolishness as there are humans. A distinction must be made between mistakes and transgressions. The guiding principle I use for judging human behavior is that all humans should be treated with respect, and unfortunately this concept is not found anywhere in Christianity. I define a mistake as a wrong or poor decision made in earnest, and contrast a transgression as a deliberate attempt at taking advantage of others. I’m not suggesting that it is possible to discern whether every act is a mistake or transgression, but I am stating there’s a difference between the two.
Having or exploring a relationship with another human can rarely be considered a mistake. Continuing a relationship with someone who treats humans poorly almost certainly is. But in the grand scheme of things, trusting an untrustworthy person or failing to communicate successfully are minor transgressions.
Life not working according to plan does not make the person living it a failure. Mistakes can be discouraging, and contrary to popular rhetoric, there’s sometimes nothing to be learned from them except how to accept responsibility, pick up pieces, leave pieces and move on.
Being a manipulative liar, on the other hand, is a transgression, not a mistake. Once you’ve proven yourself untrustworthy, it is a very long, nearly impossible path to regain any sort of integrity. One method for expediting the process of regaining trust is to remove yourself to a place where nobody knows your past. Of course, if this is done to create new opportunities for exploitation, this act is in itself a transgression. But if a charlatan joins a convent in order to remove themselves from society, realizing they are a detriment to it, I can respect that.
Christianity preys heavily on ignorance, insecurity, guilt and fear. It is very adept at exploiting the misfortunate by opportunistically enlisting the confused, stressed and vulnerable with the promise of guidance, success and love. Instead of considering or respecting the desires of individuals, Christianity claims to know what is best for everybody. By following God instead of your own impulses, you will find peace. Religion can be considered little more than a means of shirking personal responsibility.
They’ve established a notion that there are things nobody should ever do and calls them “sins.” Conveniently for anybody wanting to point out the flaws in others, most of these have to do with seeking enjoyment or indulging instinctual impulses, most notably sex. It stresses that flaws should and will be punished, while strict discipline and obedience will lead to an honorable life after death. This militaristic way of thinking is only useful for someone raising and training an army. Think about that!
After experiencing a personal relationship gone wrong, having a place you can stay for free with food provided and a roof over your head in relative peace and quiet while being able to distract yourself by spending your time serving your fellow man sounds idyllic. And probably no two things are more successful at making you feel better about yourself than being accepted as part of a group and helping others.
Another nice thing about a convent is that you don’t have to worry about personal one-on-one affection and intimacy. Real love makes you vulnerable and leads to disappointment. When grand ambitions leave you feeling helpless with your faith in humankind shattered, it is tempting to resign to a simple life where little opportunity is given for anything to go wrong. With religion, you can simply imagine yourself being loved while keeping a professional distance from it. It’s nice to feel safe from disillusionment. Eschewing responsibility in favor of reliance on an omnipotent, omni-present being who controls the fate of all and loves you personally can seem very safe and comforting, even if that being is suspiciously invisible and non-communicative.
The offering of something to believe is especially seductive and vivid after one is confronted with betrayal or the folly of one’s own assumptions. While nihilism is an ironic concept, I consider it a noble pursuit. It’s pathetic to assume one must believe in something, so if one belief system falls flat, it is a necessity to pick another one. The notion that having made mistakes somehow proves there’s a god is laughable. To quote The Big Lebowski: “Just because we’re bereaved, that doesn’t make us saps.”
Disappointment is a potent libido destroyer. The celibate nature of a convent can actually seem a refreshing change immediately after exiting a disastrous relationship. After all, the desire for sex was a major incentive for starting the relationship to begin with. Perhaps that means sex is bad after all, right? Following that logic, it stands to reason anything enjoyable has the potential to lead to disappointment, whereas asceticism will never let you down- it simply keeps you there while providing the illusion that desires are tamable and fate is under control. Life in a convent encourages you to let go of possessions and carnality, which is exactly the situation you’re likely to find yourself confronted in after a relationship falls apart anyway, unless you find/already have another relationship to pursue. Living alone, especially if you’ve never done it before, is pretty daunting. You don’t have to live alone in a convent!
I don’t buy into the concept of karma. Christians prefer to call it retribution. There are simply far too many assholes living comfortable lives to buy into any sort of cosmic justice. While it’s nice to suppose that someone who has wronged us has it coming back to them, wishful thinking should never be mistaken for actuality. Future behaviors or circumstances do not somehow cancel out or balance past blunders. Believing this is a gross misunderstanding of time.
I don’t understand how one would get out of a convent. I can’t think of a career where it is helpful to put “nun” on your resume. A convent isn’t designed to help women get back on their feet, but a cleverly devised trap in which fears are reinforced, suffering is celebrated, disillusionment with the world is encouraged and a promised reward not arriving until after death. Indeed, a convent seems the perfect place to be for someone who would rather be dead.
Epilogue
There are as many degrees of foolishness as there are humans. A distinction must be made between mistakes and transgressions. The guiding principle I use for judging human behavior is that all humans should be treated with respect, and unfortunately this concept is not found anywhere in Christianity. I define a mistake as a wrong or poor decision made in earnest, and contrast a transgression as a deliberate attempt at taking advantage of others. I’m not suggesting that it is possible to discern whether every act is a mistake or transgression, but I am stating there’s a difference between the two.
Having or exploring a relationship with another human can rarely be considered a mistake. Continuing a relationship with someone who treats humans poorly almost certainly is. But in the grand scheme of things, trusting an untrustworthy person or failing to communicate successfully are minor transgressions.
Life not working according to plan does not make the person living it a failure. Mistakes can be discouraging, and contrary to popular rhetoric, there’s sometimes nothing to be learned from them except how to accept responsibility, pick up pieces, leave pieces and move on.
Being a manipulative liar, on the other hand, is a transgression, not a mistake. Once you’ve proven yourself untrustworthy, it is a very long, nearly impossible path to regain any sort of integrity. One method for expediting the process of regaining trust is to remove yourself to a place where nobody knows your past. Of course, if this is done to create new opportunities for exploitation, this act is in itself a transgression. But if a charlatan joins a convent in order to remove themselves from society, realizing they are a detriment to it, I can respect that.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Omniscience
Monotheists claim their god provides all the answers, but in reality it only excuses them from having to provide any. Any and all questions challenging the validity of their beliefs are smugly met with, “I don’t know all the answers, but GOD DOES!” They don’t seem to realize this is a non-answer. Assuming someone else knows does not mean that someone else does know nor should it excuse one from knowing themselves. I humorously imagine these Christians standing at the Pearly Gates and having God ask them, “Why should I let you in?” and hearing them respond, “I don’t know, but YOU DO!”
Christians love to challenge the theory of evolution. “It doesn’t make sense,” they declare without knowing anything about it other than what others who don’t know anything about it have told them. Um, have they read the Genesis creation story? It is LUDICROUS; containing no historical or scientific basis whatsoever. They love to ask, “How could anything exist without a creator?” but refuse to answer, “Who created God, then?” They don’t realize they are merely parlaying the problem. “They demand an answer for the existence of the universe. Their answer is simply, “God.” Yet, they get offended when asked for an explanation of the existence of God. In this context, isn’t “the universe” and “God” simply two ways of saying the same thing? For example, if, “How does the universe exist?” is answered by, “God,” it logically follows that the next question in need of answering is, “How does God exist?” Otherwise the original problem has not in actuality been addressed.
Gods don’t provide any answers; they simply eliminate the incentive to look for them. “Simply believe.” Most Christians would be surprised to know that the idea of BLIND FAITH that they rely so heavily upon isn’t even in their precious albeit mostly ignored- except for when it’s convenient for them to quote from- Bible. I’m fairly certain the term was originally intended as an affront against so-called “believers.” Blind Faith is little more than an Eric Clapton and Steve Winwood collaboration, folks. Wake up and smell the hypocrisy. If you can’t rationally defend your own beliefs your existence is null. You certainly have NO business challenging, criticizing, demonizing, questioning or denying anybody else’s beliefs.
Let me break it down another way: Christians claim their god is omniscient; or all-knowing. This is from the Latin omnis, meaning “all” and scientia, meaning “knowledge.” We now mean science, from that same root word meaning knowledge, to be the methodical pursuit toward acquiring knowledge. “Christian” literally means “of, or like, Christ.” For them, Christ is a manifestation of God. In order to pursue the ways of Christ, the very manifestation of omniscience, one must by definition also be pursuing knowledge. It can therefore be said that Christians who hate science are uninterested in the being they claim to worship.
No doubt someone will want to accuse me here of simply using semantics. On the contrary, I am accurately using semantics. I would LOVE for a Christian to say, “By ‘blind faith’ I mean I don’t want to know,” which IS what they mean.
Christians love to challenge the theory of evolution. “It doesn’t make sense,” they declare without knowing anything about it other than what others who don’t know anything about it have told them. Um, have they read the Genesis creation story? It is LUDICROUS; containing no historical or scientific basis whatsoever. They love to ask, “How could anything exist without a creator?” but refuse to answer, “Who created God, then?” They don’t realize they are merely parlaying the problem. “They demand an answer for the existence of the universe. Their answer is simply, “God.” Yet, they get offended when asked for an explanation of the existence of God. In this context, isn’t “the universe” and “God” simply two ways of saying the same thing? For example, if, “How does the universe exist?” is answered by, “God,” it logically follows that the next question in need of answering is, “How does God exist?” Otherwise the original problem has not in actuality been addressed.
Gods don’t provide any answers; they simply eliminate the incentive to look for them. “Simply believe.” Most Christians would be surprised to know that the idea of BLIND FAITH that they rely so heavily upon isn’t even in their precious albeit mostly ignored- except for when it’s convenient for them to quote from- Bible. I’m fairly certain the term was originally intended as an affront against so-called “believers.” Blind Faith is little more than an Eric Clapton and Steve Winwood collaboration, folks. Wake up and smell the hypocrisy. If you can’t rationally defend your own beliefs your existence is null. You certainly have NO business challenging, criticizing, demonizing, questioning or denying anybody else’s beliefs.
Let me break it down another way: Christians claim their god is omniscient; or all-knowing. This is from the Latin omnis, meaning “all” and scientia, meaning “knowledge.” We now mean science, from that same root word meaning knowledge, to be the methodical pursuit toward acquiring knowledge. “Christian” literally means “of, or like, Christ.” For them, Christ is a manifestation of God. In order to pursue the ways of Christ, the very manifestation of omniscience, one must by definition also be pursuing knowledge. It can therefore be said that Christians who hate science are uninterested in the being they claim to worship.
No doubt someone will want to accuse me here of simply using semantics. On the contrary, I am accurately using semantics. I would LOVE for a Christian to say, “By ‘blind faith’ I mean I don’t want to know,” which IS what they mean.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Haiti
Surely everybody knows that Haiti, one of the poorest countries in the world, was recently decimated by an earthquake. Natural disasters have been a thorn in the side of those who believe in an all-loving god for millennia. The question arises: “How can a loving god allow bad things?”
First and foremost, I don’t believe in anything being unequivocally good or bad. Sure, a bunch of people were killed and buildings destroyed in Haiti, but the jaded eye also sees an overpopulation fix and job creator.
The idea of an unequivocally good god is extremely problematic. All of the actions of such a being would have to be for the good of all, at least in the long run. This immediately rules out the Christian god, who has threatened to eternally torture those who don’t submit their wills to him, so you’d have to modify it to: the good of all who submit their wills to Him, if you want to defend that particular god. You’d also have to argue that every act of destruction was absolutely necessary in order to bring about the eventual good of all. Of course, even an all-loving god could do bad things as a result of mistakes or failed tests, as he wouldn’t necessarily be all-knowing. (Testing our resolve, etc. in order to teach us would be included in having to be absolutely necessary.) Similarly, he wouldn't necessarily be all-powerful, so events could be out of an all-loving god's control. Finally, you’d have to argue that the end justified the means.
I often hear, “You can’t know good unless you experience bad.” I don’t think anybody who says this has ever been in a natural disaster. This is akin to saying you don’t know hot water until you’ve experienced cold water or something. It just doesn’t apply to the real world. Nobody in the history of the universe has ever said, “I just didn’t realize how great my life was until being raped really put it in perspective.”
I’ve heard that good things “balance” bad things. Natural disasters have no opposite. I suppose the closest you can get would be a miracle, and thousands of people have never been suddenly healed by some naturally occurring happenstance.
Several of my facebook friends posted ways of donating money to Haiti recovery. To demonstrate the conundrum of justifying beliefs in the face of reality, I think it’s worth pointing out that only ONE of my Christian friends even mentioned it, unless you count the pastor who posted, “God is doing big things!” the next day. Two of my facebook friends were part of fundraisers. The Christian radio station fundraiser in Texas raised a ton of money. The comedy club fundraisers in San Francisco’s gay district were also successful.
On a tangential note, I often hear, “My reality has been shattered” as if that’s a negative. Why do people want to hold on to their delusions?
First and foremost, I don’t believe in anything being unequivocally good or bad. Sure, a bunch of people were killed and buildings destroyed in Haiti, but the jaded eye also sees an overpopulation fix and job creator.
The idea of an unequivocally good god is extremely problematic. All of the actions of such a being would have to be for the good of all, at least in the long run. This immediately rules out the Christian god, who has threatened to eternally torture those who don’t submit their wills to him, so you’d have to modify it to: the good of all who submit their wills to Him, if you want to defend that particular god. You’d also have to argue that every act of destruction was absolutely necessary in order to bring about the eventual good of all. Of course, even an all-loving god could do bad things as a result of mistakes or failed tests, as he wouldn’t necessarily be all-knowing. (Testing our resolve, etc. in order to teach us would be included in having to be absolutely necessary.) Similarly, he wouldn't necessarily be all-powerful, so events could be out of an all-loving god's control. Finally, you’d have to argue that the end justified the means.
I often hear, “You can’t know good unless you experience bad.” I don’t think anybody who says this has ever been in a natural disaster. This is akin to saying you don’t know hot water until you’ve experienced cold water or something. It just doesn’t apply to the real world. Nobody in the history of the universe has ever said, “I just didn’t realize how great my life was until being raped really put it in perspective.”
I’ve heard that good things “balance” bad things. Natural disasters have no opposite. I suppose the closest you can get would be a miracle, and thousands of people have never been suddenly healed by some naturally occurring happenstance.
Several of my facebook friends posted ways of donating money to Haiti recovery. To demonstrate the conundrum of justifying beliefs in the face of reality, I think it’s worth pointing out that only ONE of my Christian friends even mentioned it, unless you count the pastor who posted, “God is doing big things!” the next day. Two of my facebook friends were part of fundraisers. The Christian radio station fundraiser in Texas raised a ton of money. The comedy club fundraisers in San Francisco’s gay district were also successful.
On a tangential note, I often hear, “My reality has been shattered” as if that’s a negative. Why do people want to hold on to their delusions?
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Animal Sacrifice
The Old Testament is surely the most violent book ever assembled. Today, I have been empathizing with a major theme of the OT: being separated from Love. The cathartic drive to kill in order to demonstrate the frustration of being cursed to live apart from Love while being overwhelmed by its reality is suddenly powerfully familiar imagery to me.
I daresay I would do anything to be with her. Every time you fall in love it feels a little different; but this time it feels reciprocated, which is novel for me. It is inexplicable why I am so compelled to trust her after having had my heart broken multiple times before. Then again, I've always been tenacious. I am fully cognizant that I barely know her. But GODDAMN I love this girl. She is 2,485.86 driving miles away according to Mapquest. It hurts. I miss her profoundly.
This is unlike me. I am very used to doing my own thing and being alone. I am an independent person! Was. Now I'm a caged canary begging to be poked at. I am King Kong.
Could be worse....
I daresay I would do anything to be with her. Every time you fall in love it feels a little different; but this time it feels reciprocated, which is novel for me. It is inexplicable why I am so compelled to trust her after having had my heart broken multiple times before. Then again, I've always been tenacious. I am fully cognizant that I barely know her. But GODDAMN I love this girl. She is 2,485.86 driving miles away according to Mapquest. It hurts. I miss her profoundly.
This is unlike me. I am very used to doing my own thing and being alone. I am an independent person! Was. Now I'm a caged canary begging to be poked at. I am King Kong.
Could be worse....
Monday, June 29, 2009
Why I hate Christianity
I don’t hate Christians; I object to those that blindly follow an ideology and attempt to impose that ideology on others. Ultimately, I feel sorry for them for being duped into believing what is not only a lie, but a poorly constructed one at that. I continuously hope that they can find the strength within themselves to reflect and explore the validity of what they have been told. But I find their persistent ignorance, willingness to be used and the underlying fear that permeates their existence, leading to a narrow, fanatic and often violent dogmatism, appalling.
Christianity is a multi-billion dollar tax-exempt institution that works like a pyramid scheme. Members are encouraged to donate 10% of their income while volunteering countless hours of their time and actively recruit other members. It has created a dogma convincing enough that it can unflinchingly demand its followers to believe and obey everything they are told no matter how unethical, ludicrous or masochistic it is and they will unquestioningly do it. Christianity’s influence in American culture and politics is obvious, profound and entrenched.
Perhaps there is nothing I value more than having the ability to educate myself and make my own decisions regarding my preferences and opinions. I do not have a personality suited for blindly going along with the crowd or agreeing with the masses simply because there are more of them than me. While I realize that I am biased against organizations in general, I especially don’t like when those organizations impose their ideologies on non-members. Groups tend to have the perspective that freedom is found in being able to be free from having to do things such as explore, reflect, trust one’s self and form unique ideas; whereas for individuals, freedom is found in being able to do these things. Many Christians will deny that individual freedom even exists (see Calvinism).
I also do not value knowledge based on tradition. Aristotle’s wrong but influential beliefs regarding physics and medicine prevented those fields from evolving for centuries. Today, religious aversion to anything contrary to its narrow sense of morality stymies the progression of humankind. Interestingly, the figures most influential in how we now conceive God were also greatly influenced by Aristotle. Christians will declare that they “know” Christianity is true because they’ve been a Christian for X number of years. If having believed something for a long time is all that’s required to make something true, that should lighten the workload of Christians trying to convert people that can trace their beliefs back not only years but generations.
Although Christianity comes in many forms and with many interpretations, all Christians I am aware of claim that a fundamental source of knowledge is the Holy Bible. They do not seem to realize that most of the traits which they identify with God have their origins not in the bible, but in St. Augustine, a theologian and philosopher born in 354 AD. He developed metaphysical theories on the nature of a supreme being using philosophical logic and not the scriptures. Almost a century later, Maimonides and then St. Thomas of Aquinas would help to solidify how most now envision the Jewish and Christian God. Christians will claim these are the same god, but it does not take a bible scholar to realize that while both are monotheistic religions, the figurehead of each is portrayed very differently. Metaphysically speaking, every god ever conceived in any religion has an equal chance of existing.
According to the Old Testament (OT), God physically looks like us. He is often found wandering around asking questions and devising tests. Obsessively jealous and controlling, he has an extremely unstable personality; fond of genocide, revenge, tricking his subjects, changing his mind, collecting spoils, manipulating nature, implementing nitpicky rituals and rules regarding everything and, foremost of all, the spilling of blood. Christians ignore almost all of the over 600 OT commands and rituals, including what’s become known as the Fourth Commandment to honor Saturday by not doing anything, which is among the most stressed laws in the OT. Incidentally, the Christian tradition of going to church on Sunday is not mentioned anywhere in the bible at all. These OT laws are not flippant but specific and important, with impressive punishments for ignoring them. Then again, God himself ordered Moses to break the Second Commandment.
Jesus didn’t seem to think obeying the Old Testament laws were very important, and Paul, the main author of the New Testament (NT), blatantly allowed for them to be ignored. This conveniently enabled them to come up with their own set of rules and rituals, most of which stress the importance of being abstemious, which is not surprising considering how much the NT praises suffering.
Christians will dismiss the OT god in favor of the NT one. This god, instead of punishing us when we’re alive, has devised a way to eternally and senselessly torture those who don’t so much as believe in his existence. Instead of the OT promises of wealth and prosperity on earth for the obedient, the NT offers Christians a life of suffering but infinite reward after they’ve died. Whereas sex was a reward in the OT, now it is a sin unless done under very specific conditions. Having lost his taste for blood but not pain, the NT god continues to condone slavery (read the book of Philemon, a letter written by Paul to accompany an escaped slave who he has convinced to return to his master) and treats women very differently than men. In fact, the salvation of women is found through childbirth. They are considered irrational beings incapable of understanding God, so must keep covered, segregated and silent in church. Obviously, Christians generally ignore most of the NT commands as well.
I could never trust a supposedly all-knowing being that is so overwhelmingly inconsistent. It is especially odd that the bible itself seems to indicate that God is unchanging. If he can change his mind, it is impossible to use century old documents to find out what he currently wants from us. In the bible, God does consistently hate being ignored. Why, then, does he choose to be invisible and inert? While it may be true that absolute power corrupts absolutely, few other gods behave as such insecure megalomaniacs as the Christian God. Like the cruelest dictator, he demands to be obeyed and worshipped constantly with extremely excessive punishments for refusing to do so. What does he need us to acknowledge his existence or importance for? Wouldn’t it have been easier to simply invent himself a therapist?
Christians will excuse the errors in the bible by pointing out that it was written by humans. Why didn’t God simply write it himself then? He supposedly wrote the first version of the laws he told Moses on Sinai on the front and back of two stone tablets (which Moses promptly, dramatically and conveniently smashed to pieces), so he is not incapable. What does he have to gain by having his minions write flawed and contrasting versions of his rules for him? According to tradition, Moses wrote the first five books of the OT, which would mean he couldn’t even be consistent as to where his own brother died and was buried.
The chapters and verses that the bible has been broken down to make it extremely easy for some parts of it to be used out of context and the other parts ignored in order to give a very skewed perspective of what it says. In reality, the bible contains contradiction after contradiction and a multitude of errors and discrepancies, despite the fact that it has been continuously edited throughout history, with dozens of books that were once part of the bible having been removed. (As but one example, Martin Luther removed many books from the Scriptures which he translated to German in 1534 but published them separately as what now known as the Apocrypha. See also: anagignoskomena and pseudepigrapha; and ancient texts like the Dead Sea scrolls.)
Jesus of the gospels is considered an incarnation of God. In contrast to the aggressive and warlike OT God, Jesus condones and praises passivity and submission. The four gospels telling of Jesus’ life differ immensely. Many, even in religions other than Christianity, consider Jesus a prophet, but he wasn’t a very good one, as he predicted he’d die and come back to life after three days and three nights, but in reality although the gospels disagree on almost every part of the resurrection story, they do demonstrate that he was in the grave for barely over a day and a half. I cannot understand why Christians are so willing to overlook such glaringly obvious fundamental flaws regarding extremely pertinent events in a supposedly perfect book about a supposedly perfect being.
Christians are really excited about the idea that their god loves them. They do not seem to realize that believing something or wanting it to be true does not make it true. The bible claims God is love, but actions speak louder than words. Unsurprisingly, love is not even written about in the bible very much, except in Song of Songs (which according to modern Christian standards is perverted) and 1 Corinthians 13. Unconditional love is nowhere to be found in the bible. I will never trust any ideology that condones multiple mass genocides for disobedience as being acts of love. Similarly, I will not consider anyone who demands to be loved under penalty of death to be loving or have any idea how love actually behaves.
It is not surprising that for Christians, knowledge is eschewed in favor of faith. Faith is the idea of believing in something even if there is no evidence for believing it. All humans, because they possess finite knowledge, often rely on faith. For rational beings, faith is superseded by facts. By way of analogy, one can have faith that another will never stab them, but once the other has stabbed them, it would be absurd to continue to believe they have never be stabbed. Christians hide behind faith as an excuse for remaining ignorant. They don’t need to explain why the bible has so many mistakes because they can simply assume it is the reader who is mistaken, even concerning passages that require no abstract interpretation whatsoever.
Christians tend to arrogantly think theirs is the only religion where there can be found a sense of peace and miracles. On the contrary, EVERY religion promises and delivers these things. The community, perceived security, hope and explanations religions provide are great ways of pacifying people. Miracles, derived from things such as laws of probability, self-fulfilling prophecies and selective attention, occur all the time, which makes them not that miraculous after all. Non-Christians win the lottery, too! The New Testament promises God will do anything a group of believers ask of him, which we all know is a flat-out lie. People find comfort in thinking that anything perceived as positive or beneficially yet unlikely is proof that God loves them. By the same logic, wouldn’t it mean that every supposed miracle that doesn’t occur means God hates them? On the contrary, Christians see this as proof that God knows more than we do. Christians have a justification for everything, and it is usually illogical, one-dimensional, short-sighted or a self-proving paradox that is a skillfully twisted play on words.
Just because something makes you feel happy and fulfilled, that in no way makes it true. It also doesn’t mean it will have the same effect on others. Many Christians will assume non-Christians are miserable. Often they will lament how miserable they were before turning to Christianity. This idea that everybody but them is miserable would be simply laughable except that Christians think it is their duty to “save” everyone from this assumed misery. They themselves have bought into hyperbolic stories about prodigal sons that scare them from imagining life possibilities other than the one they are familiar with. They are experts at the art of the guilt-trip. Until you believe exactly what they do, you are unequivocally wrong and should change your ways, which they have deemed sinful, whether you want to or not. They literally think they are doing others a favor by destroying their lives. It seems the true goal of Christianity is to make everybody who does not agree with them miserable.
Christians are very good at regurgitating clichés and embracing any evidence that supports what they already believe while simultaneously grasping at every perceived flaw in every view that is not theirs. Christians will tend to immediately disregard any opinion contrary to theirs as wrong without giving it any consideration, research or allowance for further explanation. They assume all contrary opinions are impulsive while theirs are divine. According to their rhetoric, while their motives for converting those who don’t agree with them are from love and compassion, the motives for pointing out the flaws in Christianity can only be anger and bitterness. Somehow heathens are the bad guys despite the fact that Christianity is the religion that promises eternal torture.
Because they think their religion has all the answers, most Christians are impossible to debate with. This is probably the most aggravating thing for me, a person who loves intelligent conversation. Christianity cleverly dissuades Christians from questioning their assumptions, as the suggestion of doubt is uncomfortably near to the all-important sin of unbelief. This fear is somewhat unfounded however, as the bible does allow for its god to be questioned, and the OT god prides himself in being tested.
It can be determined that the bible has too many mistakes to be reliable. By its own standards, one mistake is too much. Since flaws in it can be readily pointed out, it follows that any or all of it could be similarly flawed. This means Christians have absolutely no means for justifying their beliefs. They simply believe a bunch of random stuff random people told them and choose to interpret events that could happen in any religion or absence thereof as being the work of God. It logically follows that if Christians wish to justify their beliefs, they must first either explain why the bible is so full of holes or demonstrate that their views are correct without the use of the bible to justify their claims. Otherwise, it can only be assumed that their beliefs are completely unfounded. It then follows that they should, at the very least, refrain from forcing others into being subjected to their views.
If any Christian reads this and realizes I have valid points yet are unwilling to admit or debate them, you are nothing but a pathetic coward. If anyone notices anything demonstrably inaccurate in what I have presented, pleased be specific in letting me know what that might be.
Christianity is a multi-billion dollar tax-exempt institution that works like a pyramid scheme. Members are encouraged to donate 10% of their income while volunteering countless hours of their time and actively recruit other members. It has created a dogma convincing enough that it can unflinchingly demand its followers to believe and obey everything they are told no matter how unethical, ludicrous or masochistic it is and they will unquestioningly do it. Christianity’s influence in American culture and politics is obvious, profound and entrenched.
Perhaps there is nothing I value more than having the ability to educate myself and make my own decisions regarding my preferences and opinions. I do not have a personality suited for blindly going along with the crowd or agreeing with the masses simply because there are more of them than me. While I realize that I am biased against organizations in general, I especially don’t like when those organizations impose their ideologies on non-members. Groups tend to have the perspective that freedom is found in being able to be free from having to do things such as explore, reflect, trust one’s self and form unique ideas; whereas for individuals, freedom is found in being able to do these things. Many Christians will deny that individual freedom even exists (see Calvinism).
I also do not value knowledge based on tradition. Aristotle’s wrong but influential beliefs regarding physics and medicine prevented those fields from evolving for centuries. Today, religious aversion to anything contrary to its narrow sense of morality stymies the progression of humankind. Interestingly, the figures most influential in how we now conceive God were also greatly influenced by Aristotle. Christians will declare that they “know” Christianity is true because they’ve been a Christian for X number of years. If having believed something for a long time is all that’s required to make something true, that should lighten the workload of Christians trying to convert people that can trace their beliefs back not only years but generations.
Although Christianity comes in many forms and with many interpretations, all Christians I am aware of claim that a fundamental source of knowledge is the Holy Bible. They do not seem to realize that most of the traits which they identify with God have their origins not in the bible, but in St. Augustine, a theologian and philosopher born in 354 AD. He developed metaphysical theories on the nature of a supreme being using philosophical logic and not the scriptures. Almost a century later, Maimonides and then St. Thomas of Aquinas would help to solidify how most now envision the Jewish and Christian God. Christians will claim these are the same god, but it does not take a bible scholar to realize that while both are monotheistic religions, the figurehead of each is portrayed very differently. Metaphysically speaking, every god ever conceived in any religion has an equal chance of existing.
According to the Old Testament (OT), God physically looks like us. He is often found wandering around asking questions and devising tests. Obsessively jealous and controlling, he has an extremely unstable personality; fond of genocide, revenge, tricking his subjects, changing his mind, collecting spoils, manipulating nature, implementing nitpicky rituals and rules regarding everything and, foremost of all, the spilling of blood. Christians ignore almost all of the over 600 OT commands and rituals, including what’s become known as the Fourth Commandment to honor Saturday by not doing anything, which is among the most stressed laws in the OT. Incidentally, the Christian tradition of going to church on Sunday is not mentioned anywhere in the bible at all. These OT laws are not flippant but specific and important, with impressive punishments for ignoring them. Then again, God himself ordered Moses to break the Second Commandment.
Jesus didn’t seem to think obeying the Old Testament laws were very important, and Paul, the main author of the New Testament (NT), blatantly allowed for them to be ignored. This conveniently enabled them to come up with their own set of rules and rituals, most of which stress the importance of being abstemious, which is not surprising considering how much the NT praises suffering.
Christians will dismiss the OT god in favor of the NT one. This god, instead of punishing us when we’re alive, has devised a way to eternally and senselessly torture those who don’t so much as believe in his existence. Instead of the OT promises of wealth and prosperity on earth for the obedient, the NT offers Christians a life of suffering but infinite reward after they’ve died. Whereas sex was a reward in the OT, now it is a sin unless done under very specific conditions. Having lost his taste for blood but not pain, the NT god continues to condone slavery (read the book of Philemon, a letter written by Paul to accompany an escaped slave who he has convinced to return to his master) and treats women very differently than men. In fact, the salvation of women is found through childbirth. They are considered irrational beings incapable of understanding God, so must keep covered, segregated and silent in church. Obviously, Christians generally ignore most of the NT commands as well.
I could never trust a supposedly all-knowing being that is so overwhelmingly inconsistent. It is especially odd that the bible itself seems to indicate that God is unchanging. If he can change his mind, it is impossible to use century old documents to find out what he currently wants from us. In the bible, God does consistently hate being ignored. Why, then, does he choose to be invisible and inert? While it may be true that absolute power corrupts absolutely, few other gods behave as such insecure megalomaniacs as the Christian God. Like the cruelest dictator, he demands to be obeyed and worshipped constantly with extremely excessive punishments for refusing to do so. What does he need us to acknowledge his existence or importance for? Wouldn’t it have been easier to simply invent himself a therapist?
Christians will excuse the errors in the bible by pointing out that it was written by humans. Why didn’t God simply write it himself then? He supposedly wrote the first version of the laws he told Moses on Sinai on the front and back of two stone tablets (which Moses promptly, dramatically and conveniently smashed to pieces), so he is not incapable. What does he have to gain by having his minions write flawed and contrasting versions of his rules for him? According to tradition, Moses wrote the first five books of the OT, which would mean he couldn’t even be consistent as to where his own brother died and was buried.
The chapters and verses that the bible has been broken down to make it extremely easy for some parts of it to be used out of context and the other parts ignored in order to give a very skewed perspective of what it says. In reality, the bible contains contradiction after contradiction and a multitude of errors and discrepancies, despite the fact that it has been continuously edited throughout history, with dozens of books that were once part of the bible having been removed. (As but one example, Martin Luther removed many books from the Scriptures which he translated to German in 1534 but published them separately as what now known as the Apocrypha. See also: anagignoskomena and pseudepigrapha; and ancient texts like the Dead Sea scrolls.)
Jesus of the gospels is considered an incarnation of God. In contrast to the aggressive and warlike OT God, Jesus condones and praises passivity and submission. The four gospels telling of Jesus’ life differ immensely. Many, even in religions other than Christianity, consider Jesus a prophet, but he wasn’t a very good one, as he predicted he’d die and come back to life after three days and three nights, but in reality although the gospels disagree on almost every part of the resurrection story, they do demonstrate that he was in the grave for barely over a day and a half. I cannot understand why Christians are so willing to overlook such glaringly obvious fundamental flaws regarding extremely pertinent events in a supposedly perfect book about a supposedly perfect being.
Christians are really excited about the idea that their god loves them. They do not seem to realize that believing something or wanting it to be true does not make it true. The bible claims God is love, but actions speak louder than words. Unsurprisingly, love is not even written about in the bible very much, except in Song of Songs (which according to modern Christian standards is perverted) and 1 Corinthians 13. Unconditional love is nowhere to be found in the bible. I will never trust any ideology that condones multiple mass genocides for disobedience as being acts of love. Similarly, I will not consider anyone who demands to be loved under penalty of death to be loving or have any idea how love actually behaves.
It is not surprising that for Christians, knowledge is eschewed in favor of faith. Faith is the idea of believing in something even if there is no evidence for believing it. All humans, because they possess finite knowledge, often rely on faith. For rational beings, faith is superseded by facts. By way of analogy, one can have faith that another will never stab them, but once the other has stabbed them, it would be absurd to continue to believe they have never be stabbed. Christians hide behind faith as an excuse for remaining ignorant. They don’t need to explain why the bible has so many mistakes because they can simply assume it is the reader who is mistaken, even concerning passages that require no abstract interpretation whatsoever.
Christians tend to arrogantly think theirs is the only religion where there can be found a sense of peace and miracles. On the contrary, EVERY religion promises and delivers these things. The community, perceived security, hope and explanations religions provide are great ways of pacifying people. Miracles, derived from things such as laws of probability, self-fulfilling prophecies and selective attention, occur all the time, which makes them not that miraculous after all. Non-Christians win the lottery, too! The New Testament promises God will do anything a group of believers ask of him, which we all know is a flat-out lie. People find comfort in thinking that anything perceived as positive or beneficially yet unlikely is proof that God loves them. By the same logic, wouldn’t it mean that every supposed miracle that doesn’t occur means God hates them? On the contrary, Christians see this as proof that God knows more than we do. Christians have a justification for everything, and it is usually illogical, one-dimensional, short-sighted or a self-proving paradox that is a skillfully twisted play on words.
Just because something makes you feel happy and fulfilled, that in no way makes it true. It also doesn’t mean it will have the same effect on others. Many Christians will assume non-Christians are miserable. Often they will lament how miserable they were before turning to Christianity. This idea that everybody but them is miserable would be simply laughable except that Christians think it is their duty to “save” everyone from this assumed misery. They themselves have bought into hyperbolic stories about prodigal sons that scare them from imagining life possibilities other than the one they are familiar with. They are experts at the art of the guilt-trip. Until you believe exactly what they do, you are unequivocally wrong and should change your ways, which they have deemed sinful, whether you want to or not. They literally think they are doing others a favor by destroying their lives. It seems the true goal of Christianity is to make everybody who does not agree with them miserable.
Christians are very good at regurgitating clichés and embracing any evidence that supports what they already believe while simultaneously grasping at every perceived flaw in every view that is not theirs. Christians will tend to immediately disregard any opinion contrary to theirs as wrong without giving it any consideration, research or allowance for further explanation. They assume all contrary opinions are impulsive while theirs are divine. According to their rhetoric, while their motives for converting those who don’t agree with them are from love and compassion, the motives for pointing out the flaws in Christianity can only be anger and bitterness. Somehow heathens are the bad guys despite the fact that Christianity is the religion that promises eternal torture.
Because they think their religion has all the answers, most Christians are impossible to debate with. This is probably the most aggravating thing for me, a person who loves intelligent conversation. Christianity cleverly dissuades Christians from questioning their assumptions, as the suggestion of doubt is uncomfortably near to the all-important sin of unbelief. This fear is somewhat unfounded however, as the bible does allow for its god to be questioned, and the OT god prides himself in being tested.
It can be determined that the bible has too many mistakes to be reliable. By its own standards, one mistake is too much. Since flaws in it can be readily pointed out, it follows that any or all of it could be similarly flawed. This means Christians have absolutely no means for justifying their beliefs. They simply believe a bunch of random stuff random people told them and choose to interpret events that could happen in any religion or absence thereof as being the work of God. It logically follows that if Christians wish to justify their beliefs, they must first either explain why the bible is so full of holes or demonstrate that their views are correct without the use of the bible to justify their claims. Otherwise, it can only be assumed that their beliefs are completely unfounded. It then follows that they should, at the very least, refrain from forcing others into being subjected to their views.
If any Christian reads this and realizes I have valid points yet are unwilling to admit or debate them, you are nothing but a pathetic coward. If anyone notices anything demonstrably inaccurate in what I have presented, pleased be specific in letting me know what that might be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)