As we hear more and more about the effects of the horrible disaster in Haiti, we hear with it, "Our prayers go out to the Haitians in this time of need."
Save your breath. Find a picture of a mother holding her lifeless baby in her arms, tears streaming down her face, and you'll realize there's no God to pray to.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Friday, December 25, 2009
Oil and Water? More like Faith and Paul.
Many have argued against a benevolent, just God. Their question is simple: how can a benevolent, just God allow pain and suffering? Why do bad things happen to seemingly decent people? Those that believe in such a God claim that He granted us all with free will. Because we choose to act in opposition to God’s will (this is called sin), evil is present in the world. To banish evil would be to take away our free will, and in the same breath, the ability to have faith. It is precisely on this point that God (and more precisely, Jesus) is so easily attacked. We need only invoke the story of St. Paul and other founding Christians, though he is the most important and case sensitive. Now, I personally believe that Paul was completely delusional, but a believing Christian has to accept that Jesus appeared to Paul on his way to Damascus.
What business did Paul have in Damascus, by the way? The answer: the persecution and murder of Christians. Come again? Yes. Paul was going to Damascus to persecute Christian believers, and on his way, Jesus appeared to him to say something on the order of, “Hey, you better cut that shit out, because I’m the real deal. Now, go write the New Testament.”
How many Christians “struggle with their faith?” Honestly, what Christian can say that they have never doubted their God? “Let he who has never doubted throw the first stone.” All Christian believers have doubted. All have questioned. They might be ashamed to admit it, but they have, and we all know it.
I’ll pose another question: what Christian would deny the opportunity to have Jesus appear to them? “Let he who would choose not to see Jesus in person – in the flesh - as undeniable proof of his resurrection and presence in the world throw the first stone.”
Maybe a Christian choosing to play – quite ironically – the Devil’s Advocate would say that he or she would refuse a personal visit from Jesus, but I don’t think I’m going out on a limb when I suggest that almost all Christians would dine with Jesus if He was buying. Surely such an encounter would cast aside all doubt. Anyone privileged enough to have the experience of a personal house call from Jesus Christ would know, really and truly know, that He is the resurrected Son of God. No more questioning. No more … faith.
And there’s the rub. The Bible says that you can only come to God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, but what of arguably the most famous Christian of all time – author, no less, of the vast majority of its founding text? Of him, no such thing was required. After all, once you’ve seen Jesus in person, what room is there for faith?
Returning to the original point, this – in my opinion – calls into question the benevolence and justness of Jesus more than anything else. When we consider the faith that is required of His modern day followers and compare it to the circumstances of the Christians of the Bible, we are faced with a very important question: did ANY of the Christians in the Bible actually have faith? More precisely, did they need it? Jesus appeared – according to Paul – to more than 500 people shortly after his resurrection. Is it not safe to say that there simply wasn’t any logical space for faith to reside in any of these people who saw Jesus in person after it was confirmed that he died? Some of these men may have considered the possibility that they were under a delusion, but once the hundreds of others began coming forward with their stories, I think all would agree: we’ve seen Jesus and that man is alive. And so, is it not then reasonable to call into the question the goodness and fairness of a God who requires that you come to Him purely by faith (I will define faith as a lack of any concrete physical evidence) when He required nothing of the sort from someone like Paul who – unlike many modern Christians who struggle with their faith – wasn’t even attempting to become a believer, but rather, was on his way to massacre Christians?
The next time I’m on my way to commit a sin and Jesus appears to me, I’ll be sure to get my act together and start going to church. Until then, I won’t be bothered to “have faith” in someone who clearly had no problem stripping away the faith and free will of hundreds of His early followers – or in Paul’s case, His outright dissenters. No thanks.
What business did Paul have in Damascus, by the way? The answer: the persecution and murder of Christians. Come again? Yes. Paul was going to Damascus to persecute Christian believers, and on his way, Jesus appeared to him to say something on the order of, “Hey, you better cut that shit out, because I’m the real deal. Now, go write the New Testament.”
How many Christians “struggle with their faith?” Honestly, what Christian can say that they have never doubted their God? “Let he who has never doubted throw the first stone.” All Christian believers have doubted. All have questioned. They might be ashamed to admit it, but they have, and we all know it.
I’ll pose another question: what Christian would deny the opportunity to have Jesus appear to them? “Let he who would choose not to see Jesus in person – in the flesh - as undeniable proof of his resurrection and presence in the world throw the first stone.”
Maybe a Christian choosing to play – quite ironically – the Devil’s Advocate would say that he or she would refuse a personal visit from Jesus, but I don’t think I’m going out on a limb when I suggest that almost all Christians would dine with Jesus if He was buying. Surely such an encounter would cast aside all doubt. Anyone privileged enough to have the experience of a personal house call from Jesus Christ would know, really and truly know, that He is the resurrected Son of God. No more questioning. No more … faith.
And there’s the rub. The Bible says that you can only come to God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, but what of arguably the most famous Christian of all time – author, no less, of the vast majority of its founding text? Of him, no such thing was required. After all, once you’ve seen Jesus in person, what room is there for faith?
Returning to the original point, this – in my opinion – calls into question the benevolence and justness of Jesus more than anything else. When we consider the faith that is required of His modern day followers and compare it to the circumstances of the Christians of the Bible, we are faced with a very important question: did ANY of the Christians in the Bible actually have faith? More precisely, did they need it? Jesus appeared – according to Paul – to more than 500 people shortly after his resurrection. Is it not safe to say that there simply wasn’t any logical space for faith to reside in any of these people who saw Jesus in person after it was confirmed that he died? Some of these men may have considered the possibility that they were under a delusion, but once the hundreds of others began coming forward with their stories, I think all would agree: we’ve seen Jesus and that man is alive. And so, is it not then reasonable to call into the question the goodness and fairness of a God who requires that you come to Him purely by faith (I will define faith as a lack of any concrete physical evidence) when He required nothing of the sort from someone like Paul who – unlike many modern Christians who struggle with their faith – wasn’t even attempting to become a believer, but rather, was on his way to massacre Christians?
The next time I’m on my way to commit a sin and Jesus appears to me, I’ll be sure to get my act together and start going to church. Until then, I won’t be bothered to “have faith” in someone who clearly had no problem stripping away the faith and free will of hundreds of His early followers – or in Paul’s case, His outright dissenters. No thanks.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
It's that time of year again ... the holiday season. And I've never felt quite so unsure about life. If you'll refer to my post, "If you're kissing this boy ...," I would argue that it all started there. To make a long story short, religious differences was just one of a few reasons why I broke it off with a girl that I had began to date - and maybe not even the biggest reason. Perhaps the biggest problem was one of loneliness and/or depression. The last few times we hung out together, I felt this stinging loneliness or isolation - even though she was sitting RIGHT THERE beside me. It was a most awful sensation, something I'd experienced only mildly a couple of other times in my life. But this time, it stuck around, and it even started to infect other areas of my life. As an example, my best friend came to visit me for a weekend, and I felt that same sense of isolation/withdrawal around him. Of course, this got me to questioning my decision to break up with this girl. After all, if I was feeling the same way around a great friend, maybe this had nothing to do with the girl and everything to do with a mental problem that I am currently going through.
Mental agony ensued - some of which I'm still experiencing today. It was in these moments that I got back up on the fence of religious belief (didn't mention this in the original telling of the story). I asked God if he was trying to show me something. I prayed - and while there were some selfish undertones (I wanted to be mentally stable) - I tried to be as selfless as possible, asking God to show me what he wanted me to see, direct me, reveal his plan to me. I even started reading the Bible looking for answers. After 2 or 3 weeks of this, I realized it only made things worse. I didn't expect to get all the answers to life in a couple weeks, but I at least thought that I would gain some sense of calm or feel even a slight relief. But instead, it got worse. It was a despair I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy.
A few months later, I'm still struggling on and trying my best to move forward, but that little voice in my head always asks, "Toward what end?" The "what's the point?" kind of questions are constantly lurking. These are the kinds of questions that tend to lead one to pondering the existence of a god, but if there's one thing I learned, I could not find comfort there. And when I pose this point to a believer, they often say that God doesn't have to prove himself to you. He doesn't have to answer your prayers. And I say ... yes he most certainly does. Maybe God did give us "free will," but he didn't give us a choice on whether to exist or not. I was born into this world without my consent. I didn't have any say in the matter. And now I'm charged to get to know God, who most believers would claim has absolutely no obligation to prove that he exists or stand up to any tests of reason or questioning.
I don't know where I'm going to find meaning, but I'm going to find it. And I'm quite certain I'm not going to find it in religion. 6 months ago, I was a very happy, care-free person. The "girl situation" that I've touched on certainly kicked off this difficult period in my life, though I don't think it was the only contributor. I've learned a lot about myself over these past several months - the most important of which is that for some reason, I can't give up.
Mental agony ensued - some of which I'm still experiencing today. It was in these moments that I got back up on the fence of religious belief (didn't mention this in the original telling of the story). I asked God if he was trying to show me something. I prayed - and while there were some selfish undertones (I wanted to be mentally stable) - I tried to be as selfless as possible, asking God to show me what he wanted me to see, direct me, reveal his plan to me. I even started reading the Bible looking for answers. After 2 or 3 weeks of this, I realized it only made things worse. I didn't expect to get all the answers to life in a couple weeks, but I at least thought that I would gain some sense of calm or feel even a slight relief. But instead, it got worse. It was a despair I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy.
A few months later, I'm still struggling on and trying my best to move forward, but that little voice in my head always asks, "Toward what end?" The "what's the point?" kind of questions are constantly lurking. These are the kinds of questions that tend to lead one to pondering the existence of a god, but if there's one thing I learned, I could not find comfort there. And when I pose this point to a believer, they often say that God doesn't have to prove himself to you. He doesn't have to answer your prayers. And I say ... yes he most certainly does. Maybe God did give us "free will," but he didn't give us a choice on whether to exist or not. I was born into this world without my consent. I didn't have any say in the matter. And now I'm charged to get to know God, who most believers would claim has absolutely no obligation to prove that he exists or stand up to any tests of reason or questioning.
I don't know where I'm going to find meaning, but I'm going to find it. And I'm quite certain I'm not going to find it in religion. 6 months ago, I was a very happy, care-free person. The "girl situation" that I've touched on certainly kicked off this difficult period in my life, though I don't think it was the only contributor. I've learned a lot about myself over these past several months - the most important of which is that for some reason, I can't give up.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
God in autopilot.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
As you might have guessed, I don't subscribe to the creation story in Genesis, but for the fun of it, let's assume that Genesis 1:1 is true. I suppose the first implication is that God always existed. This - in and of itself - is a tough concept to grasp. It means that God lived forever and THEN decided to create the heavens and the earth ... and us. Many Christians claim that this is not a valid point to make, because "God resides outside of space and time," but this seems - to me - to be an entirely meaningless statement. Why? Because our minds can't possibly comprehend something that does not take up space and time. "Exactly! We can't comprehend God! His ways are higher than ours!" So you can't comprehend God's ways, but yet you claim to know His will and speak to him through prayer? God resides outside of space and time, yet he can intervene and effect things that happen within space and time? Whatever you say. I digress ...
Now, before God created anything, he could have created anything. That is to say he didn't have to create this universe. He didn't have to create life, and in particular, human life. More specifically, he didn't have to create a human race that he knew full well would rebel against him (since He is omniscient, he had to have known this by definition) and then exact justice against the rebels. Yes, that's right. God had a choice. Or did He? To say that God had or made a choice would mean that He considered the infinite number of possible creations, and then, picked one. Assuming the creation he chose was not arbitrary, it means that God had to have a reason for creating our universe and no other. But if God had a reason for why he created the universe, to whom did he appeal to? In other words, when you or I make a choice, we consider all possible options, and for some reason, we pick one over the others. Maybe that reason is that one option would result in the most amount of joy. But to make such a choice, we have to appeal to some standard of joy - a standard that likely developed over the whole course of our lives as we - through our experiences - learn what we like and don't like. So, returning to my question, to what standard would God have appealed to when he chose this creation over all the others? Since God is the be-all, end-all, He is the standard and by definition, cannot appeal to a higher standard, or rather, an external standard.
To put it another way, if God chose this creation for any particular reason, then He had to have appealed to a standard outside Himself, which, by the definition of God, is not possible. I conclude, therefore, that God had no choice. He had to create this universe ... And that, to me, sounds like Spinoza's God: a God that is everything. God is nature.
As I ponder these questions, I start to feel bad for God if He has a concious. Imagine how lonely he must have been all that time. And to think that there is really nothing he could ever do about it, because let's face it, no matter what he creates, he knows it came from him, so he already knows everything about it. Nothing can surprise God. Or to put it another way, life is full of surprises, but not for God.
As you might have guessed, I don't subscribe to the creation story in Genesis, but for the fun of it, let's assume that Genesis 1:1 is true. I suppose the first implication is that God always existed. This - in and of itself - is a tough concept to grasp. It means that God lived forever and THEN decided to create the heavens and the earth ... and us. Many Christians claim that this is not a valid point to make, because "God resides outside of space and time," but this seems - to me - to be an entirely meaningless statement. Why? Because our minds can't possibly comprehend something that does not take up space and time. "Exactly! We can't comprehend God! His ways are higher than ours!" So you can't comprehend God's ways, but yet you claim to know His will and speak to him through prayer? God resides outside of space and time, yet he can intervene and effect things that happen within space and time? Whatever you say. I digress ...
Now, before God created anything, he could have created anything. That is to say he didn't have to create this universe. He didn't have to create life, and in particular, human life. More specifically, he didn't have to create a human race that he knew full well would rebel against him (since He is omniscient, he had to have known this by definition) and then exact justice against the rebels. Yes, that's right. God had a choice. Or did He? To say that God had or made a choice would mean that He considered the infinite number of possible creations, and then, picked one. Assuming the creation he chose was not arbitrary, it means that God had to have a reason for creating our universe and no other. But if God had a reason for why he created the universe, to whom did he appeal to? In other words, when you or I make a choice, we consider all possible options, and for some reason, we pick one over the others. Maybe that reason is that one option would result in the most amount of joy. But to make such a choice, we have to appeal to some standard of joy - a standard that likely developed over the whole course of our lives as we - through our experiences - learn what we like and don't like. So, returning to my question, to what standard would God have appealed to when he chose this creation over all the others? Since God is the be-all, end-all, He is the standard and by definition, cannot appeal to a higher standard, or rather, an external standard.
To put it another way, if God chose this creation for any particular reason, then He had to have appealed to a standard outside Himself, which, by the definition of God, is not possible. I conclude, therefore, that God had no choice. He had to create this universe ... And that, to me, sounds like Spinoza's God: a God that is everything. God is nature.
As I ponder these questions, I start to feel bad for God if He has a concious. Imagine how lonely he must have been all that time. And to think that there is really nothing he could ever do about it, because let's face it, no matter what he creates, he knows it came from him, so he already knows everything about it. Nothing can surprise God. Or to put it another way, life is full of surprises, but not for God.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
We know better than that.
In Exodus 21, god "lays down the law" for the Israelites, and it's pretty horrific to say the very least ...
Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Do these sound like the commands of a good moral law giver? How do you reconcile such commands with the all-loving father-figure picture of god that Christians try to paint (read all of Exodus 21 - I dare say it gets even more absurd)? The answers to these troubling questions become a great deal less troubling when we make a simple assumption ... The bible was written by men and was in no way divinely inspired. Think about it. Men had slaves. They probably derived some sick sense of empowerment or pleasure from beating the living shit out of these slaves, so they wrote down that it is god's law that they shouldn't be punished for such behavior lest they literally beat a slave to death. Thall shall not kill, after all.
We know better than that.
I hear religious people say all the time that "we are created equally by god." NO WE ARE NOT. First of all, some children are born mentally retarded or physically deformed while many are not. But more than that, where a person is born - either geographically or socioeconomically speaking - has a huge impact on his or her ability to live a good life.
And consider this. There is not ONE verse in the bible that suggests that all human beings have a certain set of rights and liberties. It angers me when Christians take the words of a great secular thinker and put them in the mouth of their god. God did not say that all people have inalienable rights - among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thomas Jefferson said that. God was too busy instructing people how hard to beat their slaves and commanding the death by stoning of a man found to be picking up sticks on the sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36).
We know better than that.
And don't let Christians tell you that the god of the Old Testament is the angry god and Jesus brought peace and love and "changed the game" so to speak. I will say a few points on this matter. First, at least in god's case, after he was done slaughtering you and your family and pillaging your land and dividing up your virgins among his chosen people (Numbers 30:15-17), he was done with you. You were dead. As leading atheist, Christopher Hitchens, puts it so well, "Not until gentle Jesus, meek and mild, comes along" are we taught of the eternal fires of hell. Isn't that a little hypocritical of Jesus? He commands us to love our enemies, but if you're his enemy, you burn in hell for all eternity?
And slavery is still preached in the New Testament. There are many examples, but check out Colossians 3:22-25. These verses instruct slaves to obey their masters "in everything." Why? Because as verse 24 reminds us, it is Christ you are serving. So not only does Jesus think slavery is ok, but he "smooths it over" by substituting himself for a slave's earthly master. As an interesting aside, these commands address slaves directly, but I highly doubt slaves could read in the 2nd century (yet more proof that the bible was written by stupid men). Further, in Luke 12:47-48, Jesus says that a slave who knowingly disobeys his master should receive more lashes than a slave who unknowingly disobeys his master. Granted, it is in the form of a parable, but I think Jesus - the all-loving guy that he is - could have come up with a more morally tasteful setting for his story. If you ask me, using the treatment of slaves as a teaching example means that you think slavery is a natural, acceptable part of humanity.
We know better than that.
Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Do these sound like the commands of a good moral law giver? How do you reconcile such commands with the all-loving father-figure picture of god that Christians try to paint (read all of Exodus 21 - I dare say it gets even more absurd)? The answers to these troubling questions become a great deal less troubling when we make a simple assumption ... The bible was written by men and was in no way divinely inspired. Think about it. Men had slaves. They probably derived some sick sense of empowerment or pleasure from beating the living shit out of these slaves, so they wrote down that it is god's law that they shouldn't be punished for such behavior lest they literally beat a slave to death. Thall shall not kill, after all.
We know better than that.
I hear religious people say all the time that "we are created equally by god." NO WE ARE NOT. First of all, some children are born mentally retarded or physically deformed while many are not. But more than that, where a person is born - either geographically or socioeconomically speaking - has a huge impact on his or her ability to live a good life.
And consider this. There is not ONE verse in the bible that suggests that all human beings have a certain set of rights and liberties. It angers me when Christians take the words of a great secular thinker and put them in the mouth of their god. God did not say that all people have inalienable rights - among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thomas Jefferson said that. God was too busy instructing people how hard to beat their slaves and commanding the death by stoning of a man found to be picking up sticks on the sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36).
We know better than that.
And don't let Christians tell you that the god of the Old Testament is the angry god and Jesus brought peace and love and "changed the game" so to speak. I will say a few points on this matter. First, at least in god's case, after he was done slaughtering you and your family and pillaging your land and dividing up your virgins among his chosen people (Numbers 30:15-17), he was done with you. You were dead. As leading atheist, Christopher Hitchens, puts it so well, "Not until gentle Jesus, meek and mild, comes along" are we taught of the eternal fires of hell. Isn't that a little hypocritical of Jesus? He commands us to love our enemies, but if you're his enemy, you burn in hell for all eternity?
And slavery is still preached in the New Testament. There are many examples, but check out Colossians 3:22-25. These verses instruct slaves to obey their masters "in everything." Why? Because as verse 24 reminds us, it is Christ you are serving. So not only does Jesus think slavery is ok, but he "smooths it over" by substituting himself for a slave's earthly master. As an interesting aside, these commands address slaves directly, but I highly doubt slaves could read in the 2nd century (yet more proof that the bible was written by stupid men). Further, in Luke 12:47-48, Jesus says that a slave who knowingly disobeys his master should receive more lashes than a slave who unknowingly disobeys his master. Granted, it is in the form of a parable, but I think Jesus - the all-loving guy that he is - could have come up with a more morally tasteful setting for his story. If you ask me, using the treatment of slaves as a teaching example means that you think slavery is a natural, acceptable part of humanity.
We know better than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
