As a general rule of logic, any investigation conducted by someone who intentionally limits their results to only one outcome is fundamentally flawed and biased. After many months of thought I have slowly been concluding that religious apologetics perpetually exercises this logical flaw in their research, and it makes me question its validity. Let me expand:
Because of the nature of the apologetic argument – because of the infinite and perfect nature of the source of that perspective (God is right, period) – the only option one has is to be correct. If any evidence is ever discovered that would prove untrue any of said religious doctrine, it must be immediately rejected as untrue because the answer is immoveable. When all evidence absolutely and necessarily MUST coincide with one theory, there is a permanent bias on the entire investigation and it should be completely discredited. If one discovers contradictory evidence while working under this bias, they cannot explore it and its possible different outcomes; however they have no choice but to selectively overlook it, falsify it, or otherwise regard it as false. If one does accept such contradictory evidence to be true, it risks altering the immaculate nature of the immoveable answer, which undermines the entire concept of religion.
Until apologetics accept that their research can possibly have another outcome other than proving the unquestionable truth of their doctrine, than they are not doing true research. A true investigation waits to make its final decision until all possible evidence is collected, and then makes an unbiased conclusion as to where that evidence points. One must accept the answer of their research even if they despise it. One must be prepared to be proven wrong. And even after that point, any new investigations at any time have the possibility of revising the conclusions of the old, if new and provable evidence is discovered. This is never the case for religious apologetics of any kind, as they are beginning from their pre-established answer and selectively finding evidence to uphold it (whether deliberately, unconsciously, or by any other means).
I'm not saying that every apologetic argument is untrue, nor that any scientific evidence that may coincide with a religious doctrine is false. In fact apologetics has some very interesting and rational arguments to support their claims. I'm just pointing out the logical fallacy perpetually performed by any investigation where one already has a predetermined outcome, specifically in this example of religious apologetics.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
A surprise present that I couldn't see
Yesterday I gave my car to my girlfriend Alison so she could be free to drive around and not be stuck at home all day (it was her birthday, so she wanted to be able to do fun things of her own while I was at work). Which means in the morning she drove me to work and dropped me off, then did her thing all day, then picked me up at the end of the day and took me home. On the drive home, she said she had a present for me. Considering it wasn't my birthday — it was hers — I was a little confused.
So we get to my house and as I'm unlocking the front door, she says "Ok now close your eyes!" And I'm thinking that she must have gone out Christmas shopping and some of the stuff was for me, still sitting exposed and naked of wrapping paper on the living room floor. So I chuckled a little and obliged, and she led me into the house like Ray Charles onto the stage.
I stood there waiting, continuously reassuring her that I wasn't cheating and did in fact have my eyes closed. She scooted me back inch by inch until I felt the couch behind my legs, and I helplessly plopped down onto it. Then she said "Ok, open your eyes!" And I did. I immediately looked to the floor in front of me, expecting some interesting gift to be waiting my joyous discovery. Nothing. I looked around the room — the old-school giant TV of the non-flat-screen variety was still sitting there on its wooden cabinet. The Christmas tree was new, but we had put that up together the day before, so nothing surprising about it. I looked under the tree, and there was something new — a lot more needles than there were the night before, probably not the great surprise she was preparing me for. I looked on the walls, and the same artwork that I painted myself still hung there. Uhhh...
I looked to my right, and saw the throw blanket that's usually draped across the couch was this time rolled up into a neat little roll at the end of the couch... THE COUCH! The couch was new! Holy crap, I was sitting on a lovely espresso brown microfiber cushion that belonged to a long sectional couch. She told me she finally found a great couch on craigslist and had picked it up that day. The thing was in brand new condition, and apparently she paid $50 for it, and that's what she had used the car for that day. I hadn't seen my new surprise because I was sitting on it. Duh.
Sitting here this morning thinking about that comical moment, a funny analogy came to mind. There's so much in this world that we'll never see or even be aware of, because we're sitting in the middle of it. Living our entire lives trapped inside the mushy neuron marshmallow we call our brain and piloting our bodies through two eyeballs is so limiting, and we will NEVER be able to truly step away from it and look at it from a different perspective. It just makes me realize how much we don't know about the nature of life and the universe.
So I think all speculations about such things, whether they come from science or religion, are welcome as long as you maintain an open mind that you don't know everything. Because if you can't see the plush cushions of destiny, or the warm velvety fringe of string theory, or the soft fluffy throw pillows of God, it's because you're already sitting on them.
So we get to my house and as I'm unlocking the front door, she says "Ok now close your eyes!" And I'm thinking that she must have gone out Christmas shopping and some of the stuff was for me, still sitting exposed and naked of wrapping paper on the living room floor. So I chuckled a little and obliged, and she led me into the house like Ray Charles onto the stage.
I stood there waiting, continuously reassuring her that I wasn't cheating and did in fact have my eyes closed. She scooted me back inch by inch until I felt the couch behind my legs, and I helplessly plopped down onto it. Then she said "Ok, open your eyes!" And I did. I immediately looked to the floor in front of me, expecting some interesting gift to be waiting my joyous discovery. Nothing. I looked around the room — the old-school giant TV of the non-flat-screen variety was still sitting there on its wooden cabinet. The Christmas tree was new, but we had put that up together the day before, so nothing surprising about it. I looked under the tree, and there was something new — a lot more needles than there were the night before, probably not the great surprise she was preparing me for. I looked on the walls, and the same artwork that I painted myself still hung there. Uhhh...
I looked to my right, and saw the throw blanket that's usually draped across the couch was this time rolled up into a neat little roll at the end of the couch... THE COUCH! The couch was new! Holy crap, I was sitting on a lovely espresso brown microfiber cushion that belonged to a long sectional couch. She told me she finally found a great couch on craigslist and had picked it up that day. The thing was in brand new condition, and apparently she paid $50 for it, and that's what she had used the car for that day. I hadn't seen my new surprise because I was sitting on it. Duh.
Sitting here this morning thinking about that comical moment, a funny analogy came to mind. There's so much in this world that we'll never see or even be aware of, because we're sitting in the middle of it. Living our entire lives trapped inside the mushy neuron marshmallow we call our brain and piloting our bodies through two eyeballs is so limiting, and we will NEVER be able to truly step away from it and look at it from a different perspective. It just makes me realize how much we don't know about the nature of life and the universe.
So I think all speculations about such things, whether they come from science or religion, are welcome as long as you maintain an open mind that you don't know everything. Because if you can't see the plush cushions of destiny, or the warm velvety fringe of string theory, or the soft fluffy throw pillows of God, it's because you're already sitting on them.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Near Death Experiences
In my journey for the divine, I'm trying to get as close to the source as possible. When seeking religion, the closest you can get to evidence is usually ancient texts, artifacts, and traditions whose definite origins can be rather questionable. I keep thinking, isn't there anyone or anything around TODAY that could be used as direct evidence of a divine nature to the universe? It's frustrating that no human alive today will ever have these answers until after they're dead. But then you can't come back and tell people what you've found out. Unless of course you died and were brought back to life.
Near Death Experiences (or NDEs) have become more common than ever in the past several decades as resuscitation technologies have improved. More people than ever are crossing the line of death for a short period of time, are brought back to life, and are telling about their experiences. A personal story about an NDE came to my mind recently (which I'll tell later), and since then I've been doing some research on the subject, and it's completely fascinating. I feel like it's the most profound information we can possibly get about any kind of spiritual nature of life, because there are people who seem to be directly experiencing it.
It seems there are many physicians out there trying to make this into an objective science, however due to the nature of this subject, this science tends to cross over into spiritual themes, accompanied by many of the typical feel-good loving tones of discussion. Dr. Raymond Moody and Dr. Jeffrey Long are two of the prominent names I've heard so far. They've collected thousands of NDE stories and documented the circumstances surrounding each event, such as the person's physical situation at the time of death, their demographic position, religious background, etc. Dr. Long has compiled his NDE stories on his website, www.nderf.org. The design of this site is pretty shoddy, but the point is to provide an input for people to share their NDE stories.
What I find very interesting is that it seems no matter what country, religion, age, or cause of death, the NDEs seem to be very similar. A 3-year-old Hindu child in India could have an experience very similar to a Catholic Priest in the US. Here are several similar traits that seem to be shared throughout NDE accounts as a whole:
• A sense of being dead, but not being necessarily bothered by it. A feeling of peace and painlessness.
• An out-of-body experience, often times seeing their own body during resuscitation efforts. In many cases, accurate recounts of details of these resuscitation efforts are described and later verified as correct, having been observed when the person was unconscious or clinically dead.
• A tunnel experience (the sense of moving up or through a narrow passageway), often times with a brilliant light at the end, brighter than any light on earth, yet painless to look at. Accompanied by feelings of intense love and joy.
• Encountering other beings or deceased loved ones with great welcoming and joy
• A sense of finally being "home"
• Encountering a "Being of Light", a "force", God, or a similar figure
• Being given a "life review" of every moment of their life, even from birth. Many times this review includes experiencing the emotions of the people they affected with their actions.
• No sense of time
• An awareness of infinite knowledge at their disposal. None or very of little of this knowledge is allowed to be retained upon returning to their body.
• A choice to return to their body, or message that it's time to return, most often met with reluctance to return. A sense that they still have work to be done or things to be learned on Earth.
• An understanding of the idea that humans' main purpose on Earth is to love each other.
• The experience may also involve after effects, such as: personality transformation, loss of the fear of death, greater spiritualism, and greater ecological sensitivity. These people are generally less materialistic and more interested in relationships with people.
Not everyone has all of these experiences, and they vary quite a bit, but they account for the general thread of NDEs as a whole.
Regarding the religious aspect of a person's NDE, these same experiences seem to be interpreted through the religious beliefs of that which they're most familiar with. IE, a Christian (or someone who grew up in a Christian society) will be in "heaven" and see "Jesus", a Hindu will see "Brahman", and so forth. And an unaffiliated person or an atheist has generic descriptive names for all their events, however they will still sense one main God at center of the experience. Which is interesting - no matter what background you are, there seems to be one God at the center of everything. And incidentally it seems to be very rare for an atheist to have a dramatic NDE and remain an atheist.
I think this entire phenomenon is incredibly profound and transcends our current ideas of religion – or at least updates them. Perhaps ancient peoples had these experiences and described them as best they could, and over tens of thousands of years these primitive peoples evolved into the religious history we currently know. But regardless of what any ancient book says, people today seem to be directly experiencing a spiritual side of our universe that we only fully become a part of after our body dies. And these experiences do somewhat match up with current religious beliefs, but not entirely. Honestly I'd rather take the word of thousands of first-hand witnesses of the divine than the word of texts that are thousands of years old and corrupted by the mind of man. It makes me consider the definite possibility that there is one God at the center of all life, and that our true purpose during this life is to love each other. That's the gist of most modern religions anyway, just without all the extra hullabaloo.
Near Death Experiences (or NDEs) have become more common than ever in the past several decades as resuscitation technologies have improved. More people than ever are crossing the line of death for a short period of time, are brought back to life, and are telling about their experiences. A personal story about an NDE came to my mind recently (which I'll tell later), and since then I've been doing some research on the subject, and it's completely fascinating. I feel like it's the most profound information we can possibly get about any kind of spiritual nature of life, because there are people who seem to be directly experiencing it.
It seems there are many physicians out there trying to make this into an objective science, however due to the nature of this subject, this science tends to cross over into spiritual themes, accompanied by many of the typical feel-good loving tones of discussion. Dr. Raymond Moody and Dr. Jeffrey Long are two of the prominent names I've heard so far. They've collected thousands of NDE stories and documented the circumstances surrounding each event, such as the person's physical situation at the time of death, their demographic position, religious background, etc. Dr. Long has compiled his NDE stories on his website, www.nderf.org. The design of this site is pretty shoddy, but the point is to provide an input for people to share their NDE stories.
What I find very interesting is that it seems no matter what country, religion, age, or cause of death, the NDEs seem to be very similar. A 3-year-old Hindu child in India could have an experience very similar to a Catholic Priest in the US. Here are several similar traits that seem to be shared throughout NDE accounts as a whole:
• A sense of being dead, but not being necessarily bothered by it. A feeling of peace and painlessness.
• An out-of-body experience, often times seeing their own body during resuscitation efforts. In many cases, accurate recounts of details of these resuscitation efforts are described and later verified as correct, having been observed when the person was unconscious or clinically dead.
• A tunnel experience (the sense of moving up or through a narrow passageway), often times with a brilliant light at the end, brighter than any light on earth, yet painless to look at. Accompanied by feelings of intense love and joy.
• Encountering other beings or deceased loved ones with great welcoming and joy
• A sense of finally being "home"
• Encountering a "Being of Light", a "force", God, or a similar figure
• Being given a "life review" of every moment of their life, even from birth. Many times this review includes experiencing the emotions of the people they affected with their actions.
• No sense of time
• An awareness of infinite knowledge at their disposal. None or very of little of this knowledge is allowed to be retained upon returning to their body.
• A choice to return to their body, or message that it's time to return, most often met with reluctance to return. A sense that they still have work to be done or things to be learned on Earth.
• An understanding of the idea that humans' main purpose on Earth is to love each other.
• The experience may also involve after effects, such as: personality transformation, loss of the fear of death, greater spiritualism, and greater ecological sensitivity. These people are generally less materialistic and more interested in relationships with people.
Not everyone has all of these experiences, and they vary quite a bit, but they account for the general thread of NDEs as a whole.
Regarding the religious aspect of a person's NDE, these same experiences seem to be interpreted through the religious beliefs of that which they're most familiar with. IE, a Christian (or someone who grew up in a Christian society) will be in "heaven" and see "Jesus", a Hindu will see "Brahman", and so forth. And an unaffiliated person or an atheist has generic descriptive names for all their events, however they will still sense one main God at center of the experience. Which is interesting - no matter what background you are, there seems to be one God at the center of everything. And incidentally it seems to be very rare for an atheist to have a dramatic NDE and remain an atheist.
I think this entire phenomenon is incredibly profound and transcends our current ideas of religion – or at least updates them. Perhaps ancient peoples had these experiences and described them as best they could, and over tens of thousands of years these primitive peoples evolved into the religious history we currently know. But regardless of what any ancient book says, people today seem to be directly experiencing a spiritual side of our universe that we only fully become a part of after our body dies. And these experiences do somewhat match up with current religious beliefs, but not entirely. Honestly I'd rather take the word of thousands of first-hand witnesses of the divine than the word of texts that are thousands of years old and corrupted by the mind of man. It makes me consider the definite possibility that there is one God at the center of all life, and that our true purpose during this life is to love each other. That's the gist of most modern religions anyway, just without all the extra hullabaloo.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
What I believe
I acknowledge that science doesn't have all the answers. However every day it discovers, rigorously tests, and deploys new ideas into our world – that's science by its very nature. And there are currently things written in the bible that are vastly different than what science has answered correctly, and with proof, since the bible was written. In fact, it seems the more time passes and technology improves, and the more people unearth treasures buried in the literal sands of time, our findings contradict more and more what the bible teaches about the nature of the world, life on earth, and universe – not the other way around. The trend seems to show more each year that the bible is mythological literature, a series of writings by a very superstitious people trying to explain the world around them, writing laws to govern their actions based on their current culture, without any true knowledge of how the earth and universe works or was created. It's a beautiful piece of literature filled with great philosophies and lessons that we can all learn from, but it's also brimming with a dark and barbaric past that seems to get overlooked quite a bit (or justified and theologized into some laughable sense of sound moral behavior).
I also think the bible is a wonderful piece of historical fiction, some parts having real people and real places documenting real events, just with quite a bit of superstitious material added in. Other parts I believe contain completely fantasized characters in made-up environments, though done quite beautifully.
I also believe that the faith and religion it teaches is an amalgamation and adaptation of other ancient religions that already existed in the region. I think this gradual evolution of the faith happened even as the bible was being written, as the Hebrews made their way around Mesopotamia and mingled with so many cultures. I also believe that modern day Christians still evolve the faith of the bible to fit their own needs on a personal and daily basis, to suit their current and subtle belief changes as their life unfolds for them – many of these beliefs directly contradicting specific instructions in the bible. And many Christians acknowledge these personal interpretations as contradictory from the bible, yet seem to selectively theologize their way into putting their beliefs in the right, rather than doing what they've been specifically instructed to.
The bible has too many contradictions, errors, inaccurate statements and beliefs, and a history wrought with edits and revisions made by anyone from scribes to kings, either on accident or with the intent to uphold a theological or political agenda.
It is for these reasons that I cannot accept the bible as truth. I must say I'm rather disappointed. I genuinely began this deliberate search almost two years ago hoping to find a reason for faith, but the more questions I asked and research I did, and when I actually read the freakin' book, the more I found reasons to reject it.
Regarding the character of Jesus, I have decided that I don't believe in Jesus for many of the same reasons I don't believe in Santa Claus:
They support a very nice and pleasant idea that brings hope and happiness to millions, but the supernatural nature of their stories makes it seem more like archaic legend than fact.
They're probably based loosely on a real historical person, but at this point the character, their claims, and their abilities have been so far exaggerated that they don't even resemble the original.
They're both very useful in getting people to do good and right things in the name of a special reward, and to avoid a punishment.
There is no physical evidence of their existence other than documents which were written through heresay, and that were changed and edited an uncountable number of times for personal agendas or to further embellish the story.
I'm still not sure why every educated adult acknowledges the fantasy nature of the legend of Santa Claus, and anyone who were to truly believe it as fact would be thought the acme of foolishness. But those same adults are adamant about accepting the legends, mythology, and superstitions of Jesus as fact.
I will say that many of the teachings of Jesus are very relevant to good human relationships. Some are downright stinging in their cleverness and poignancy. But it also proves that regular humans can be just as clever and witty in their philosophies, since many of the most famous teachings, actions, and words of Jesus were actually written by humans and inserted into the bible centuries after these "eyewitness accounts" were written.
So for anyone who lives their life around the teachings of the Bible and God and Jesus, I can support your decisions and your beliefs, because who am I to tell someone what they can or can't believe. But I can no longer attempt to participate in them or believe them myself. This being said, I do not consider myself an atheist, because I think there is also not sufficient evidence to prove the absence of any kind of higher/god-like life forms in our universe. Plus I have experienced things myself and have heard stories from people I know and trust that indicate there may be a level of existence that goes beyond our physical world. But using the bible to accurately describe this spiritual world has proven unacceptable to me. And the bible doesn't seem to be learning anything new anytime soon. I do believe that science will continue to discover new things that may lead us to a religious-like understanding of our world. After all, "magic is merely science unexplained."
I also think the bible is a wonderful piece of historical fiction, some parts having real people and real places documenting real events, just with quite a bit of superstitious material added in. Other parts I believe contain completely fantasized characters in made-up environments, though done quite beautifully.
I also believe that the faith and religion it teaches is an amalgamation and adaptation of other ancient religions that already existed in the region. I think this gradual evolution of the faith happened even as the bible was being written, as the Hebrews made their way around Mesopotamia and mingled with so many cultures. I also believe that modern day Christians still evolve the faith of the bible to fit their own needs on a personal and daily basis, to suit their current and subtle belief changes as their life unfolds for them – many of these beliefs directly contradicting specific instructions in the bible. And many Christians acknowledge these personal interpretations as contradictory from the bible, yet seem to selectively theologize their way into putting their beliefs in the right, rather than doing what they've been specifically instructed to.
The bible has too many contradictions, errors, inaccurate statements and beliefs, and a history wrought with edits and revisions made by anyone from scribes to kings, either on accident or with the intent to uphold a theological or political agenda.
It is for these reasons that I cannot accept the bible as truth. I must say I'm rather disappointed. I genuinely began this deliberate search almost two years ago hoping to find a reason for faith, but the more questions I asked and research I did, and when I actually read the freakin' book, the more I found reasons to reject it.
Regarding the character of Jesus, I have decided that I don't believe in Jesus for many of the same reasons I don't believe in Santa Claus:
They support a very nice and pleasant idea that brings hope and happiness to millions, but the supernatural nature of their stories makes it seem more like archaic legend than fact.
They're probably based loosely on a real historical person, but at this point the character, their claims, and their abilities have been so far exaggerated that they don't even resemble the original.
They're both very useful in getting people to do good and right things in the name of a special reward, and to avoid a punishment.
There is no physical evidence of their existence other than documents which were written through heresay, and that were changed and edited an uncountable number of times for personal agendas or to further embellish the story.
I'm still not sure why every educated adult acknowledges the fantasy nature of the legend of Santa Claus, and anyone who were to truly believe it as fact would be thought the acme of foolishness. But those same adults are adamant about accepting the legends, mythology, and superstitions of Jesus as fact.
I will say that many of the teachings of Jesus are very relevant to good human relationships. Some are downright stinging in their cleverness and poignancy. But it also proves that regular humans can be just as clever and witty in their philosophies, since many of the most famous teachings, actions, and words of Jesus were actually written by humans and inserted into the bible centuries after these "eyewitness accounts" were written.
So for anyone who lives their life around the teachings of the Bible and God and Jesus, I can support your decisions and your beliefs, because who am I to tell someone what they can or can't believe. But I can no longer attempt to participate in them or believe them myself. This being said, I do not consider myself an atheist, because I think there is also not sufficient evidence to prove the absence of any kind of higher/god-like life forms in our universe. Plus I have experienced things myself and have heard stories from people I know and trust that indicate there may be a level of existence that goes beyond our physical world. But using the bible to accurately describe this spiritual world has proven unacceptable to me. And the bible doesn't seem to be learning anything new anytime soon. I do believe that science will continue to discover new things that may lead us to a religious-like understanding of our world. After all, "magic is merely science unexplained."
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
The New Testament ain't what it used to be
As I've been studying the history of the actual book of the bible, I've come across some interesting information about the history of the New Testament with regard to a field called "textual criticism." This involves examining the differences that evolved over time as these texts were copied over and over again throughout the centuries. Here's in a nutshell some things I've found out:Before anything was even written down in the New Testament, it was spread by word of mouth for 30-50 years after the alleged events of Jesus. Unlike what I'd thought about the ability to preserve stories spread by oral tradition, these types of stories do inevitably change. And at the time of change, from the perspective of the culture changing it, it's perfectly ok. It's assumed the storyteller, to make the story more engaging, will put their own personal flavor into it, which may include some exaggerations, additions, or omissions. Think about this practice continuing for decades over thousands of miles and countless different storytellers, and it's possible to think that the facts may have changed slightly – or dramatically. The "first-hand eyewitness account" status that the gospels uphold starts to wane quite a bit. In fact, anthropological studies of oral-tradition-based cultures reveal that even the concept of "preserving a story as accurately as possible" is only a product of a written-word society, which the first early Christians certainly were not.
Once the gospels and other books of the NT were finally written down, as early as the end of the 1st century, they were not written in Aramaic as they would have originally happened. They were written in Greek, which means that some of the meaning is already changed due to translation. This can have profound effects on certain stories, which can in turn affect an entire doctrine of the faith. For example: In John chapter 3, when Jesus says that no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again, Nicodemus misunderstands him and thinks he's saying you need to be literally born from the womb again. Jesus corrects him and says he's referring to a heavenly origin rather than an earthly one. The conversation hinges on a double-entendre for the greek work "anothon", which in Greek means both to be "from above" or to "happen a second time". Nicodemus thinks Jesus is referring to the "happen a second time" meaning, which begs him to ask how an older person can possibly crawl back into the womb to be "born again". What's significant about this is that in Aramaic there is no way of replicating that double meaning. This conversation could not have possibly happened in Aramaic, which indicates that it was introduced some time after the first Greek written translation of this gospel. Which means it was added as early as 30-50 years later, or hundreds of years later, we don't know. Which means that Jesus never had this conversation. Considering the importance of the Christian concept of being "born again", this human addition of scripture is quite significant, meaning that entire concept was derived by human beings and not Jesus. It also means that humans invented scripture and claimed them to be actual words of Jesus Christ, and they were not.
Another significant addition to the gospels is the entire story of Jesus rescuing the woman caught in adultery who was about to be stoned to death (John chapter 8). Jesus shows great compassion and wit by saying to the elders, "Let he who is without sin be the first to cast a stone," causing all the elders to leave and the woman's life to be spared. The earliest copies of the gospel of John do not contain this story. It was added about 800 years later, possibly by someone wanting to further illustrate Jesus' compassion. This story is very widely referenced and quoted, but it is a story invented by humans and inserted into the gospel hundreds of years after it allegedly took place – the earliest manuscript that has this story is from the 10th century. Again, actual words that Jesus was alleged to have said were invented by a human and attributed as Jesus' direct quote. This next example is interesting, because most Christians and even most bibles acknowledge that there
was a change made, but no one seems to have a problem with it. The last twelve verses of the book of Mark do not exist in the oldest manuscripts we have of that book. The story ends with the women fleeing Jesus' tomb after a young man in a white robe tells them he's risen and will meet them in Galilee. The next twelve verses describe Jesus appearing to different people, telling his disciples that all who believe in him will drive out demons, speak in foreign languages, harmlessly handle snakes and drink deadly poison, and heal the sick just by touching them, and Jesus' ascent into heaven. Quite an impressive twelve verses, though they were in fact added about 100 years after the original version of Mark was written. Which means that these events are NOT according to the gospel of Mark. They were added by a scribe or priest or king or some unknown person, perhaps wanting to reinforce the circulating resurrection story about Jesus. They also added quotes from Jesus and attributed them to be his words, when they were not. Examples like the above continue innumerably. The New Testament has been changed to an indeterminable amount throughout the centuries as it was carried by word-of-mouth for several decades, and then again as it was hand-copied thousands of times by scribes. There are more variations among all the differing NT manuscripts than there are words in the NT itself. Many of these changes are accidental, some seem quite deliberate, and some are debated. Some changes are insignificant grammatical or spelling errors, and some challenge fundamental Christian doctrines. The point is, these documents cannot be considered first-hand eyewitnesses, nor even remotely close to accurate accounts of these alleged events. They also cannot be considered the inerrant word of God – if God wrote the NT, we're not reading it anymore.
WTF, bible?? My faith in this faith wanes severely, especially after finding out information like this. How on earth would anyone be expected to put their unending faith into doctrine based on writings that have been altered so many times? People quote Jesus all the time when guiding their lives, giving advice to others, writing laws that you and I must follow. But Jesus doesn't seem to have said many of those things, rather they're the brainchild of controlling kings, self-righteous priests, or sly scribes. This book has proven itself to not be the immovable rock that people claim it to be. Why on earth would I surrender my life to such a malleable piece of literature that has more characteristics of folklore and legend than of real historical fact? I'm sadly disappointed to say the least. I've been really hoping to find truth here, but all I'm finding is a faith-based history blasted apart by scientific discovery. And a loving philosophy of piece and mercy with a deliberately ignored undercarriage of bloodshed and intolerance.
W.T.F.
Friday, August 19, 2011
My frustrating search
My history with this search kinda goes like this: I met Alison, she was totally not the kind of preachy Christian that I've encountered, she was very sweet and genuine about it. And it made me want to know more. So I started going to church with her and asking my friends about it, and I discovered that I have a lot of friends who are Christians, and they're all pretty level-headed about it. I didn't run into too many wacky bible thumpers, and it was encouraging. I was actually kinda excited to discover god and find this happiness and peace that so many of my friends seemed to enjoy.
However over the last year and a half, the more I researched the history of the religion and the infallible word of god that is the bible, the more I learned that it is quite different than what I thought. For instance:
I'm learning about all the polytheism that actually exists in the bible and the early Israelites, even with the founding fathers of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How their god was quite possibly the god El, the same god worshipped by the Caananites. And he had a wife called Asherah, and a son named Ba'al. And that god is actually the head of a council of gods, on which he regularly executed judgement, just like he did on people and nations in the bible.
I'm learning how the bible was written, and re-written and edited over the centuries, and how books in the bible were inserted or removed to reconcile the whole text with whatever the current beliefs happened to be. And it seems that the "infallible" word of god is actually a constant editing process that was at the whim of whatever king or bishop happened to strong-arm his point of view at the time.
The more I studied archeology and DNA evidence and such for the history of humankind and the history of life on earth, and the history of the earth and the universe, I discovered that it is very contradictory to what the bible says. Or a lot of what I'm finding out to be proven fact, the bible is either very vague and cryptic, or completely silent.
And now presented with all this new data that people didn't know 2000 years ago (or sometimes even decades ago), it seems more and more christians must practice a constant double-think: the bible is infallible, 100% accurate and all inspired by god; yet some of it is allegorical, but it's a personal decision which parts are literal or allegorical, and that changes depending on what argument is being presented, but all times god is 100% accurate. And the more science discovers things to be different than what the bible says, the more allegorical the bible must become, yet it's still 100% accurate and inspired by god.
And I am generally finding it uninspiring and fallacied when Christian apologetics ignores or re-shapes a lot of this data to fit into their one unchangeable answer: god. It's like they already have the answer, so whatever new data is discovered must be reconciled to fit their answer that can never be wrong, rather than letting the data and evidence determine what the answer could be. I'm not saying there's any 100% empirical evidence to prove god's non-existence or anything like that (in fact I admit there are plenty of things science hasn't proven – yet), but it seems to make Christians squirm to even consider that their infinite solid rock of a god may be a little different than they've always thought, so it gets shut out completely. And that thinking emotionally biases every bit of research they do.
All this stuff kinda makes the religion lose its validity to me. Or at least waters it down considerably. I didn't intend to discover all these things or feel this way at all – quite the contrary. At the beginning I was really looking forward to finding god and allowing myself to be swept up in the emotional experience of being loved by a god and a savior and all that bit. But I just can't do it yet, not with all this contradicting stuff I'm finding. I can't sing the songs and pray the prayers. And I admit I'm kinda disappointed. People keep telling me to just "ask god and see what he says." Well, I am, and these are the answers I keep getting.
So that's where I am.
However over the last year and a half, the more I researched the history of the religion and the infallible word of god that is the bible, the more I learned that it is quite different than what I thought. For instance:
I'm learning about all the polytheism that actually exists in the bible and the early Israelites, even with the founding fathers of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How their god was quite possibly the god El, the same god worshipped by the Caananites. And he had a wife called Asherah, and a son named Ba'al. And that god is actually the head of a council of gods, on which he regularly executed judgement, just like he did on people and nations in the bible.
I'm learning how the bible was written, and re-written and edited over the centuries, and how books in the bible were inserted or removed to reconcile the whole text with whatever the current beliefs happened to be. And it seems that the "infallible" word of god is actually a constant editing process that was at the whim of whatever king or bishop happened to strong-arm his point of view at the time.
The more I studied archeology and DNA evidence and such for the history of humankind and the history of life on earth, and the history of the earth and the universe, I discovered that it is very contradictory to what the bible says. Or a lot of what I'm finding out to be proven fact, the bible is either very vague and cryptic, or completely silent.
And now presented with all this new data that people didn't know 2000 years ago (or sometimes even decades ago), it seems more and more christians must practice a constant double-think: the bible is infallible, 100% accurate and all inspired by god; yet some of it is allegorical, but it's a personal decision which parts are literal or allegorical, and that changes depending on what argument is being presented, but all times god is 100% accurate. And the more science discovers things to be different than what the bible says, the more allegorical the bible must become, yet it's still 100% accurate and inspired by god.
And I am generally finding it uninspiring and fallacied when Christian apologetics ignores or re-shapes a lot of this data to fit into their one unchangeable answer: god. It's like they already have the answer, so whatever new data is discovered must be reconciled to fit their answer that can never be wrong, rather than letting the data and evidence determine what the answer could be. I'm not saying there's any 100% empirical evidence to prove god's non-existence or anything like that (in fact I admit there are plenty of things science hasn't proven – yet), but it seems to make Christians squirm to even consider that their infinite solid rock of a god may be a little different than they've always thought, so it gets shut out completely. And that thinking emotionally biases every bit of research they do.
All this stuff kinda makes the religion lose its validity to me. Or at least waters it down considerably. I didn't intend to discover all these things or feel this way at all – quite the contrary. At the beginning I was really looking forward to finding god and allowing myself to be swept up in the emotional experience of being loved by a god and a savior and all that bit. But I just can't do it yet, not with all this contradicting stuff I'm finding. I can't sing the songs and pray the prayers. And I admit I'm kinda disappointed. People keep telling me to just "ask god and see what he says." Well, I am, and these are the answers I keep getting.
So that's where I am.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Religious survey, with emphasis on Christianity
This blog has always been about me putting out my opinions, ideas, and conclusions for the world to see, which always result in discussions of all kinds. For the first time, the entire goal of this post is to hear from you, without first having to read any of my incessant babbling. Here's a fun and short survey I put together to get a general sense of people's religious background (or at least the people who happen to stumble across my blog anyway). It's totally anonymous. Just one page, with some info on you and your faith, or lack there of.
I will post the results here so we can all compare stats. Should be fun. Please feel free to pass this survey along to anyone who might be interested.
Take the survey now
Thanks for your sharing your input and thoughts in my search for the divine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
