While (blasphemous modern "art") and Church-bashing documentaries are frustrating, there is something that is more offensive still. That much of the media in the U.S. and Europe are politically liberal is a given. What is becoming increasingly alarming is the anti-Christian slant with which they present the news and its growing influence on some Americans...
This manipulation of public opinion is at work as we speak. Is the practice of infanticide called abortion a political hot potato? If so, it's (reported as) the fault of the followers of Jesus, and not those who actually take innocent life. Are diseases like AIDS killing thousands? Don't look to those who encourage sexual licentiousness; (they) blame the Catholic Church for not handing out condoms in Africa. Terrorism? (It's reported as) merely payback for Christian-American repression and/or the Crusades.
But could this disinformation policy practically affect the thinking of the huge majority of Americans who claim to worship Jesus Christ? Too much of the public seems to be acting out these nefarious ideas, the worst of which is the doctrine that people must keep their faith -- the Christian one only, thank you -- out of public life lest they be considered religious fanatics. After all, everyone knows that "more people have been killed as a result of religious wars" than any other, right?
The 20th century was the bloodiest, most savage epoch in recorded human history, yet little of the carnage was a direct result of religious pursuits; quite the opposite. Most of the regimes responsible for the deaths of untold millions were those that discarded Christianity in favor of the State. The extent of suffering in the service of Communism, Socialism and Nazism was unprecedented; as was that of those who opposed them.
Our constitutional republic, with its safeguarding of religious liberty and God-given rights, is one of the only forms of government that can stand in the doorway of such ferocity. As we presently see, there are certain religions whose tenets are totally incompatible with protecting those rights for all. Our Christian heritage -- tempered by the experiences of our European forefathers -- paradoxically guarantees the rights of others to disparage its Founder with impunity.
But this does not mean we must accede to their irrational fears and hatred for those whose charity toward them springs from the heart of Jesus Christ. As history has painfully demonstrated, less Christianity leads to more violence and hate, while true adherence to the Gospel can only bring the peace and love of which liberals so fondly speak.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Return of the King-Bashing
Molten Thought points to an American Spectator article about a dangerous trend:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Nevertheless, let us be thankful for our many, often unnoticed, blessings. All too many non Christians take the opportunity to bash Christianity, especially this week of Easter/ Passover, to bash our beliefs. Beliefs which have added over the years to everyone's freedoms.
Happy Easter to you~!
true, we should be thankful. for now we are still blessed with safety from physical persecution, unlike in some other countries where believers are still actually being martyred.
After reading through your blog and being simultaneously amused and befuddled by how ignorant you are about both science and reason, I'm even more thankful America is becoming more and more secular.
The worst thing that could ever happen to this country is for it to become a theocracy. Even as a Christian, you must see why this is true.
Please, believe what you want, do good deeds and be kind. Don't hate anyone else or attempt to take away their freedom to practice their own religions or none at all. Don't support laws that take away the freedom of others (as in banning gay marriage) because such laws conflict with your beliefs. The Bible condones both slavery and murder, yet we understand those are not principles to be used in modern society.
Our government, military and media must all be devoid of religion, Christian, Muslim or otherwise. That is the only way to maintain a democracy.
After reading your comment and being simultaneously amused and befuddled by how ignorant you are about both religion and reason, I'm amazed that you don't realize that atheism, liberalism, and secularism ARE religions, and precisely as faith-based as any other -ism in the world.
True, a bad thing that could ever happen to this country is for it to become a theocracy, but it would be worse if it became unmoored from its founding principles. Even as an atheist, you must see why this is true.
I do not hate anyone else or attempt to take away their freedom to practice their own religions or none at all. I simply ask the same courtesy that you demand of us. Perhaps the hatred is merely projection on your part.
The Bible does not in fact condone slavery and murder. It *mentions* both of these things as behaviours to be avoided due to the horrible effects they have on both societies and individuals. The same may be said of homosexuality, gluttony, pride, hatred, witchcraft, and many others. Perhaps you would realize this if you had in fact read the book, instead of taking it on *faith* that it said such things.
And concerning your quote of "Our government, military and media must all be devoid of religion, Christian, Muslim or otherwise." - that really sounds like you're forcing your beliefs on others. Wouldn't you consider that hypocrisy, the cardinal sin of the liberal faith?
Listen, I do not hate you; I do not pity you, and I respect your beliefs. I am an atheist, but I believe your mythology has a great deal of merit, and the lessons one can learn from the stories in the Bible have value.
I also realize that all other mythologies, both currently practiced and long dead, are equal in merit.
After all, aren't we both atheists when it comes to Zeus?
Anyway, you made the assumption in your last comment I only have a passing understanding of the Bible. I understand why you would think this, but the truth of the matter is I have a deep understanding of your religious text both historically and metaphorically. I have read every sentence dozens of times. I'll get to that later.
Like most atheists, I think Jesus was a nifty guy. Most of what he taught, if heeded, would make for a beautiful and meaningful society. It's too bad most Christians don't follow his teachings and get so caught up in the Old Testament.
Also, when I think of Jesus, I understand he may never have existed. The historians of the day, who mentioned a lot of people who are far less interesting, say nothing about him. Only Josephus writes anything, and it's only a paragraph or two. All that is written about Jesus was written down a long time after his death by people who had agendas. Then, those words were translated through many languages and assembled haphazardly by a group of men who you trust knew precisely what to include and what not in the final book.
I mean, the Gospel of Thomas is far more interesting than the other Gospels, yet they did not include it in the version of the Bible most American Christians use as a guide to their religion. This fact alone must irk you.
Anyway, what I'm saying is - I dig Jesus. But, I know I am smarter than he was at this point, more experienced in life and, in the end, have learned all there is to learn from his teachings. I am going to move on and read from someone else, though I often go back to his words and contemplate them.
You see, the Bible was written 2,000 years ago by people even dumber than we are today. The Old Testament is just a book of law for a group of desert people who had no concept of the Earth beyond their tiny portion of land. The new testament is basically a revision of these laws because someone came along who told these dirty, ignorant people there was a better way to live their lives.
Personally, I have no desire to live my life in accordance with some ancient tribe.
The document was relevant to them, but it not relevant to us. Their mythology is not good enough for our times. We deserve a new mythology. After all, what else do you read and use to guide your path from that era. What do you read from the 1400s or the 1800s for that matter? Why choose the Bible over the writings of Kant or Nietzsche? Look at the television shows of the '80s, they're terrible - and you want to live your life by a set of rules written down to help govern a group of ignorant desert wanderers 2,000 years ago?
We look back on Zeus, Athena and Ares and see their stories for what they were - stories to help understand the universal human experience. You and I are both atheists when it comes to the stories of Icarus and The Trojan Horse. Yet, we both agree there is some historical evidence for some of the stories of the Greeks, but all of the stories about people in the clouds, miracles and gods having children with mortals are mythological.
The difference is you do not make the same distinction for Yahweh, Gabriel and Jesus or the story of the flood or the plagues or the withering of the fig tree. I do.
OK, enough of that. Let me address your other assumptions.
1. I suppose one could see liberalism as a religion, and I've met people who are so concerned with telling the world they are an atheist, so obnoxious in their attempt to convert others to their way of thinking, that one could see parallels between their behavior and a deeply religious person. But, atheism itself by definition cannot be a religion. Yet, there are certain religions, like Buddhism, which in a broad sense could be considered an atheist religion because there are no gods to worship. But, my version of atheism - not believing in anything other than the mortal world - is not faith-based.
A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, generally held by a community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
Atheists have no codified set of beliefs or practices, nor do true atheists take anything on faith alone. I don't believe anything without evidence.
Liberals, yes, they do have a set of codified beliefs and practices, and they do take a lot of things on faith. But, no, atheists do not. I mean, a-theist, it means devoid of theism. But, as I said, an atheist can still be religious. Non believing in one or many gods does not necessitate a non-belief in other mystical things. (I don't believe in mystical things, but some atheists do)
2. This nation was not founded on Christian principles. The following quote is from George Washington Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli:
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, -- as it has in itself no character or enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, -- and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
That was written in 1796.
This is from Benjamin Franklin's autobiography, page 66 to be exact:
"My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself"
He was not an atheist, but he hated religious people of the day.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1781:
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
The founding fathers were like the rest of us. Some were deeply religious, some were not. But, they agreed no government should be tainted by it.
3. The Bible doesn't just say homosexuality is wrong, it says you should go ahead and kill gay men when you find them (Leviticus 20:13). Then again, the Bible also advocates killing rape victims (Deuteronomy 22:23-24) and the death penalty for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14).
Exodus 20:17 says you shouldn't desire or steal other people's slaves. Exodus 21:20 says you can beat your slave, but don't kill them because they are worth a lot of money. Exodus 21:1-4 says you have to let your slave go after six years of service, but if you bought him a wife you get to keep her and all the children. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 says during a war you can take enemy women and enslave them against their will for sexual purposes.
I could go on and on. The point is, when slavery was abolished in America it was done despite the prevailing religious beliefs of the day, not because of them.
4. I don't have any desire to force my beliefs on you or people in the institutions I mentioned (government, military, media). I do, however, expect those institutions themselves to be devoid of religion. The people who work in those institutions can believe what they want. But, the institutions must not operate by any agenda other than the good of the people. I would expect a homosexual pagan journalist to be fair and objective just as much as a fundamentalist Christian. I would expect the president to make decisions based on laws and our system of checks and balances, not his faith. Also, I am not a liberal.
Anonymous, I will admit that you are the first commentor on this blog to dissent strongly here with any glimmer of thought behind their non-belief. The few others that had merely spouted off their talking points, and gave no more response when they were refuted than perhaps an "f*** you" in parting. I assumed you were among them due in part to your choice of pseudonym. Certainly none of the others gave any evidence of actually reading the Bible they so obviously hated.
First, I will agree with your following statements:
"It's too bad most Christians don't follow (Jesus') teachings and get so caught up in the Old Testament."
"Personally, I have no desire to live my life in accordance with some ancient tribe."
"Look at the television shows of the '80s, they're terrible." ;)
Second, re "...I believe your mythology has a great deal of merit, and the lessons one can learn from the stories in the Bible have value. I also realize that all other mythologies, both currently practiced and long dead, are equal in merit.": It's one thing to recognize their merits, but are they truly all equal? Take any few mythologies listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mythologies , add the mythologies of darwinism, communism, capitalism, socialism, objectivism, humanism, and scientism (you can even throw in Tolkien's and the Cthulu mythos if you like). Even a cursory comparison would show their inequality, unless you believe all of their merits to be zero. What then is your basis for judging between them? (not a rhetorical question.)
Third, re "...the Gospel of Thomas is far more interesting than the other Gospels, yet they did not include it in the version of the Bible most American Christians use as a guide to their religion. This fact alone must irk you.": a) I'm not irked. b) Why do you find it more interesting? c) You are against those who had agendas in assembling the Bible. As part of the gnostic religion, would not the writer of this book have had an agenda as well? Its modern promoters obviously do.
Fourth, re "the Bible was written 2,000 years ago by people even dumber than we are today. The Old Testament is just a book of law for a group of desert people..." : (Ignoring the oversimplification of 2,000 years) how then did this "ignorant folk" create the basis of one of the most successful and enduring belief systems known in the world? The mythologies of the Old Testament contemporaries such as Egypt and Babylonia are long dead as actual belief systems. There are only a few living mythologies which can claim any similar longevity.
Fifth, re "But, atheism itself by definition cannot be a religion... my version of atheism - not believing in anything other than the mortal world - is not faith-based... I don't believe anything without evidence.": I won't argue semantics over the definition of the word "religion", but I will point out that atheism requires faith. Even if you are utterly objective in all your decisions (which, since you are human seems doubtful, but you seem more objective than most), you are still relying on your own senses and your own brainpower. Will you continue in that faith when it fails due to disease, drunkenness, or senility? You also seem to put faith in the "rules of logic" - aren't those also merely sets of rules written by men with an agenda? Call it atheism or objectivism if you wish; they're still -isms that require faith.
Sixth, re the founding fathers: There are many documents written by many men with many opinions of what roles religion and Judeo-Christian values play in government. You have cherry-picked a few against it, I could cherry-pick a few for it, that would merely prove that the founders disagreed on some points. (I also disagree with your claim that "when slavery was abolished in America it was done despite the prevailing religious beliefs of the day, not because of them" for similar reasons.) However, the portions they did agree on and establish in the founding documents of our country a) do in fact prohibit the establishment of a state religion, which was a direct response to the Church of England, and b) do in fact enshrine many of the core Judeo-Christian values, not the least of which is the sanctity of life. I readily agree that there should not be a state religion, because (to paraphrase a comment on socialized medicine) "I've seen government housing, government transportation, and government health care, so I have no interest in government religion". But to unmoor the government from its underlying Judeo-Christian values would be a serious mistake.
Seventh, re "Their mythology is not good enough for our times. We deserve a new mythology.": If all you want are entertaining stories, visit the fiction section of Barnes & Noble (just kidding - I know that's not what you meant). However, most new mythologies have really bad track records (ex. the death toll and suffering inflicted by communist countries, and the debasement of human behaviour under the beliefs of darwinism) or don't ring thoroughly true. And if you propose a new mythology based on your own experiences and logic, what possible reason would I or any one else have for believing it? My experience and logic tell me otherwise; my experience and logic tell me there is an intelligence that caused the universe; should I cast that aside in faith that your view is true? My experience and logic tell me that if the atheism you propose were adopted, there would be no basis for any good action in the world. According to your rules, everyone should be free to follow their own experience and logic. So it follows that Jeffrey Dahmer, Billy Graham, Attila the Hun, Mother Teresa, Josef Stalin, Pope John Paul II, Charles Manson, Confucius, Pol Pot, and the paperboy should be allowed to follow their own experience and logic and not be bound to "old mythologies". Everywhere I see that men follow their own experience and (ill) logic, there you will find the worst suffering, even in the minor instance of the suffering caused by drunk driving. And what benefit would you claim there is for doing good deeds? How can you even define "good deeds" without an outside basis? Stalin and Manson defined their "good deeds" in their own way, but look at the results. I've heard that in his own mind Jeffrey Dahmer was trying to do good by "making friends" in his own twisted way. Somehow all of this doesn't really "ring true" to me.
Due to length and content, I will not comment here on each specific issue you presented about particular Old Testament laws. In summary of those I will say: 1) As I said before, slavery (also divorce, plus a few others) was not *promoted* in that culture but *tolerated*. 2) Rules concerning these tolerated behaviors were put in place so that they didn't get even worse. (Something like our current laws on alcohol). 3) There is a distinction between killing and murder which many people miss. 4) You made a couple of errors in the reading of some restrictions in Deuteronomy. If you are interested I can address them all in a separate comment, but there is little point if you are going to just dismiss it all as "old mythology".
I'm very busy, but I will address your points in full later.
Before I run out the door, I wanted to address one thing specifically. You don't disbelieve in an ultimate creator out of faith; you use logic.
If a superintelligent superbeing created the universe, then it is reasonable to assume the creator is more complex than the universe is. Thus, this creator must also have a creator, for nothing so complex could just pop into existence - right? If it could, then you wouldn't need a creator to create and fine tune the universe because it also could just pop into existence. So, each complex creation necessitates another more complex creation ad infinitum.
So, there you go. The concept of a single superbeing ruling creation is absurd in a mathematical, purely logical sense. If this one thing is incorrect...
Actually there's some of both faith and logic in that belief, but I haven't made myself beholden entirely to either of them.
However, if I had put my faith into logic, your argument would be rather convincing. It certainly works to refute most other deities , such as Zeus, Odin, Gaia, Baal, etc. But then you added the last two words - "ad infinitum" - which points to the solution: an infinite god. This is a drastically shorter list, including the God of the Hebrews, and perhaps a couple of others like Brahma, Ahura Mazda, or Allah. And given the observable facts about the exquisite design in everything that we can see from the subatomic to the intergalactic scale, it is far easier to believe that it was created by an infinity than from absolute nothingness.
Math and logic have a tough time dealing with infinity.
Ah, yes.
The concept of the infinite, the source, the unity of all existence is the ultimate state of being for the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Shinto and many others.
So, if we agree the Christian version of God makes more sense this way, we have to ask ourselves why doesn't the Bible describe it so? Instead, we get a single entity who has emotions, commandments and a voice - a single entity who has a gender and demands sacrifice.
I've met many Christians who reconcile this by assuming God of the Bible should just be interpreted in these terms. But, that's my point. If you interpret away the certain words of the Bible to match other ways of looking at the world, you must be willing to do the same with all of it.
For me, the Bible is a book of metaphors and mythological stories meant to help people understand the process of being human and the experience of existence. There are a few historical tidbits, but nothing accurate. There are some laws, but those were for a different time and culture.
When I meet people who see this book as a sacred text to be taken literally or even to be heeded as a book of spiritual law, it makes me wonder if they've truly read the thing.
OK, gotta run. I appreciate your civility. This is a conversation more atheists and Christians should have.
OK, here are responses to your propositions in the last lengthy post.
1. -
2. Darwinism, communism, capitalism, socialism, objectivism, humanism, and scientism are all isms, not mythologies.
As isms, they are sets of ideals. The theory of evolution and Darwinism are not the same thing. Darwinism is a set of beliefs and ideals spawned from the research of Darwin. Like any dogma, it is subject to human agendas and flaws and should be criticize as such.The dogma does not reflect poorly on the source, kind of like Jesus and the current state of the Catholic church.
All the other isms are similarly rooted in source material that has merit, but the organizations and institutions based on each of them have serious flaws.
But, as a mythology, yes, I see Christianity as inferior in many ways to others - the separation from nature being one of the most pressing problems. Most other mythologies put humans as equals with all other living things. Christianity, Judiasm and Islam all put humans on a pedestal. Also Christianity places heavy empasis on males as the center of attention and the dominant sex. Most other religions see woman as the source of life and head of our humanity, but Chrisitanity takes the power away from teh mother and gives it to the son and the father. Sure, Mary is exalted, but she isn't a deity. But, in the end, yes, I see all mythologies as serving the same purpose - to connect all of us together and help explain the mysteries of existence.
3. If we assume the Gospel of Thomas is true, it makes it clear that Jesus was simply a very nifty mortal who was trying to elevated the consciousness of a group of primitive herders.
Also, Thomas suggests anyone could be like Jesus. I don't mean act like Jesus, but be precisely as he was - transcendant. Most Christians believe Christ was the ultimate and thus unreachable, but Thomas suggests Christ had simply reached a level anyone could if they wanted to. So, he's wasn't unique, just highly-evolved.
In Thomas v.70, Jesus says, "If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not bring it forth, what you do not have within you will kill you."
Anyway, the Council of Nicea removed it because some of the info contradicts the other Gospels (not that they don't already contradict in places) and to ease bickering among the sects, they nixed it. I don't know about you, but if I were basing my whole life on a single text, I would want the uncensored and unabridged version.
For my money, when you read Thomas you suddenly realize how terribly the other Gospels quoted him. It's the old whisper a secret and let it pass around the circle phenomenon.
But, that's just my interpretation. So, as with all of this stuff, make up your own mind. Don't trust anyone with an agenda - including councils, priests, apostles and so on.
4. The longevity is not based on the merit of the message, but the meanderings of Kings, Emperors and other politicians. Hinduism is far older, as are many other faiths. Of course, the concept of hell helps motivate people. Oh, and Christians aggresively proselytize.
5. No, no, no. Faith is believing without evidence. Logic is the exact opposite. Two plus two is always four - no faith required. I don't need faith to trust in math or logic. Science is based on everything but faith.
Sure my senses are limited, I don't see electromagnetic fields or protons. So my assumptions are also limited. I must use faith in a lot of situations, but when it comes to an afterlife, the theory of evolution, gravity and so on - no, I will not depend on faith. I mean, there is as much evidence for unicorns and dragons as there are for angels and demons.
One of the things I keep seeing in a lot of Christian diatribes is the sense people must have "faith" in science just as much as one has to have "faith" in various parts of Christianity.
There is a clear distinction. Science is willing to correct itself, to abandon principles in light of new information. Remember the theory of gravity is still just a theory. The theory of evolution is still just a theory. Even though both of these principles are accepted by scientists and rational people as being the most likely explanation, they still reserve the right to abandon these explanations should something more plausible appear.
Christianity doesn't allow for this. When they uncovered the Gospel of Judas, no one was willing to add it to the Bible. When archaelogy and biology point to the impossibility of the story of Noah and his Ark, people still interpret it literally.
6. Agreed. But, the Bible does not say slavery is bad.
7. This is a big one.
If you base your morality out of fear of being punished, then you have no morality. If you chew gum in class because you fear detention, you aren't against the idea.
I have a clear sense of right and wrong. Ethics in general appear across all cultures regardless of their beliefs systems. I don't need a book or a deity to tell me murder and rape are wrong. Empathy and compassion exist in the most basic of primates.
Yet, there is a certian moral relativism in the world. Some cultures mutilate their young girls, some kill in the name of honor. Slavery, the Inquisition, the Holocaust and so on - these are mass acts that defy a modern sense of right on wrong.
For me, I see right and wrong are animal concepts, and the source is evolved behaviors emanating from social animals that depend on the group for survival. Insects and jellyfish don't care about ethics.
But, if the only thing holding you back from killing or raping is your belief in a higher power's wrath, I'm inclined to belief you have no morality, only a sense of self-preservation.
8. Look, my point is that you can find justification for just about anything within the Bible. Plus, there are 2,000 or so years of history, science and technology unaccounted for.
Some choice contradictions:
A: God is merciful and good - no he isn't
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
B: Joseph is the son of Joseph - Joseph is the son of Heli
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
C: Solomon had 4,000 stalls - Solomon had 40,000 stalls
KI 1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
CH 2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
D: Jesus' first sermon was where?
Matt. 5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."
Luke 6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."
E: Jesus' last words
Matt. 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
Luke 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
John 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
F: Satan or God?
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.
I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel.
G: Does God tempt or doesn't he?
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)
The point is, with hundreds of passages contradicting each other, not all of it can be true. Some of it is wrong, and if any of it is wrong, it can't be taken literally. Either Judas hanged himself or he burst into flame, one or the other. I'm not going to life my life in accordance with a book chocked full of factual inaccuracies because the more important stuff - the stuff about what is a sin and what constitutes God and an afterlife - is just as prone to such inaccuracies.
These errors point to the fallibility of man, and an absence of a divine hand guiding to construction of the text. So, many things of merit are left out, and many things not worth our time have been left in. Things have been misquoted, mistranslated, made up, added to and so on.
For me, that makes the Bible just another book, not a divine tome. Jesus was just a guy with some good ideas, not a demigod. Yahweh was just another mythological deity like Zeus, Baal and Krishna. The Jews were just a tribe, not a chosen people – and so on. Much of it is worth reading, worth contemplating. But, none of it is worth blindly accepting.
What truly matters is my life and how I live it. The lack of an afterlife adds much more meaning to my time on Earth. The lack of a god and a set of rules make my own decisions and choices far more meaningful. The ephemeral quality of my mortality makes my choice of love, life and friendship far more potent. How I treat others in this chaos of existence is now charged with meaning.
This, I submit to you, is how most atheists operate.
The concepts of one god being both infinite and personal may be hard to understand, but they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. If the God of the Bible is infinite (i.e. powerful enough to speak creation into being) and loving (a concept found throughout both testaments), would He not know that the frail finite beings He made would not be able to fully comprehend Him, especially after Adam's fall? Would he not be able to deal with mankind in a way they could understand, using man's language and concepts, and eventually taking human form? Could He could not act in ways that are simultaneously literal and figurative? Perhaps the best way to show us His power was to part the seas, to wither a fig tree, to turn water into wine, etc. For Him to speak directly would be something like Einstein lecturing to a flea.
No human (being fallen and finite) can understand fully the nature of God. Every one of us misunderstands Him on many points, and many don't even try at all to understand. It is an easy out to cite examples (of which there are many in all beliefs) of hypocrisy as a condemnation of the core belief. This is why church scandals are so 'delicious' to non-believers. They think that one person who has fallen is proof that there is nothing to stand on. Of course it does nothing of the sort. Would you say that the field of medicine is faulty due to one doctor's malpractice, or that the rules of logic are faulty because one of its practicioners resorted to faith during an argument?
Another key "paradox" that seems to bother you as it has many before (myself included) is the apparent difference between the Old and New Testaments. The Old is filled with the laws, the sacrifices, many examples of people who completely didn't understand, and some people who barely began to understand. The Old is explaining mankind's fallenness and God's justice. The New begins with the fulfillment of the law and the sacrifices - Jesus Christ - and continues with further clearer instructions on how we are to love God and man. The New is explaining mankind's hope and God's love. If we only read the Old testament, we would give up in despair, or perhaps become legalists like the pharisees. If we only read the New testament, we could easily start to believe that we are worthy of this love, that warm fuzzy "I'm okay, you're okay", which is certainly not the case. So the Old and New work together to paint a more complete picture of the nature of God - love in both justice and mercy.
p.s. As to your concerns about the protection of gays and the abolition of slavery, there are worse places in the world than America today. Slavery still exists in Africa, young girls are being captured and sold into the Asian prostitution industry, and homosexuals, adulterers, and rape victims are being stoned to death throughout the Islamic world. America's refusal to endorse gay marriage sort of pales in comparison, doesn't it?
sorry about the timing, i guess we were both writing at the same time. that response was for your earlier comment, i'll read your next comment later.
Let's pause for a second.
One question, which is not sarcastic as it may sound - What is your goal in continuing these comments?
a) You aren't going to convince me to abandon my faith by bringing up points that I have already heard and considered. Likewise I doubt I can personally convince you to abandon yours if you have already honestly considered my objections.
b) If you are one of those people who likes to argue for argument's sake, or prove your logical prowess, move on. I concede, you won the sophistry tournament, whatever. You could probably beat me at chess too.
c) If after that, you're still really interested in what I have to say, may I make a suggestion? We're covering a lot of topics at the same time. (Maybe that was my fault by having eight overlapping responses to your four.) May I set up a couple of new posts to have their own comment threads?
I think I've said my peace.
My only goal was to bring you to a place where you understood how atheists operate and why.
I have no desire to damage your faith. If it enrches your life - cool. But, please, encourage others like yourself not to influence government out of a need to spread your religious convictions. I'll agree to do the same with regard to my view of all things spiritual.
Enjoy your life.
I will admit you have made more rational arguments for atheism than anyone else I've met. What I had heard from other atheists was either an illogical hating-God-for-not-existing vibe or a hating-God-for-allowing-pain argument, both presented in a rather obnoxious manner. But the faith granted to me has already enriched my life enough for words to make me deny it.
Post a Comment