The Problem With Religion
(Actually, Christianity)
(Actually, Christianity)
The main problem with religion is that it's so easily attacked. The most obvious target is Christianity (particularly of the Fundamentalist version). Even Catholicism has now admitted that the Bible is not entirely inerrant. Specifically, Creation, and many other highly improbable/impossible myths. Here we have the same church who once threatened to kill Galileo for debunking geocentricism, now come full circle. Incredible.
First, there is the problem of evil. The usual explanation I've heard is that "God doesn't want us to be robots, and so allows us to choose our path." Um, objection. If God is indeed omniscient, and has infinite foreknowledge, then there is no such thing as free will. The usual comeback to that is "But see, we choose the path. God just knows what we're going to choose." Wrong. If God is infallible, and knows our future choices, then there is obviously a sequence of events he (we'll get into that later) knows will take place. If we had the power to deviate from that sequence, it would mean those events did not take place, which is impossible if he foresaw them. Such a paradox violates logic. The only way both free will and foreknowledge can simultaneously exist would be a multiverse, which I doubt they'd go for. And even then, the two wouldn't be co-existing in the strictest sense. Rather, there would be an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of events and outcomes, all of which God is aware of.
Furthermore, what about all the other religions? Granted, roughly 30% of the world is Christian of some sort (yes, that includes Catholics), but almost 20% is Islam, and almost 15% is Hindu. Generally speaking, the religion you are raised with is the one you choose for yourself. There are obviously exceptions, but this is a fairly safe assumption. Therefore, who's to say which one is correct; and why should everyone else die because they weren't born into the right region? Guess how many Christians there are in Iran: <= 1%. So the other 67 million or so are apparently all doomed to hell - and this is just one country. Worldwide, about 4 billion people are in serious trouble. But wait, the Catholics aren't real Christians, apparently. So, um, about 5.5 billion people are screwed. What about the ones who just claim to be Christians, though? How many are truly saved? Shall we be kind and say 3/4? So about 5.7 billion people are going to hell. Yeah. That's love if I ever saw it. So, how about scriptural errors? With the number of times the original scrolls were copied, dictated, and revised, not to mention the actual translation into various languages, something got messed up along the way. A simple way to prove this is to have someone copy down a short story (perhaps two or three paragraphs) word for word, and have them repeat it to someone else. Chances are you'll have an error (grammatical or otherwise) within three iterations. And as for translation, well... that's a field fraught with uncertainty. Look at the simple phrase "What time is it?", for instance. In German (I use German because I know a bit of it), the two most common ways of expressing this are "Wie viel Uhr ist es?" and "Wie spät ist es?" Literally translated, the first means "How much time is on the clock?", and the second means "How late is it?" While the second is used sometime in slang, it's usage is limited to the night. And the first, while perhaps technically correct, doesn't make any sense. My point? Liberties have to be taken, sometimes heavily, when translating. If a simple phrase undergoes that much change, imagine what such philosophical material as scripture must go through. Another interesting point, related to this, is the revisions the Bible has gone through. I speak of the Bible because I know more about it than, say, the Qur'an. (but hey, at least I can spell it correctly) Interestingly enough, the presumed 'greatest' translation, King James Version, has the most history behind it. Commissioned by King James I, it is regarded as some as the only version worth reading, since it is supposedly the most accurate, due to it's age, and lack of modern revisions. Oh, little do they know.
For starters, he was gay. That right there throws the "Fags burn in hell" crowd into a conundrum. But aside from that, it gets even better. To fully appreciate it, however, we have to go a bit back in history. 1534, to be precise. Martin Luther, that great reformer, translated the Bible into German, to increase its spread. However, he made a few changes. First off, he wasn't very fond of a few books. Notably, James and Revelation. He thought James was in contradiction of a salvation through grace.
On Revelation, he thought it not possible that it was divinely inspired; rather, that it was the rantings of a lunatic. As such, these (along with others) were moved to an Appendix. Also of note, Luther was heavily anti-Semitic. In his book, The Jews and Their Lies, he called for their synagogues to be burned, homes destroyed, teaching, travel, and lending rights revoked, and other such niceties. Oh, and if they didn't like this idea, they were to be exiled. Some role model.
But enough of that. Back to KJV. Originally, the translation included the Apocrypha. Eh? But Catholicism and Protestantism are so different... nope. Same book. It's just been changed since. After Luther's removal of many books from his translation, the Archbishop of Canterbury decreed in 1615 that anyone printing the Bible without the Apocrypha was subject to a year imprisoned. In spite of this, it became less and less common to see it included, especially after the Oxford 1769 Edition, which is what most modern KJV versions are actually of. Finally, in the 19th Century, the Apocrypha was deemed mere superstition, and most stopped including them. But ask a Protestant today about the Apocrypha today, and if they know what it is at all, they'll likely claim it's a bunch of Catholic nonsense.
How about some real fun stuff? Homosexuality, perhaps. Guess what - KJV screwed that up as well. Which wouldn't be surprising, considering its namesake, except they screwed up in the wrong way.
The most famous passages (and most direct) are Leviticus 18 and 20.
Alright, so we're no longer under the law (Romans 6:14). We don't follow the food laws, so why follow the sex ones? Or the 10 Commandments, if you go that route. Ah, you say there's New Testament precedence for it?
What about these?
And finally, what about David and Jonathan (1 Samuel 18-20)? I mean, c'mon:
So, it would seem perhaps the Bible isn't against homosexuality as was thought. Such a shocker. If I were God, I'd have better things to worry about than if people were taking it up the chuff.
What about modern translations? NIV, perhaps? It's certainly more accurate from a technical standpoint. The translators knew much more about the languages than did the translators of KJV, and they had more material to work with, to boot. Dead Sea Scrolls, anyone? For reasons I cannot fathom, people seem to assume they're "part of the Bible", which of course, means KJV. Yes, while some (30%) are from the Hebrew Bible (i.e. Old Testament), they are most certainly not in the KJV. The Scrolls were discovered between 1947 and 1956, about 180 years after the latest revision. Also, I find it interesting that the same people who bash Carbon-14 dating see no problem in using it to date their precious scrolls. If indeed their claims are true, and C14 is inaccurate by +/- 50,000 years or so (to be kind - some of them claim the number is in the millions, while others seem to think it changes every time the test is performed), then the Scrolls could be as old as 54,000 years, or from sometime in the future. Yet, oddly enough, historical evidence coincides perfectly with the C14 results. Strange.
But enough with translations and gays. It gets tiring, really. How about science? Always a fun one, mainly because the creationists are using arguments about 50 years behind everyone else. Now, personally, I feel it's counter-productive to use science to prove any religion. I call upon the great Douglas Adams for insight:
The first and most obvious was mentioned above; Carbon Dating. Creationists claim it's wildly inaccurate, outdated, and generally, a sham. They cite all sorts of examples showing how it dated a still-living mollusk shell at 27,000 years old, or some such. Bummer, dudes. Turns out they dated the shells, not the creatures themselves. It appears the little buggers recycle old shells, much like hermit crabs. The age of the shell fit perfectly with the surrounding strata, as well. Oh. How about the freshly killed seals that were dated at 1300 years old? Same idea. They eat fish that have eaten plants that live in the water... and so on. If you ingest something, you're adding whatever it contains to your body. Oh. Well, how about the Earth's magnetic field? At the rate it's decreasing, it proves the earth is young! Actually, the magnetic field has not only wildly fluctuated in the past, it's even changed polarity entirely, so your compass would have pointed to the South. Terrible, idn't it? On the flip side, what about stars, tree rings, fossils, and other such ancients? Apparently, God decided it'd be a bit of a lark to create insanely distant stars with lightbeams already in place, trees with rings pre-dating Noah's flood, and fossils pre-dating Creation. Just to mess with us, you see. I must admit, if I were God, I'd probably do the same, but it doesn't quite jive with the Biblical one. He doesn't seem to have much of a sense of humor. For crying out loud, he decided everyone (save for 8 people) was evil and flooded the Earth. Largest genocide ever recorded, and it Was Good. [TM] Benevolent? Probably not
How about some simple logic? For those of you not familiar with Occam's Razor, the gist of it is "Keep It Simple, Stupid". It states that given two theories or explanations, if everything else is equal, to choose the simplest one. For instance, if you come across a scorched and split tree in the middle of a field, the obvious explanation was that it was hit by lightning. However, one could also argue that aliens landed. The first requires no other explanations, indeed, the evidence supports it; whereas the latter requires quite a few things to be assumed true. The same can be applied to Creationism vs. Evolutionism, or even the existence of a god. What it simpler; to assume that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god decided to create a universe, populate it with beings that would destroy it, and even plant false clues to trick us? or that it has slowly evolved? (which neatly solves the philosophical arguments. If there's no God, there's no problem of evil, nor anything else related) My money is on evolution, from that standpoint.
But let us leave science for the moment, and traverse to consistency. That is one of the mainstays of arguments for God - that the Bible is inerrant, and is perfectly consistent throughout. I disagree. You don't even have to look further than the Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John - that is, the canonized Gospels. It was actually a bishop in Gaul [France] who canonized the four, and that only because he believed four to be a perfect number of sorts) to see it.
Mark is commonly regarded as the oldest Gospel. A note on this, however; none of them were written during Jesus' ministry. In fact, even Mark was written a good 40 years after his death. It is doubtful if any of them had even met Jesus in person. Matthew and Luke contain passages that are so close to Mark's, it is very likely they were simplyplagiarizedd, with their own spin added. And what of John? It would seem it wasn't written by John at all. In fact, there is good evidence none of them were written by their namesakes. In John's case, if the dates are to be believed, he would have been approximately 10 years old at the time of Jesus' death, and 80 when writing his Gospel. So either he was an extremely precocious child who recorded everything during Jesus' life, or it is a forgery.
Look, for instance, at Jesus' initial ministry, when he calls the first disciples. The two passages I will refer to are Mark 1:16-20 and Luke 5:2-10. Now, in Mark (and also Matthew), it is a fairly simple story. Jesus is walking by the Sea of Galilee, and sees Simon Peter and Andrew fishing. He calls out to them, and inexplicably, they decide to drop their career and follow him. They go a little further and see James and John, who decide to abandon their father and follow Jesus as well. A bit strange, perhaps, but straight forward. So what about Luke? In his version, he has Jesus find Simon Peter (not Andrew) mending his nets, rather than fishing. Jesus gets into his boat, and Simon Peter rows him out a bit, so he can preach to the gathering crowd. Odd, but I'll go with it. Then, Jesus turns and commands Simon Peter to cast his nets. Simon Peter responds that he's been fishing all day, and has caught nothing. Jesus again repeats his command, and lo and behold, he catches so much, his net breaks. Simon Peter's companions (who are never named) are amazed, and immediately decide to follow Jesus.
So we've got two very different stories, with different people, different circumstances, and different motives. Luke apparently decided Mark's initial account wasn't reason enough for fishermen to drop their life (and I agree), so he added a miracle. Makes sense.
Moving on, how about the story of Jesus commanding demons out of a man (or men...) into pigs, who then rush en masse into the sea? Mark's has the event taking place in Gerasenes (although the KJV changes this to Gadarenes), where Jesus meets a crazed man, whom he converses with. Jesus then commands the demons to go out of the man, wherein they request that they be allowed to go into a very large group of pigs, who then proceed to rush over a cliff. Besides the obvious questions, such as why Jesus killed so many innocents without thought; or why the owner wasn't recompensed, there are a few geographical errors. Gerasa (or Gerasenes) is located a whopping 31 miles from the Sea of Galilee. Quite a little jog. Matthew (and the KJV authors, for the case of Mark), being a bit more learned with Palestinian geography, saw this flaw, and changed the event's location to Gadarenes; but even that is 5 miles from the shore. Further translations have changed the location to Gergesenes, which is on the shore. At least it's technically accurate, but one must question the veracity when there are so many differing accounts.
Then, there's the classic creation story mismatch. Oddly enough, even though it's contained in the first two chapters of the entire Bible, very few people notice it. This confirms my suspicions that many Christians have never read their own Holy Book, or at the very least, skimmed it.
OK, let's review. In Genesis 1, it starts out with "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Now, this is where it gets tricky, as we'll see. Heaven, in this case, would presumably be referring to the sky. At the time (~ 1440 BC is the generally accepted time of writing, but more on that later), people thought the sky was actually a giant transparent disc of ice (flat earth, remember) that was stuck in between the stars and the water. But, of course, God would know the truth? Right? That's why heliocentrism is so prevalent throughout the Bible... oh, wait. We'll get to that.
Verse 2 has the earth void, empty. Also, dark. This was no good, so God created light. Not the sun, though. Rather, he elected to first create the streams of photons (which could explain the problem of stars billions of light years away being visible, I suppose), with nothing supporting them. At the end of verse 5, we have "And the evening and the morning were the first day." If God created the universe in 6 days (7th was for resting, you forget. Which brings into question his omnipotence, but hey, we'll give him that), when was the first day, when he created the void, empty earth? Did it predate time? There is a popular theory based on this idea, which states that God created an empty, pointless planet, and then mulled around for an indefinite amount of time before deciding to, you know, DO something with it. Perhaps he was finding contractors.
After this, God created... the sky?! "Toseparatee the waters from the waters"? Well, perhaps the first sky was merely a vacuum, and so now God has created an atmosphere. That's the only explanation I (and most creationists) can come up with. But the "toseparatee water from water" bit is of particular interest. Presumably they're referring to rain, but we've a problem with that: there was no rain before The Flood. (Genesis 2:5b [KJV] "for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth...") The entire earth was under a giant vapor canopy that both protected humans from UV (and plants as well, one would think...), and kept everything nice and humid. Unfortunately, this would also have the effect of raising the pressure to, oh, about 13,000 psi. (for reference, pressure at sea level is about 14.5 psi) You see, the Biblical rendition of the Flood has every mountain being completely covered, and then some. This requires a vapor canopy capable of dumping about 5.6 miles of water on the earth. Which means extremely high pressure for anyone living underneath it. This also raises another problem, namely, how to keep that much water vapor from condensing. You'd have to raise the temperature enough so that the vapor would stay as such. A boiling, 13,000 psi atmosphere. Sounds perfectly hospitable.
Moving on, God created plant life. Not really much to discuss here, so we'll jump ahead, to where he finally decides to create the sun. Oh, and the moon, and the stars. You'll notice the author refers to the moon as a "light". We know now that the moon doesn't actually create any light, but merely reflects the sun. But you can't expect the people of that age to realize it. One would think God would be clued in, though.
Next, God creates all animal life in the sea, and the birds. For some reason, he doesn't group birds with the next day, where he creates land animals. Odd, but hey, supreme beings don't have to explain themselves.
Next, God creates humans. Men and women. He also gives them control over the entire earth (which he later saw was a bad idea), and commands them to take care of it (HA!). Ah, but also, he makes them vegans. The "green herbs" are their meat. I'm not sure how much they knew about nutrition back then, but I suppose they could have managed. After all, this was pre-evil, so there were no harmful foods.
OK, now on to Chapter 2. For some reason, this again tells the same story, except with a few key differences. And so close, too. "So, OK, God did it like this. But now, he did it like THIS. See? He actually never did it like he did the first time, except he did. See?"
It starts off saying that the work was finished, and he rested, after proclaiming the 7th day (which is, of course, Sunday, as all God-fearing believers know. This Saturday crap just has to stop) to be holy.
First, it's made clear that there was no rain, but a "mist went up from the earth". Some peopleinterprett this to mean fissures released steam all over the place. Others say it's poetic license, and point to the vapor canopy theory. Either way, it's ludicrous. The amount of steam necessary to water the earth would also raise the temperature to crazy levels.
Next, God creates man, and only man. He created him from dust (which will be feasible once nano assemblers are more than just a concept), and then created... Inna Gadda Da Vida. Er, The Garden of Eden. However, apparently the garden was more like a chunk of dirt, as in the next verse, he creates all the plants. Anyway, God plops man down in this chunk of dirt, and then gives him some plants.
God decided it was a bit dry, so He creates some rivers, and also details the locations of precious metals and gems. Oh, and bdellium, which is used as a binder in perfume. Right then. Important stuff, bdellium.
And now, déjà vu. God again places man in the Garden. He tells Adam... huh? Since when was he named? There's no segue, no naming ceremony at all. What with him being the first ever human, you'd think there would be something special. But no. In one verse he's "man", in the next, "Adam". Right then. Well, God tells Adam that he can eat anything (provided anything is a plant) he wants, except the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He warns Adam if he should eat of this tree, he would die. Killer fruit.
Adam's getting a bit bored with all of this, though, so God decides to give him something to do. He creates every animal; sea, air, and land, and has Adam name them. Modern estimates for number of species range all over the place, but most place it at least in the tens of millions. There must have been many more during Adam's time, since nothing had died off due to extinction. Quite a task.
Indeed, Adam tired of this so much, that God knocked him out, and took a rib out. He then created a woman. Again with the naming. Adam doesn't name her Eve until 3:20, after they eat the forbidden fruit.
This particular bit (life from a rib) has confused many a person. A frightening amount of people believe that to this day, men have one less rib than women. Don't believe me? Go to a church; but preferably Protestant. They seem to be more gullible for some reason. Fundamentalists are especially good for this. Ask them how many ribs men have, and then women. I highly doubt you'll get an exact answer (hint: 24), but they'll very likely proudly claim that men have one less than women, due to the Bible. This is the 21st century. And there are educated people believing myths such as this? Scary.
So, here we have these doublets, that seem to differ on a few key points. If, as the Fundamentalists claim, Moses is the sole author of the Pentateuch, (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) why would there be multiple stories in the first place; differing or not? And why would there be many more examples of this? There are too many to write here, so I will direct you to this website, which does a much better job of it than I could. Basically, there are multiple versions of the same story repeated throughout the Pentateuch (and The Gospels, as was shown earlier), often times in the very same chapter. A logical explanation for this is given on the linked website: multiple authorship. Oral stories passed down from generation to generation, which were recorded every now and then, with the usual and expected errors. A more detailed explanation, showing the first several chapters of Genesis by authorship, is available here.
The same things are repeated ad infinitum throughout the rest of scripture. Multiple conflicting accounts of the same story, chronological errors, and above all of it, a markedtemperamentaltal and malevolent god.
The final argument that's pulled out is "America is a Christian nation. Just look at our Founding Fathers." I agree, just look at them. George Washington? Deist. John Adams? Christian, sort of. He denied that there was a hell, and actually thought the world would be better off with no religion at all. Furthermore, his administration ratified the Treaty of Tripoli, which states in Article XI that "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." What about Benjamin Franklin? Also a Deist. Thomas Jefferson? Again, a Deist. This stalwart bastion of supposed goodness is the same who had many an adulterous relationship (but then, so did Franklin), many with his slaves. Christian nation? I think not.
So, what's my explanation for all of this? People have a desire to feel loved. They want to believe that life has a purpose, and meaning. Early civilization had no means of deducing why the bright light in the sky went away and came back daily, so they decided it must be a god. It didn't seem to pay much attention to their sacrifices or prayers, but then, it hadn't killed them, so they must be doing something right. A select few appointed themselves Holy Ones, and lorded over everyone else, and leading a generally opulent lifestyle. As time progressed, and man started to understand the world, the religious leaders saw their power slipping away from them, so they started creating myths and stories about the various gods, their power, and what happened if you didn't do as you were told. And it worked. Since everything seemed to be still going peachy keen, so long as the sacrifices were made, they'd keep on doing it. Thus was born modern religion. Jump ahead to today, and it's still going on, and just as violently. We have religious leaders calling for the assasination of heads of state (and then denying it), governments who are claiming to be run under God's leadership while committing atrocities (guess it fits the Old Testament God, anyway), and churches who control their members with horror stories of eternal damnation for those who don't follow their legalistic rules. It's still the same. Nothing has changed.
Sources:
Infidels.org
Religioustolerance.org
Godlessgeeks.com
The Holy Bible
First, there is the problem of evil. The usual explanation I've heard is that "God doesn't want us to be robots, and so allows us to choose our path." Um, objection. If God is indeed omniscient, and has infinite foreknowledge, then there is no such thing as free will. The usual comeback to that is "But see, we choose the path. God just knows what we're going to choose." Wrong. If God is infallible, and knows our future choices, then there is obviously a sequence of events he (we'll get into that later) knows will take place. If we had the power to deviate from that sequence, it would mean those events did not take place, which is impossible if he foresaw them. Such a paradox violates logic. The only way both free will and foreknowledge can simultaneously exist would be a multiverse, which I doubt they'd go for. And even then, the two wouldn't be co-existing in the strictest sense. Rather, there would be an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of events and outcomes, all of which God is aware of.
Furthermore, what about all the other religions? Granted, roughly 30% of the world is Christian of some sort (yes, that includes Catholics), but almost 20% is Islam, and almost 15% is Hindu. Generally speaking, the religion you are raised with is the one you choose for yourself. There are obviously exceptions, but this is a fairly safe assumption. Therefore, who's to say which one is correct; and why should everyone else die because they weren't born into the right region? Guess how many Christians there are in Iran: <= 1%. So the other 67 million or so are apparently all doomed to hell - and this is just one country. Worldwide, about 4 billion people are in serious trouble. But wait, the Catholics aren't real Christians, apparently. So, um, about 5.5 billion people are screwed. What about the ones who just claim to be Christians, though? How many are truly saved? Shall we be kind and say 3/4? So about 5.7 billion people are going to hell. Yeah. That's love if I ever saw it. So, how about scriptural errors? With the number of times the original scrolls were copied, dictated, and revised, not to mention the actual translation into various languages, something got messed up along the way. A simple way to prove this is to have someone copy down a short story (perhaps two or three paragraphs) word for word, and have them repeat it to someone else. Chances are you'll have an error (grammatical or otherwise) within three iterations. And as for translation, well... that's a field fraught with uncertainty. Look at the simple phrase "What time is it?", for instance. In German (I use German because I know a bit of it), the two most common ways of expressing this are "Wie viel Uhr ist es?" and "Wie spät ist es?" Literally translated, the first means "How much time is on the clock?", and the second means "How late is it?" While the second is used sometime in slang, it's usage is limited to the night. And the first, while perhaps technically correct, doesn't make any sense. My point? Liberties have to be taken, sometimes heavily, when translating. If a simple phrase undergoes that much change, imagine what such philosophical material as scripture must go through. Another interesting point, related to this, is the revisions the Bible has gone through. I speak of the Bible because I know more about it than, say, the Qur'an. (but hey, at least I can spell it correctly) Interestingly enough, the presumed 'greatest' translation, King James Version, has the most history behind it. Commissioned by King James I, it is regarded as some as the only version worth reading, since it is supposedly the most accurate, due to it's age, and lack of modern revisions. Oh, little do they know.
For starters, he was gay. That right there throws the "Fags burn in hell" crowd into a conundrum. But aside from that, it gets even better. To fully appreciate it, however, we have to go a bit back in history. 1534, to be precise. Martin Luther, that great reformer, translated the Bible into German, to increase its spread. However, he made a few changes. First off, he wasn't very fond of a few books. Notably, James and Revelation. He thought James was in contradiction of a salvation through grace.
James 2:14, (KJV) "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?"
On Revelation, he thought it not possible that it was divinely inspired; rather, that it was the rantings of a lunatic. As such, these (along with others) were moved to an Appendix. Also of note, Luther was heavily anti-Semitic. In his book, The Jews and Their Lies, he called for their synagogues to be burned, homes destroyed, teaching, travel, and lending rights revoked, and other such niceties. Oh, and if they didn't like this idea, they were to be exiled. Some role model.
But enough of that. Back to KJV. Originally, the translation included the Apocrypha. Eh? But Catholicism and Protestantism are so different... nope. Same book. It's just been changed since. After Luther's removal of many books from his translation, the Archbishop of Canterbury decreed in 1615 that anyone printing the Bible without the Apocrypha was subject to a year imprisoned. In spite of this, it became less and less common to see it included, especially after the Oxford 1769 Edition, which is what most modern KJV versions are actually of. Finally, in the 19th Century, the Apocrypha was deemed mere superstition, and most stopped including them. But ask a Protestant today about the Apocrypha today, and if they know what it is at all, they'll likely claim it's a bunch of Catholic nonsense.
How about some real fun stuff? Homosexuality, perhaps. Guess what - KJV screwed that up as well. Which wouldn't be surprising, considering its namesake, except they screwed up in the wrong way.
The most famous passages (and most direct) are Leviticus 18 and 20.
18:22 (KJV) "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Hmm.Ouch. Death penalty? Pretty stiff punishment. What are some of the other of these cardinal sins? Well, incest of basically every possible combination, for one. Apparently it wasn't enough to say "Don't bang your relatives", they had to go into explicit detail on exactly who. Also, bestiality. Then, there's this little oddball, which interestingly enough, is only found in KJV.
20:13 (KJV) "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
18:21 (KJV) "And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD."Molech was a god of Canaan, who was also later called Baal. So, it would seem to me this is an instruction not to interbreed with the Canaanites. Again, in Chapter 20, the author goes into immense detail concerning what exactly to do with someone who commits this heinous act. Not only should the person in question be put to death, if they fail that, the people who failed to kill the heretic should be excommunicated. Alright, we get it. Moving on.
20:9 (KJV) "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." Uh... we're all in trouble. Death for cursing your parents? Yeesh. Yet, it gets better.OK, I can understand the guy's hesitation to do much, but to banish them? Seems a bit harsh. I have an explanation, however, which I'll get to in due time. Mind you, all of these are interspersed with such oddities as a law against cursing the deaf (19:14), interbreeding of cattle, mixing of seeds, and wearing linen and wool simultaneously (19:19). Methinks they were a tad superstitious. Oh, and that little word "abominable"? It crops up again, in 19:7, referring to the laws regarding eating peace offerings. Apparently, if you wait 3 days after offering them, they must be burned. If you eat them instead, that's an abomination. Apparently, buttsex and potentially rotten food are the same. But wait... what if there was a translation error? What if the word actually meant "unclean"? Makes a whole lot more sense now, doesn't it? I mean, really, I'd suppose it's a bit dirty. But then, they didn't have condoms. The risk of disease was quite a bit higher. Same goes for rotten food, or any of the other hundreds of food laws they had. They were there for a reason: disease.
20:18 (KJV) "And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people."
Alright, so we're no longer under the law (Romans 6:14). We don't follow the food laws, so why follow the sex ones? Or the 10 Commandments, if you go that route. Ah, you say there's New Testament precedence for it?
Romans 1:26-27 (KJV) "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."See anything in there about this being wrong? No? How about some context? Paul is writing about the "evil people", and their perverted ways. Yet interestingly enough, it's not until after this passage that he starts naming things as actually being reprobate -
28:31 (KJV) "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful".Well, there's fornication in there, anyway. Close, but no cigar. So Paul is against premarital sex. I suppose you could hit it with the blanket "wickedness" if you were really grasping, though.
What about these?
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (KJV) "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.""Abusers of themselves with mankind", eh? Sounds more like a circlejerk to me. Other translations disagree, though, and refer to these two as catamites (new word alert - I'd never heard of it either) rather than homosexual. So it's against pedophilia rather than homosexuality.
1 Timothy 1:9-10 (KJV) "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine"
And finally, what about David and Jonathan (1 Samuel 18-20)? I mean, c'mon:
2 Samuel 19:26 (KJV) "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."?Your love was better than a woman's?! No matter how you slice it...
So, it would seem perhaps the Bible isn't against homosexuality as was thought. Such a shocker. If I were God, I'd have better things to worry about than if people were taking it up the chuff.
What about modern translations? NIV, perhaps? It's certainly more accurate from a technical standpoint. The translators knew much more about the languages than did the translators of KJV, and they had more material to work with, to boot. Dead Sea Scrolls, anyone? For reasons I cannot fathom, people seem to assume they're "part of the Bible", which of course, means KJV. Yes, while some (30%) are from the Hebrew Bible (i.e. Old Testament), they are most certainly not in the KJV. The Scrolls were discovered between 1947 and 1956, about 180 years after the latest revision. Also, I find it interesting that the same people who bash Carbon-14 dating see no problem in using it to date their precious scrolls. If indeed their claims are true, and C14 is inaccurate by +/- 50,000 years or so (to be kind - some of them claim the number is in the millions, while others seem to think it changes every time the test is performed), then the Scrolls could be as old as 54,000 years, or from sometime in the future. Yet, oddly enough, historical evidence coincides perfectly with the C14 results. Strange.
But enough with translations and gays. It gets tiring, really. How about science? Always a fun one, mainly because the creationists are using arguments about 50 years behind everyone else. Now, personally, I feel it's counter-productive to use science to prove any religion. I call upon the great Douglas Adams for insight:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing. "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."(Bonus points if you know what QED means) This is basically how I feel. To attempt to prove religion means reducing it to a science, and also denies your belief in the first place. If you don't believe in something, how can you ever follow it? But, they still try. So we'll go along with it.
The first and most obvious was mentioned above; Carbon Dating. Creationists claim it's wildly inaccurate, outdated, and generally, a sham. They cite all sorts of examples showing how it dated a still-living mollusk shell at 27,000 years old, or some such. Bummer, dudes. Turns out they dated the shells, not the creatures themselves. It appears the little buggers recycle old shells, much like hermit crabs. The age of the shell fit perfectly with the surrounding strata, as well. Oh. How about the freshly killed seals that were dated at 1300 years old? Same idea. They eat fish that have eaten plants that live in the water... and so on. If you ingest something, you're adding whatever it contains to your body. Oh. Well, how about the Earth's magnetic field? At the rate it's decreasing, it proves the earth is young! Actually, the magnetic field has not only wildly fluctuated in the past, it's even changed polarity entirely, so your compass would have pointed to the South. Terrible, idn't it? On the flip side, what about stars, tree rings, fossils, and other such ancients? Apparently, God decided it'd be a bit of a lark to create insanely distant stars with lightbeams already in place, trees with rings pre-dating Noah's flood, and fossils pre-dating Creation. Just to mess with us, you see. I must admit, if I were God, I'd probably do the same, but it doesn't quite jive with the Biblical one. He doesn't seem to have much of a sense of humor. For crying out loud, he decided everyone (save for 8 people) was evil and flooded the Earth. Largest genocide ever recorded, and it Was Good. [TM] Benevolent? Probably not
How about some simple logic? For those of you not familiar with Occam's Razor, the gist of it is "Keep It Simple, Stupid". It states that given two theories or explanations, if everything else is equal, to choose the simplest one. For instance, if you come across a scorched and split tree in the middle of a field, the obvious explanation was that it was hit by lightning. However, one could also argue that aliens landed. The first requires no other explanations, indeed, the evidence supports it; whereas the latter requires quite a few things to be assumed true. The same can be applied to Creationism vs. Evolutionism, or even the existence of a god. What it simpler; to assume that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god decided to create a universe, populate it with beings that would destroy it, and even plant false clues to trick us? or that it has slowly evolved? (which neatly solves the philosophical arguments. If there's no God, there's no problem of evil, nor anything else related) My money is on evolution, from that standpoint.
But let us leave science for the moment, and traverse to consistency. That is one of the mainstays of arguments for God - that the Bible is inerrant, and is perfectly consistent throughout. I disagree. You don't even have to look further than the Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John - that is, the canonized Gospels. It was actually a bishop in Gaul [France] who canonized the four, and that only because he believed four to be a perfect number of sorts) to see it.
Mark is commonly regarded as the oldest Gospel. A note on this, however; none of them were written during Jesus' ministry. In fact, even Mark was written a good 40 years after his death. It is doubtful if any of them had even met Jesus in person. Matthew and Luke contain passages that are so close to Mark's, it is very likely they were simplyplagiarizedd, with their own spin added. And what of John? It would seem it wasn't written by John at all. In fact, there is good evidence none of them were written by their namesakes. In John's case, if the dates are to be believed, he would have been approximately 10 years old at the time of Jesus' death, and 80 when writing his Gospel. So either he was an extremely precocious child who recorded everything during Jesus' life, or it is a forgery.
Look, for instance, at Jesus' initial ministry, when he calls the first disciples. The two passages I will refer to are Mark 1:16-20 and Luke 5:2-10. Now, in Mark (and also Matthew), it is a fairly simple story. Jesus is walking by the Sea of Galilee, and sees Simon Peter and Andrew fishing. He calls out to them, and inexplicably, they decide to drop their career and follow him. They go a little further and see James and John, who decide to abandon their father and follow Jesus as well. A bit strange, perhaps, but straight forward. So what about Luke? In his version, he has Jesus find Simon Peter (not Andrew) mending his nets, rather than fishing. Jesus gets into his boat, and Simon Peter rows him out a bit, so he can preach to the gathering crowd. Odd, but I'll go with it. Then, Jesus turns and commands Simon Peter to cast his nets. Simon Peter responds that he's been fishing all day, and has caught nothing. Jesus again repeats his command, and lo and behold, he catches so much, his net breaks. Simon Peter's companions (who are never named) are amazed, and immediately decide to follow Jesus.
So we've got two very different stories, with different people, different circumstances, and different motives. Luke apparently decided Mark's initial account wasn't reason enough for fishermen to drop their life (and I agree), so he added a miracle. Makes sense.
Moving on, how about the story of Jesus commanding demons out of a man (or men...) into pigs, who then rush en masse into the sea? Mark's has the event taking place in Gerasenes (although the KJV changes this to Gadarenes), where Jesus meets a crazed man, whom he converses with. Jesus then commands the demons to go out of the man, wherein they request that they be allowed to go into a very large group of pigs, who then proceed to rush over a cliff. Besides the obvious questions, such as why Jesus killed so many innocents without thought; or why the owner wasn't recompensed, there are a few geographical errors. Gerasa (or Gerasenes) is located a whopping 31 miles from the Sea of Galilee. Quite a little jog. Matthew (and the KJV authors, for the case of Mark), being a bit more learned with Palestinian geography, saw this flaw, and changed the event's location to Gadarenes; but even that is 5 miles from the shore. Further translations have changed the location to Gergesenes, which is on the shore. At least it's technically accurate, but one must question the veracity when there are so many differing accounts.
Then, there's the classic creation story mismatch. Oddly enough, even though it's contained in the first two chapters of the entire Bible, very few people notice it. This confirms my suspicions that many Christians have never read their own Holy Book, or at the very least, skimmed it.
Genesis 1 (KJV)
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Genesis 2 (KJV)
1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
OK, let's review. In Genesis 1, it starts out with "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Now, this is where it gets tricky, as we'll see. Heaven, in this case, would presumably be referring to the sky. At the time (~ 1440 BC is the generally accepted time of writing, but more on that later), people thought the sky was actually a giant transparent disc of ice (flat earth, remember) that was stuck in between the stars and the water. But, of course, God would know the truth? Right? That's why heliocentrism is so prevalent throughout the Bible... oh, wait. We'll get to that.
Verse 2 has the earth void, empty. Also, dark. This was no good, so God created light. Not the sun, though. Rather, he elected to first create the streams of photons (which could explain the problem of stars billions of light years away being visible, I suppose), with nothing supporting them. At the end of verse 5, we have "And the evening and the morning were the first day." If God created the universe in 6 days (7th was for resting, you forget. Which brings into question his omnipotence, but hey, we'll give him that), when was the first day, when he created the void, empty earth? Did it predate time? There is a popular theory based on this idea, which states that God created an empty, pointless planet, and then mulled around for an indefinite amount of time before deciding to, you know, DO something with it. Perhaps he was finding contractors.
After this, God created... the sky?! "Toseparatee the waters from the waters"? Well, perhaps the first sky was merely a vacuum, and so now God has created an atmosphere. That's the only explanation I (and most creationists) can come up with. But the "toseparatee water from water" bit is of particular interest. Presumably they're referring to rain, but we've a problem with that: there was no rain before The Flood. (Genesis 2:5b [KJV] "for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth...") The entire earth was under a giant vapor canopy that both protected humans from UV (and plants as well, one would think...), and kept everything nice and humid. Unfortunately, this would also have the effect of raising the pressure to, oh, about 13,000 psi. (for reference, pressure at sea level is about 14.5 psi) You see, the Biblical rendition of the Flood has every mountain being completely covered, and then some. This requires a vapor canopy capable of dumping about 5.6 miles of water on the earth. Which means extremely high pressure for anyone living underneath it. This also raises another problem, namely, how to keep that much water vapor from condensing. You'd have to raise the temperature enough so that the vapor would stay as such. A boiling, 13,000 psi atmosphere. Sounds perfectly hospitable.
Moving on, God created plant life. Not really much to discuss here, so we'll jump ahead, to where he finally decides to create the sun. Oh, and the moon, and the stars. You'll notice the author refers to the moon as a "light". We know now that the moon doesn't actually create any light, but merely reflects the sun. But you can't expect the people of that age to realize it. One would think God would be clued in, though.
Next, God creates all animal life in the sea, and the birds. For some reason, he doesn't group birds with the next day, where he creates land animals. Odd, but hey, supreme beings don't have to explain themselves.
Next, God creates humans. Men and women. He also gives them control over the entire earth (which he later saw was a bad idea), and commands them to take care of it (HA!). Ah, but also, he makes them vegans. The "green herbs" are their meat. I'm not sure how much they knew about nutrition back then, but I suppose they could have managed. After all, this was pre-evil, so there were no harmful foods.
OK, now on to Chapter 2. For some reason, this again tells the same story, except with a few key differences. And so close, too. "So, OK, God did it like this. But now, he did it like THIS. See? He actually never did it like he did the first time, except he did. See?"
It starts off saying that the work was finished, and he rested, after proclaiming the 7th day (which is, of course, Sunday, as all God-fearing believers know. This Saturday crap just has to stop) to be holy.
First, it's made clear that there was no rain, but a "mist went up from the earth". Some peopleinterprett this to mean fissures released steam all over the place. Others say it's poetic license, and point to the vapor canopy theory. Either way, it's ludicrous. The amount of steam necessary to water the earth would also raise the temperature to crazy levels.
Next, God creates man, and only man. He created him from dust (which will be feasible once nano assemblers are more than just a concept), and then created... Inna Gadda Da Vida. Er, The Garden of Eden. However, apparently the garden was more like a chunk of dirt, as in the next verse, he creates all the plants. Anyway, God plops man down in this chunk of dirt, and then gives him some plants.
God decided it was a bit dry, so He creates some rivers, and also details the locations of precious metals and gems. Oh, and bdellium, which is used as a binder in perfume. Right then. Important stuff, bdellium.
And now, déjà vu. God again places man in the Garden. He tells Adam... huh? Since when was he named? There's no segue, no naming ceremony at all. What with him being the first ever human, you'd think there would be something special. But no. In one verse he's "man", in the next, "Adam". Right then. Well, God tells Adam that he can eat anything (provided anything is a plant) he wants, except the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He warns Adam if he should eat of this tree, he would die. Killer fruit.
Adam's getting a bit bored with all of this, though, so God decides to give him something to do. He creates every animal; sea, air, and land, and has Adam name them. Modern estimates for number of species range all over the place, but most place it at least in the tens of millions. There must have been many more during Adam's time, since nothing had died off due to extinction. Quite a task.
Indeed, Adam tired of this so much, that God knocked him out, and took a rib out. He then created a woman. Again with the naming. Adam doesn't name her Eve until 3:20, after they eat the forbidden fruit.
This particular bit (life from a rib) has confused many a person. A frightening amount of people believe that to this day, men have one less rib than women. Don't believe me? Go to a church; but preferably Protestant. They seem to be more gullible for some reason. Fundamentalists are especially good for this. Ask them how many ribs men have, and then women. I highly doubt you'll get an exact answer (hint: 24), but they'll very likely proudly claim that men have one less than women, due to the Bible. This is the 21st century. And there are educated people believing myths such as this? Scary.
So, here we have these doublets, that seem to differ on a few key points. If, as the Fundamentalists claim, Moses is the sole author of the Pentateuch, (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) why would there be multiple stories in the first place; differing or not? And why would there be many more examples of this? There are too many to write here, so I will direct you to this website, which does a much better job of it than I could. Basically, there are multiple versions of the same story repeated throughout the Pentateuch (and The Gospels, as was shown earlier), often times in the very same chapter. A logical explanation for this is given on the linked website: multiple authorship. Oral stories passed down from generation to generation, which were recorded every now and then, with the usual and expected errors. A more detailed explanation, showing the first several chapters of Genesis by authorship, is available here.
The same things are repeated ad infinitum throughout the rest of scripture. Multiple conflicting accounts of the same story, chronological errors, and above all of it, a markedtemperamentaltal and malevolent god.
The final argument that's pulled out is "America is a Christian nation. Just look at our Founding Fathers." I agree, just look at them. George Washington? Deist. John Adams? Christian, sort of. He denied that there was a hell, and actually thought the world would be better off with no religion at all. Furthermore, his administration ratified the Treaty of Tripoli, which states in Article XI that "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." What about Benjamin Franklin? Also a Deist. Thomas Jefferson? Again, a Deist. This stalwart bastion of supposed goodness is the same who had many an adulterous relationship (but then, so did Franklin), many with his slaves. Christian nation? I think not.
So, what's my explanation for all of this? People have a desire to feel loved. They want to believe that life has a purpose, and meaning. Early civilization had no means of deducing why the bright light in the sky went away and came back daily, so they decided it must be a god. It didn't seem to pay much attention to their sacrifices or prayers, but then, it hadn't killed them, so they must be doing something right. A select few appointed themselves Holy Ones, and lorded over everyone else, and leading a generally opulent lifestyle. As time progressed, and man started to understand the world, the religious leaders saw their power slipping away from them, so they started creating myths and stories about the various gods, their power, and what happened if you didn't do as you were told. And it worked. Since everything seemed to be still going peachy keen, so long as the sacrifices were made, they'd keep on doing it. Thus was born modern religion. Jump ahead to today, and it's still going on, and just as violently. We have religious leaders calling for the assasination of heads of state (and then denying it), governments who are claiming to be run under God's leadership while committing atrocities (guess it fits the Old Testament God, anyway), and churches who control their members with horror stories of eternal damnation for those who don't follow their legalistic rules. It's still the same. Nothing has changed.
Sources:
Infidels.org
Religioustolerance.org
Godlessgeeks.com
The Holy Bible
posted by Stephonovich at
19:39
2 Comments:
Read every word... it's brilliant
By
that girl, at 26 October, 2005 20:03
Well, there goes my ego through the roof. I'll have to get back to you on the whole toe licking thing, though.
But yes, please, do quote. A reference/acknowledgement at some point is appreciated, but yes, quote away.
By
Stephonovich, at 27 October, 2005 00:12
Post a Comment
<< Home