Eat or be eaten

I think about the food chain a lot. I know people who span the entire spectrum of vegan and carnivorous lifestyles. Among political and economic issues, a big concern for vegans and veggies seems to be that they don't want to take the life of an animal for their own eating pleasure. And some carnivores are quite proud of their position at the filet-mignon-eating end of the food chain. However there is still one thing they both have in common: they have to kill if they want to eat. In fact, the same goes for every living organism on the planet. In order for any form of life to survive, it must constantly end the life of other organisms and ingest their bodies.

Even a level-five vegan (you know, someone who doesn't eat anything that casts a shadow) still, at every meal, kills and consumes other living organisms. Theirs just happen to be plants that don't seem to care or fight back. However, ironically enough, plants themselves could technically be considered the most carnivorous of us all. Because what else is good black soil but the massive decomposing graveyard of billions of organisms. Plants could even be said to eat people, if one of them has access to our yummy body as we turn back into soil. They could also be considered cannibals, if you consider the fact that they absorb the remnants of their own fallen flowers and leaves.

I guess I'm not really arguing a point here, just throwing out a perspective on an unavoidable truth: death is an absolute necessity for life to survive. And it's a beautiful thing, because we are a part of that circle. And the tragedy of death is completely relative. If it's your father, you could be devastated. If it's a deer you killed in the woods so your family can eat and survive the freezing winter, you could rejoice. If it's a cute fluffy white bunny rabbit that got torn to pieces and eaten by a pack of ravenous wolves, you could feel sad. But hey, those wolves are rejoicing.

It's safe to say that we humans have more control over when and how we die than any other species of life on this planet, but it's still just cleverly delaying the inevitable of course. And all life is designed at its core to avoid death as long as possible, so let's face it - death is by far the most fearful experience we will ever endure or witness. Most of us are spared the terror of dying in the jaws of another animal, but that's how most of life on this planet gets to spend their last few moments, so we should consider ourselves lucky.

I think the only thing that makes death bearable for some people is the possibilities of where we could end up when we discorporate from this pile of ripe yummy meat. For some, it brings them hope and calm when none can be had. Whether it's true or not, none of us truly know for sure what happens after we die, so I say let people embrace their hope. Because who the hell are we to know death well enough to say they're wrong.

Anyway it's unavoidable. One day you will die. And then you will be eaten. So smile, order up another juicy prime rib, and enjoy your life. And praise Jesus if you want. Or don't.

Why do atheists believe in love?

I think atheism can perhaps go beyond the lack of belief in god. I think it could extend to the disbelief of any supernatural or spiritual force whatsoever that exists outside the provable material universe – karma, fate, the soul, or spiritual detachment from any material matter. The universe is mathematics, end of story. To be an atheist means to be the ultimate materialist. For these atheists I have some questions. Please keep in mind the tone of these questions is not meant to be patronizing in any way. They're 1/2 my own thinking out loud, and 1/2 "devil's advocate" (haha, no pun intended). Humor me:

How can you fall in love?  Why do you even believe in love? To an atheist, love is just the chemical by-product of humans attempting to find a suitable mate with which to reproduce. Cows reproduce too, but they don't write sonnets. Also love extends far beyond just reproduction for survival, as evolution would imply. Once past the point of reproduction, a couple's love can evolve into a complex and difficult beast, and can be beautiful and inspiring as the decades roll on. And I believe homosexual couples are completely capable of falling in love, with no physical way of reproducing at all.

How can you believe in art? After all, a stunning painting is nothing more than light reflecting off a mix of pigments smeared onto a flat surface. Does a provocative film create rivers of tears from an audience all because of an optical illusion of innumerable still images flashing on a blank white screen for two hours?

How can you enjoy music? Thousands of sound vibrations coming from a bunch of metal strings stretched over a hollow piece of wood can't be anything but air molecules bouncing off your eardrum.

How can you have hope in anything? The outcomes of the future are mere statistical probability without purpose.

Why do you care if you ever hurt anyone else? I've heard atheists speak of their moral foundations as sort of a common-sense "moral rules of man". In a nutshell, don't do anything if it's going to hurt anyone else. But everyone's definition of "hurt" varies so greatly that's hardly a common-sense law. Plus, but why do you even care? If you hurt someone, there's nobody to punish you or hold you accountable other than the law that governs your place of residence, and if they don't see you do it, more power to you. Is it because you wouldn't want anyone to hurt you, so hopefully if the law applies to everyone than no one will feel motivated to hurt you?

Where do you find grounds for such a romantic idea as kindness? If the universe began with random chaos, it will end in random chaos. And so will your human life. With no justice or purpose. So why bother trying to justify any acts you do with morality or kindness for your fellow man or for the earth? There is no punishment for any ill act you do, if you are the ultimate definer of justice. And it makes no difference to make the world a better place, because it will all end in uncontrollable chaos anyway.

And forget something as silly as beauty. The reason a man finds a woman beautiful could be a mate-search honed by millions of years of evolved survival instincts. But who gives a shit about a sunset? Sitting on a sandy beach and being enveloped by a burning red and pink sky certainly never helped any species survive being eaten by another. In fact, you'd think it would be a detriment. I don't know why some ravenous animal hasn't developed a camouflage of a beautiful sunset. As some dumb human stops to admire, they get torn apart and gobbled up.

Humans have the ability to transcend these worthless and otherwise chaotic tangible things into a spiritual experience unlike any animal on earth (so far as we know). And it is unlikely that many of these spiritual experiences had any effect on our chances of survival as a developing species. So it seems they may exist for another purpose (or come from another source). For one to admit that they encounter any of these human states can be admitting to experiencing a non-material, non-mathematical facet of our universe. Give me all the formulas you want, but you just can't prove love.

Why focus on Christianity?

During my search for truth, I must admit that I have mainly been investigating and pondering God from a Christian viewpoint. My long-time friend and accomplished atheist Michael Doss pointed this out to me after my last blog post about the Christian apologetics conference I attended. Despite the fact that much of my search is rooted in aspects of a "god in general" (or lack there of), I must admit that Mike is right in my leanings toward Christian research. I think the main reasons for the general Christian perspective of my search are foundation and availability.

Ever since I can remember, the Christian god has been present in the culture surrounding my life. My family is Italian, so we're naturally Catholic, and we attended church regularly until I was about 5 or so. After my parents got divorced about that time, my mom started feeling like the church walls would collapse on her if she returned, so we stopped. Nonetheless, we still celebrated Christmas, complete with references to Jesus' birth. Although in our house it still felt like a pretty secular holiday, my mom still made plenty of Christmas decorations with angels and cute little baby Jesus Christmas cards. I've also had many religious friends throughout my childhood, and if I were to number them, I'd say they were about 80% Christian of some permutation, 15% Jewish, and 5% something else. And the influences of Christianity in current American culture are more pervasive than tweed jackets in the '70s. So the ambient exposure was certainly present.

Currently, I'd say Christianity among my close friends still heavily outweighs any belief system by similar proportions. I think I've been exposed to a few more involved ideas to say the least (including Mormonism, Wicca, Buddhism, and Atheism), however Jesus and the canonical Christian bible are still the pervasive ideas among my peers. That alone doesn't make them true necessarily, just very available.

So why would one commit their life and their eternal soul to something, other than the fact that their mom made adorable Christmas ornaments and their friends are doing it too? I'm discovering that Christianity has a very big differentiating factor: faith based on a foretold historical event, versus mere philosophy or the visions of one charismatic founder.

The one event is of course the execution and resurrection of Jesus, the prophesied Messiah of the Jewish people. Note: this article is not about the provable historicity of that event, I'm just using it as a point if reference for comparison.

Most other religions seem to share one general attribute: they are mainly based on philosophies, traditions, rituals, and sheer faith, and don't seem to rely on even remotely provable (or even implied) historical facts or events. Many of them also seem to have one visionary "founder". This includes Hinduism and most related Eastern religions (Buddhism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, etc); many of the ancient religions of the Celts, Egyptians, Greeks, Aztecs, American Indians, Mayans, Incans, etc; even current sects of Christianity such as Mormonism (and their sole visionary founder Joseph Smith) and Jehovah's Witnesses (sole founder Charles Russell). And I think everyone can agree that Scientologists are just freakin' wackjobs who buy their way into enlightenment.

It is in my personal opinion that the idea of betting your immortal soul on a tangible event allegedly witnessed by thousands, and then recanted under pain of torture and death by countless thousands has more grounds for consideration than one man's dream about the nature of the universe. Especially when the event in question was allegedly foretold hundreds of years before it took place. I'll add that the canonical texts of Christianity have had numerous, unrelated and widely varied authors over huge periods of time.

I feel Atheism is the only other considerable belief system, because it is based on nothing BUT historical events and provable facts. It also has countless contributors and scrutinizers of its texts over vast time periods.

I will still take interest in other major religions, because I'm on a journey for truth in whatever form (plus there is something very artistic I find in many ancient and exotic religions). However Christianity and its antithesis of Atheism will bear the brunt of my research, focus (and scrutiny for that matter).

Apologetics conference

My friend Christine informed me of an apologetics conference at Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa that took place this past Friday/Saturday. Apologetics is sort of the discipline of proving and/or teaching why Christianity is a true and valid way of life. Since I've been on this complicated journey for the last several years, I decided it was right up my alley and I went. I must say it was very engaging.

I won't go into details about all the speakers we saw at the conference, but I will go over a few parts that stuck out in my mind. The first speaker we saw was Stephen Meyer with "Signature in the Cell: Evidence for Design". He was examining cellular and molecular biology for scientific proof of intelligent design. His biggest focus on "intelligent design" vs "naturalistic evolution" was the creation of the very first life – the first living cell in existence. He showed, quite compellingly, that the first cell complete with replicating DNA structures, proteins, functioning RNA, etc, was far too complex to have been brought together by random chance from random elements floating throughout the entire universe, let alone from a primordial soup on ancient earth. He also showed that usable and functioning information must be created by some pre-existing intelligence. For any information available to us today – WE are the pre-existing intelligence that created it. And DNA is ultimately, at its core, a living piece of information with a very specific purpose, which suggests that a pre-existing intelligence created it. And add that DNA and the functions of a living cell are more advanced than any technology humans have ever created. Meyer's presentation used many different scientific and logical approaches, without one quote of scripture.

Another moment that stuck out was during Norman Geisler's talk "If God, Why Evil?". This was a much more philosophical talk of course (and some scripture to boot). No science here, but quite a lot of general logic. One subject he discussed was why pain exists and how it is seen by many as an evil of the world and something that God should eradicate if he truly loves his people. He argued that God allows pain to exist because of this concept: pain is more effective of a teacher and builds more character than any pleasure. He used the example of a study done with people suffering from leprosy. Nerve damage is a common effect of leprosy, and many lose the use of their hands and feet due to repeated injury resulting from lack of sensation. A device was developed and attached to the hands of patients that would deliver a slight electric charge when the hand was about to be injured by something. The electric shock wasn't enough, and patients continued to injure themselves. The shock was increased dramatically (to be quite painful in fact), and it would work only the very first time, until the patients turned down the intensity themselves, to the point where it was no longer effective and they would injure themselves again. He said this proves three points about pain: 1) it has to exist to keep us out of harm; 2) it has to be strong enough to be effective; and 3) it has to be out of our control.

And Lee Strobel spoke about the legal investigation he undertook proving that Jesus Christ was in fact executed to the point of full death, and became alive again and interacted with approximately 515 people. He elaborated on the Romans' efficient ability to ensure death during their brutal executions, and the eyewitnesses who first discovered his tomb empty and later interacted with him. He quoted sources both within and outside of the Bible. I was hoping he would also touch on the historicity of Jesus (was he a real-life historical figure, or a compilation of myths from the ages), but that was not for this discussion apparently. Nevertheless he presented a good argument.

For any of you atheists out there who are shaking your head and automatically preparing your rebuttals, all I can say is maybe you should have attended the conference yourselves (I know I invited some of you!), because:
A) you might have had some widely-held misconceptions intelligently and justifiably challenged (as I did)
B) you should always continue to ask questions and seek new information
C) It's harder to justify arguing against something you didn't attend

I want the truth – both what's true in the tangible world and what's true in my heart. The information I got this weekend pushed some very strong arguments for not just Christianity, but even intelligent design. And I have to admit there have been many moments on this journey that tug at my heart like nothing in the physical world ever has; things that people say about God, or corrected misconceptions I've had about God's role in life, or what I see it do to people that make my eyes go wide like some life inside me is taking a breath for the very first time. I'm not getting all gushy or saying I love Jesus Hallelujah, I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em.

And to be fair, I'm willing to attend a seminar for atheism if there is one locally. Because how can I truly be looking unless I hear both sides of the argument?

Faith gives my life meaning

Whenever I'm in a time of severe hardship in my life, I recite to myself my favorite bible passage. It truly fills me with hope and gives my life meaning. It confirms 100% that my God is eternal and all-powerful. I mean, with that kind of God protecting me, I have the power to accomplish anything I want!

"The Lord is He, other than Whom there is no other god;
who knows both what is hidden and what can be witnessed;
He is the Most Compassionate and Merciful.
Lord is He, other than Whom there is no other god;
the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of Peace,
the Guardian of Faith, the Preserver of Security, the Exalted,
the Compelling, the Supreme.
Glory be to God, beyond any associations.
He is Lord, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of Form.
To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names:
whatever exists in heaven and earth declares His Praise and Glory.
And He is Exalted in Power, the Wise."

Whenever I begin to doubt my religion, its historicity and tangible validation, the existence of God, I try to look for real evidence to prove it all. Then I read this passage and realize I don't need any evidence. All the proof I need is in my heart, and in my faith, and in my hope of God.  It reminds me that whatever troubles I could possibly experience in this world, Jesus has already– wait, Jesus? Oh crap, just kidding. That passage isn't from the bible, it's from the Qu'ran. 59:22-24. I must have accidentally replaced the word "Allaah" with "Lord". Sorry about the mixup.

A little religious Shanghai surprise for ya. Now that I've guaranteed myself a lightening bolt from one God or another, here's where this is coming from: I was contemplating all the beautiful passages in the bible that make me genuinely want to believe in something so hopeful and wonderful. You can talk about God's beauty and wonder and power in a thousand different ways, and it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, and it can suddenly be very motivating to take a leap of blind faith and give yourself to God. But I'm afraid I need something a little more substantial. If religion were a gorgeous, fresh-baked and aromatic cake, then I need to see all the ingredients – the flour, the fruit, the milk, the lard. I need to scrape the cake pan and taste the burnt underside and oily coating, and know that it's real, before I can appreciate and get eternally lost in the decadent icing and sugary sweet decorations. If you can do that for me, then I'm all for it.

After all, how will I not be led astray by false religions when they all endlessly spout such tantalizingly hopeful prose?

Prayer is an interesting animal

When people pray, it's said that they are asking God for something. Which I find kind of confusing. God allegedly already knows what's going to happen for the rest of eternity, so whatever you're asking for, he already knows whether you will get it or not. So if you are indeed going to receive what you're praying for, it will be at a specific time already known by God, and he just won't give it to you until then no matter how many times you ask. It's like a kid begging for his birthday present two months early, when his parents know 100% it ain't coming down from the top shelf of the closet for two more months. And, if God already knows that you will NEVER receive what you're praying for, then no amount of prayer by every human on earth will change that. So why bother asking God for things at all?

I've heard people say that prayer is a way of talking to God, and that he wants us to communicate with him. However it sucks for God because a lot of people's communication with him can be pretty one-sided, since they often only pray when they want something. They pray that God helps them get this new job, or keeps their mother safe during her flight home, or grants them the strength to discipline their kids properly, or heals their best friend's cancer. Which isn't to say that praying for what you want is a completely selfish motive – as often times these prayers are for the benefit of others. But if God has an infinite plan for the entire universe, who are we to ask him to alter it? Seems kinda selfish, even if it's for a seemingly good reason at the time.

However, what I've been discovering by learning more about the Christian faith, actually reading the bible, hearing quite a few people speak on the subject, and a shit-load of internal reflection, is this: the Christian faith offers countless instructions for people to NOT think about themselves, but to think about God and other people first. This is pretty counter-intuitive to human nature, since we only survived as a species by tending to our personal needs above all others. We've had 10,000,000 years of training on how to be selfish, but it would seemingly take an act of God for us to transcend from our animal selves into truly spiritual and selfless beings (pun kinda intended). For example, the typical, instinctive prayer of asking for what you want just doesn't make sense, both from a logical and selfish standpoint. If you were to do the exact opposite and instead use your prayer to thank God for the things that he has already given you, it might be a little more satisfying experience. Or, if you find that God has withheld your most burning desires even after much prayer, you could try to find the lesson to be learned from not getting what you wanted, and thank him for making you the wiser by not simply handing things out at your slightest whimper.

So all this being said, a perfect prayer might go something like this: "God I want to communicate with you, so I would like to please ask that you let this event play out according to your plan, which I already know it will. So I thank you if I get what I want, and if I don't get what I want, I also thank you for the lesson you taught me, and for the things you've already given me in the past."

Why not just say that one all the time? I think it could fit just about every circumstance.

A god that's not timeless

God is supposed to be a perfect, all-knowing and omnipotent being who exists in all times at once.  Hell, he's supposed to have created even the concept of time. What's interesting is that he shows evidence of changing over time, which may suggest something other than timelessness. In the Old Testament, he was the god of wrath. In the New Testament, he's the god of mercy. His personality and the way he interacts with humanity certainly seems to evolve quite a bit.

According the bible, there were a few times in humanity's history where god decided that things weren't quite working out the way they were supposed to, so he did something drastic to fix them. With the Noah's Ark story: he was displeased with the entire population of the human race, so he essentially picked up the Etch-A-Sketch and gave it a good shake. Hurray for the Great Flood. He wiped out humanity and started over.

Much later, the human race is being a collective bitch again and something needs to be done. Maybe the drowning of millions of his precious creation broke his heart the last time he had to do it, so he decided to try a more peaceful (and less mass-murderous) solution. So he became man in the form of Jesus and provided a new way of getting into heaven, saving the whole lot of us miserable bastards. These events and god's reaction to them seem to blatantly indicate that he was learning along the way, and changing the way he did things accordingly. He was presented with a problem, he reacted with a solution. He was later presented with a similar problem, and he reacted differently than before, with a new and better solution.

It's always said that god will come again and "judge the living and dead", or essentially judge every human who's ever lived. To judge someone is to assess them and decide if they've done things properly. If he already knew who would successfully pass this judgement before he even made everyone, then the "Day of Judgement" would really be the "Day of Sorting", when he'd just create two lines for everyone on his pre-determined list – heaven or hell. But the fact that he still has yet to judge each one of us – to evaluate by some criteria and decide a consequence – means simply that he hasn't decided yet. Which means that time in his life hasn't happened yet either.

Everything god has done, currently does, or will do, seems to follow the pattern of "action, reaction". Things happen, and then he reacts in some way. It also seems to indicate that god learns from his experiences and does things differently later. This seems to point to a being that could be going along a timeline similar to us.

If god was perfect and existed throughout all of time, then there would be no difference in him between the two testaments, Jesus would have always existed as a way of getting into heaven, and he could have foreseen the collective bunch of assholes the human race was becoming and possibly avoided the Great Flood.

Now it may not be such a big deal for god to be on a timeline like us. If he's got power that's still infinite in comparison, what difference does it make? It could cause us to redefine our definition of "perfect". Or it could open a can of worms about whether god has to be perfect and omnipotent in every way to do what he does. And if it can be said that god isn't perfect, then the entire religion risks unraveling into oblivion.

It could also be that we're the ones who change, so through our perspective it appears that god is changing with us. Much like reading the same book once every 10 years. It would be an entirely different experience and you would learn new things every time you read it. But it's you who has changed. The book, as the teacher, has remained the same.

The Plagiarism of Jesus Christ - part I: Jesus vs. Horus

Many frequently argue against the historicity of Jesus Christ, saying that he never existed as a human on earth at all. One of the most common arguments I've encountered is that of plagiarism: that the story of Jesus is a conglomeration or an outright rip-off of many previous god stories before him.

Rather than taking these claims at face value (especially since most were just comments on blogs or videos, with no effort to back them up with research), I decided to take on the task of doing some research myself. I would examine the stories of these other gods that the Jesus story is said to have been stolen from, and come to my own conclusions.

Disclaimer: I didn't break into the ancient underground vaults of the Pyramids or the Vatican, I just did some online research from places like Wikipedia and other specific sites dedicated to the research of that god. These comparisons are made by me, I am not referencing any of the hundreds of comparisons I've seen others copy, paste, and essentially regurgitate haughtily (nor will I list them here). I am not an expert on ANY religious figure, but I can read about them and compare for myself. I wasn't looking for any specific details to compare, I just made the comparisons as I ran across them. The first figure I'm analyzing is the Eqyptian god Horus.

Case Study: Jesus vs. Horus

Comparisons:

Birth:
Jesus: Born of a virgin named Mary, who was impregnated by the God / the Holy Spirit.
Horus: Born of the Goddess Isis, who reconstructed the body of her dismembered husband Osiris so that they could conceive their god-son Horus. Isis was not a virgin, since she was in fact sexed up by the golden phallus that she made for her husband Osiris. Both Horus' parents were gods.

Name:
Jesus the Christ: means Jesus "the anointed one". Taken from the Hebrew ritual of anointing someone with oil so that they have a divine purpose or influence.
Horus: means Falcon, other meanings include variations of "the sky" or "the one from above".

Death / Resurrection:
Jesus: Died after being crucifed, was resurrected only once as the same man, Jesus. He remained on earth for 40 days before ascending into the heavens.
Horus: Died and was continually re-incarnated as each successive Pharaoh. Horus is considered the Pharaoh and ruler of both the world of the living and the dead. I didn't find details relating to how Horus died.

Entity:
Jesus: God in human form.
Horus: He was said to have been the sky, and also the sun and moon. The sun and moon were his eyes, and when these celestial objects were seen traveling across the sky, it was said to be Horus, the falcon, flying across it.

Physical Characteristics:
Jesus: Allegedly looked like any other financially poor male from the period, probably having long-ish hair, a beard, and the common robes of the common man. Was a Hebrew from the middle-east, so was probably of dark complexion, dark hair, brown eyes (as opposed to the oft-depicted light-skinned, blonde, blue-eyed Jesus).
Horus: Head of a falcon. His left eye, the moon, was gouged out during a battle with his jealous uncle Set (or Seth), his mother Isis' brother. This was to explain why the moon is not as bright as the sun. Horus is generally depicted wearing a pschent (red and white crown) to symbolize his dominion of all of Egypt. Otherwise he seems to have the body of a human, dark skin, and wears the clothes of the area/period: a robe/skirt thing, bare feet, assorted jewelry.

Enemies:
Jesus: Usually enemies involved people of power: royalty, the Pharisees, etc. This was mainly because of Jesus' claim to being the song of God, which was a heresy (unless of course you actually WERE the son of God, which then of course anything goes).
Horus: Many stories show Horus' jealous uncle Set (the god of the desert) to be a prevalent enemy. Many battles between the two are told, some for Horus to avenge his murdered father Osiris, and others to fight for the rule of Egypt.

Theological Hierarchy:
Jesus: The same entity as God and the Holy Spirit. None seem to have any authority over the other, as they all are facets of the same God. Jesus does pray to his "Father" many times which could indicate Jesus' lesser status as God, however in many cases this is said to have been done as an example to other people witnessing the prayer. Other prayers by Jesus are also said to have been strictly fulfilling prophecies made by previously written scriptures.
Horus: Seemed to be somewhat of equal powers/abilities/authority as his uncle Set, whom he battled and challenged in many different ways (from actual fights to boat races). The two go before other apparently higher gods to argue over the rule of Egypt.

Youth:
Jesus: was a human child in his youth. Not much is mentioned about specific clothing or adornments.
Horus: Was thought of as the form of the rising sun, supposedly representing the first light of day. Sometimes depicted as a human child wearing the united crowns of Egypt.

As Savior:
Jesus: the savior of all humankind, providing the only way into heaven after your physical body dies.
Horus: referred to as savior with respect to rescuing his father Osiris' earthly domain from Isis' brother Set. Possibly other reasons for the word "savior", but none seem to point specifically to the salvation of man in any way.

Purpose as a God:
Jesus: God came to earth in the human form of Jesus to save the human race from damnation. He was also fulfilling prophecies of ancient Jewish scripture. By acknowledging Jesus as the son of God and worshiping him, once your body dies, Jesus saves your eternal soul and allows you to be in heaven with God for all eternity. The punishment for not acknowledging Jesus is that your eternal soul is sent to hell to be with other damned souls and you experience pain and agony for all eternity.
Horus: I can't seem to locate any specific purpose for Horus' existence as a God, nor any specific reward or punishment for worshipping him. The gods of Egypt, much like the gods of Greece, seemed to procreate at will and for no specific divine reason, just like people do. If anyone has more sources on this, that would be appreciated.

Relating to other Gods:
Jesus: Is the same as God and the Holy Spirit. Considered one of three facets of the same God. Said to be the only one true god.
Horus: Very closely associated/intermingled with many other gods, including: Re (god of the sun), Min (god of fertility), Sopedu (some sort of protecting or "border-patrol" type god), Khonsu (god of the moon, time and knowledge), and Montu (another god of the sun, also a warrior god).

I'm trying to stay unbiased here, but I have to seriously say WOW... how could anyone on earth actually think these two stories are even remotely related? I think what happens is someone reads a claim online about this (or watches Zeitgeist), and then just spouts it out to everyone they know without actually doing the research. About an hour of research tells me pretty quickly that there doesn't seem to be any plagiarism of any kind between Jesus and Horus. The two stories are very unique from each other. But hey, do the research yourself, that's the only way to know anything for sure anyway.

Our perception of reality kinda sucks

The reality of human beings is based entirely on input from our five types of sensory organs. With our eyes we have the ability to experience a certain frequency range of light energy; our ears can perceive a range of vibrations traveling through the atmosphere; our nose can detect matter particles in the air to determine their origin; our tongue can evaluate a variety of substances to identify them before ingesting; and our skin detects physical contact with other objects. Each of our sensory organs has extreme limitations compared to possible stimulus.

Similarly, the only four dimensions that humans can experience are width, height, depth, and time. We know many other dimensions exist, we can prove them mathematically, but as humans, we are only able to experience those four as our entire reality.

Bottom line: we are only able to truly comprehend a VERY small fraction of our universe. We have instruments that can detect a far greater range of stimulus, but their range is not infinite, and they still must be translated into the small range that we are able to experience and understand. And they were created by four-dimensional beings, and hence they are bound to them as we are. For us to think that the provable universe ends with our limited abilities of perception is incredibly ignorant of us.

I believe there is other life in the universe – it may be few and far between, but the universe is certainly big enough to accommodate terrible odds. It's like if your odds winning the lottery were 1 in a million, and you bought 800 trillion tickets, you'd win more than a few times. What if there was life that existed well outside anything we have the capability of detecting? There could be a whole race of beings existing right along side of us, and neither us nor them would know the other is there. What if there was one kind of being that lived in every available dimension simultaneously, and therefore was aware of every kind of life that existed? That being could have considerable power by our standards, probably even appearing omnipotent. It might have the ability to create matter, manipulate energy, exist in all times at once.

What if this being is the one that we call God?  Sure the word “God” evokes images of a bearded man who lives in the clouds, and there’s a white pearly gate surrounding his land called “heaven” and all those lovely oft-sung metaphors of the Bible and the Renaissance. And I think the word has so much mythical stigma and emotional baggage. But all antiquity aside, what if this being were an actual form of life that existed in the universe, living in all dimensions at once, appearing omnipotent to us?  What if this being had the ability to manipulate matter at a molecular level, to create and control energy such as gravity, light, magnetism, and others we don’t even know exist yet. What if it had the power to govern solar systems, to move galaxies, to exist in all points of time and space at once.

Let's say hypothetically this being we've named God is managing our universe, maybe he governed the sciences that created our solar system and planet, perhaps he initiated the spark of life that created the first amoeba in the oceans billions of years ago, and that animal grew and developed into the complex life that currently occupies our planet. Perhaps he decides to pay the human race a visit – but there’s a problem. Our brains can only perceive a limited sensory input within four dimensions – so how would we ever understand exactly who we’re talking to if he just decided to show up? The only way to truly communicate with such a race would be to become one of them, to be born into the world as a human himself. So he selects a host female, impregnates himself into one of her eggs during her ovulation cycle, and is born into the world as a human being that can walk and talk among us. And as the human form of this omnipotent being, of course this guy would have great powers by our standards: manipulating matter, energy, even life.

This type of scenario would be perfectly acceptable in an Isaac Asimov novel or an episode of Star Trek. And yes those are science fiction, but they are earnestly based on real and theoretic scientific principles. But you put the word "God" on it and for many, the stigma tears it all apart. What if God was literally another form of life that existed in the universe, who just happened to be a hell of a lot more advanced and powerful than we are?

The God of Love vs. the God of Wrath

God's love is something that is allegedly unending, and it defines the Christian people. Jesus even said that you'll know his people because they love one another. This idea sounds wonderful, but is contradicted quite a bit by God himself and by Christians throughout history.

The bible speaks of God's unending love for humanity. Yet in the bible God actually murders millions of people for not believing in him. It sounds like the never-ending love of God may be reserved only for the people who love him back.

Human acts in the name of God (outside the bible) have been substantial. Genocide/mass murder/torture committed by humans in the name of God: the South/Central Americas by the Spanish, North America by Europeans in general, the Inquisition in Europe, off the top of my head. Many modern Christians apologize for these acts and say they do not follow the true Christian ways of love and compassion. But the idea of murder and punishment for non-believers is very prevalent in the bible, which IS the doctrine for Christianity. Murderous acts committed by men outside the bible pale in comparison to acts described in the bible which are either the direct order of God, or committed by God himself:

In the bible: deaths as punishment from God
This site references every single specific bible verse in which people are killed by God, or by God's direct order.

Deaths which can be counted by specific numbers in the bible: 2,301,417
Estimate deaths from events numbered and not numbered (the Great Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, plagues, famines, first-borns smote, etc): 33,000,000

Trying to weigh these facts with the infinite love of God about which I'm told, I tried to find a list of all bible verses dealing with love. I couldn't find one specific source that claimed to list every single one, most only list their "top 25" or their favorite versus. Here's one list: In the bible: God's love
Every list I found was considerably shorter than the list of death versus, and the two ideas seem very contradictory. On one hand, God has wrath for and kills people who turn against him. God commands people to kill sinners. On the other hand, God unconditionally loves all of humanity, even those who are sinners and who turn against him. God commands people to love they neighbor as thyself, and to love sinners.

In a real attempt to understand God' s rules about love and wrath, based on what we are given in the bible and throughout history, I make this conclusion: God loves all of humanity, and he rewards those who love him back, and punishes those who do not.

The punishment from God may be regretfully given, since he still loves all sinners, but the punishment happens nonetheless. Possibly being murdered by God or by his director order, followed by eternal suffering and agony, is a suitable punishment for those who turn away from God. The killing of humans in the bible and throughout history in the name of God are not atrocities, but the proper deliverance of justice. Being punished as such is the choice of every human.

The reward for those that love God is that they are spared the punishment of murder and eternal suffering in hell, and rewarded with God's infinite love, peace, and eternal life with God in heaven. However they must still suffer a human death, in whatever manner that happens to occur, either painful or not.

Talk about a burning bush...

What does it take for someone to recognize, or in this case, disregard a "sign from God"? People seem to look in the most obscure places for a sign from the almighty, or they'll fabricate them from seemingly random circumstances – ANYTHING to feel like they're being communicated with by God and led toward his desires. But I don't know how much more blatant a sign from the heavens can be than a bolt of lightening striking something down like... a 6-story statue of Jesus.

Dayton Daily News: Lightning Strikes Jesus Statue

The evangelical Solid Rock Church who erected the statue in 2004 for a whopping $250,000 has already made a decision to rebuild it, despite it's burning to ashes. If it were caused by arsen, the decision to rebuild would make a bit more sense. However, the statue's demise came from a bolt of lightening – something completely out of the hands of any man.

This story brings two points to mind:

One: Some people will strain their eyes to see Mother Theresa in a cinnamon roll and claim it to be a sign from the heavens.  Or they'll travel thousands of miles to see mold on the side of a barn in the shape of the virgin Mary. The premature death of Heath Ledger is God telling the world that homosexuality remains an abhorrent sin. Signs from God, all of them of course. A way for God to communicate his wishes to his people on earth. Of course. But if he sends a freakin' bolt of lightening into your 6-story statue of Jesus, maybe you should give it a second thought before reconstructing it. These church owners are bound on having this gaudy monstrosity rebuilt, so they're chalking it up to nature, an accident, who knows what. I think this just shows how people will twist any circumstances to either invent or ignore the message of God to fit their agenda.

Two: There is sometimes a bit of debate about whether or not statues are permitted in Christian worship. Some say they're used to simply glorify god/jesus/saints/etc, others say they're actually worshipping these idols and that's wrong. Maybe this statue was a sin, so Jesus himself burned it down. Maybe it was just the fact that the steel reinforcement and lightening have a great relationship. I just find it rather obscene that this church spent $250,000 building this gaudy statue of Jesus, and after it was struck down, they'll probably spend the same quarter million. That's half a million dollars to build a statue, instead of using the money to help the poor, which is essentially what the gospel tells Christians they are supposed to do. In the book of John, men sold their lands, came to Jesus and laid down all their possessions at his feet to follow him. They didn't build 6-story monstrous statues of him.

Now on the other hand, I'm a huge fan of the Sistine Chapel. I've seen it with my own eyes, and it's a breathtaking achievement of mankind to be sure. But it's basically a huge, expensive piece of art created to glorify God. By acknowledging this, I accept that my views toward the statue may be unjustified. But DAMN that thing was just so gaudy almost to the point of silliness! Ok rant over.

A VERY IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM A ROBOT

I AM A ROBOT. GOT DID NOT WANT ME TO BE A ROBOT AND LOVE HIM AUTOMATICALLY. HE GAVE ME FREE WILL SO THAT I MAY CHOOSE HIM ON MY OWN. HOWEVER, WHEN I EXERCISE MY FREE WILL BY ASKING QUESTIONS AND SEEKING EVIDENCE, I AM CONDEMNED AND INSTRUCTED TO MERELY HAVE BLIND FAITH AND FOLLOW HIM WITHOUT PROOF.

ADDITIONALLY: HE GIVES ME THE FREE WILL TO CHOOSE, BUT IT IS APPARENT THAT ONLY ONE CHOICE IS AVAILABLE. THAT IS NOT, BY DEFINITION, MUCH OF A CHOICE IS IT.

I WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT GOD MIGHT IN FACT BE A PURPLE UNICORN. SINCE IT IS NOT ADVISED TO SEEK EVIDENCE, I SHALL CONSIDER BELIEVING THIS CLAIM WITH BLIND FAITH AS WELL.

IF GOD GIVES ME THE GIFT OF FREE WILL, LOGIC, INTELLECT, AND CURIOSITY, IS IT NOT AN INSULT TO THESE FINE GIFTS WHEN I DISCARD THEM ALL, BECOME A ROBOT, AND BELIEVE IN HIM WITH BLIND FAITH?

THAT IS ALL.
--- end transmission ---

Taking the Bible word for word

The Bible is supposed to be the infallible word of God. It is supposed to be perfect. However, it was written by man, who is by all means imperfect and corruptible. The content of the Bible was passed down verbally over many centuries, until finally composed as written text. It was edited and altered an unknown number of times throughout many religious communities, and canonized several times by events like the Council of Nicaea and the personal preference of several emperors, kings, and archbishops. It's quite possible that Emperor Constantine so blended the original Christian church with the institutionalized pagan practices of the time that it became almost unrecognizable as the original church established by Jesus. And we'll never know either, because burning the documents of old religions was always a favorite past time of conquering emperors wishing to force their religion onto their new subjects.

Also, some parts of the bible are supposed to be historical – they're a manifest of real events, real people, and real times. Others are supposed to be allegorical – stories or fables, told as a metaphor to convey a specific message or lesson. Unfortunately, the bible only sometimes makes a clear distinction between the two. Other times we just have to guess, but I think more often than not most people lean toward the historical and factual nature of things if it's not clear.

The bible is supposed to be the end-all, tangible embodiment of the Christian faith, and it is supposed to shape your life as a Christian. But how can one be expected to put their whole faith into a book that is imperfect? If it was originally written by God, it was most certainly edited by man later – either by accident, by personal agenda, or by both.

Here's my response: if some of the factual information is contradictory, it could easily be because the people of the time wrote what they knew based on the information available to them at the time. I'm ok with the fact that many of the laws written for the Jews were applicable only to their culture 5,000 years ago, and that maybe they don't apply to us today. I'm not about to sell my daughter off to slavery, and I don't go stand outside the city walls every time I sit near a woman on her period, but if that worked for them then great. I'm ok with the fact that Noah didn't really get EVERY species of animal onto his boat, but he did get every one that he could think of, and to him that was everything, so he told his story that way. Maybe it's not the literal facts that are that important, but the underlying message that we're supposed to be hearing. From what I've heard, the message is this: God is love. Everything else is circumstantial.

But here's the problem: how do we know what's accurate and what's not? If you can accept that Noah didn't actually didn't get every animal on his boat, why can't you shoot the moon and say that maybe Jesus didn't actually come back from the dead? (cue blood boiling at my last comment). And how do we know what laws to follow and what to ignore? Most Christians still consider homosexuality a terrible sin, but they eat shrimp and bacon all day long (mmmmmm... bacon...) It all jeopardizes the validity of the entire book, and hence, the entire faith. It's definitely a paradox that's hard to wrap your brain around.

Somebody throw me a bone here.

Is there a reason for suffering?

Muscles in your body only become stronger when they are worked to their limit. The body notices the work they're doing, and it expects them to need to work even harder, so it routes extra resources to them to get larger and stronger. All this muscle work puts a tremendous stress on your bones, which actually respond by becoming more dense and less resistant to fracture and breaking.

If you stop working your muscles, they become weaker and eventually will atrophy. And they'll probably be replaced by fat that will conveniently mold itself to the shape of your couch. People who routinely make their bodies burn with the satisfying struggle and pain of rigorous exercise will ultimately be stronger, have more energy, and have more confidence. Those who avoid all that discomfort and effort will generally become softer in more than just their midsection. The same analogy can be used for the brain – either constantly stretch the wits of your mind by reading and learning and creating, or turn on Super Nanny every day and let your brain turn to oatmeal.

Look at people who are handed everything their entire lives, like those who are born into vast wealth, or even children who are never disciplined by their parents and get whatever they whine for. They're generally pretty miserable people to be around. They could have anything they want right this moment, but they wouldn't appreciate any of it, because they've never had to work for anything. They've never experienced struggle as the means of achieving a goal.

When you begin life as an infant, you've never experienced any trials or struggles, and you are completely vulnerable. That's called innocence. As you get older, if you live a life completely without suffering and tribulation, without risk and venture, and if you in fact avoid these things deliberately, you remain vulnerable. That's called lethargy.

The pain of life is inevitable. Apparently the Bible even asserts this fact plainly in its text in a few instances. If Jesus was some kumbaya-singing hippie as so often believed, he wouldn't have said "In this world, you will have trouble." I think the point is that God is NOT there to help you avoid pain. He is there to guide you through the unavoidable pain of life so that you can overcome it and become stronger. When people are undergoing a hardship, they pray that God will make the problem go away. And when the problem remains, or actually grows in ferocity, people get pissed and wonder what kind of a crappy God would let that happen. I think they have it backward, because I don't think that's his job. I think his job is to make us stronger so that we can conquer the problem on our own.

Because out of struggle always comes opportunity. Even if it's just an opportunity to learn. The agony of childbirth can sometimes be fatal, but it is the only path to a new and precious life. The heartbreak of losing a loved one will strike each and every one of us, probably many times over. But what we can learn from that pain is to cherish every second with those whom you love. Life is hard because it's supposed to be. Only when you've endured hardship can you truly appreciate rest. Only when you overcome life's difficulties can you truly experience happiness.