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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Follow-up to the Purple Unicorn post

Based on some of the reactions I got from my post on Sunday, I feel I need to follow it up with a little back story.

It happens very (VERY) often in my search for the divine that I am presented with the warm fuzzies about god. Every time I've been to church, songs are sung praising the beauty and amazingness and holiness of god, and all these celebratory images of glory. And stories are told by individuals about how the power of god's love changed their lives and brought them out of the darkness. And claims over and over are spoken about how all you need in life is faith, that god loves you, and you should just let go - and let god. On a pure emotional level, it is very easy to get swept up in these inspiring sentiments of comfort, coddling, protection, and justice. However, when trying discern one religion from another, this tone of praise is pretty constant across many faiths, and you could very easily substitute Allah, Vishnu, or Akua in any of those statements, and you would be comfortably in the shoes of a different faith. And if you lived 3,000 years ago, you could insert El or Zeus in these statements of reverence and be just as at-home there too.

My post was a literal collection of phrases, worship song lyrics, and scriptures that I've heard over my lifetime acclaiming people's love for god. I made none of it up myself, just strung it together into a couple paragraphs. And to create a satire showing this general euphoric tone that spans many faiths, I used the Purple Unicorn as my target of adoration. And hey, maybe there is someone out there who genuinely worships Purple Unicorn, and maybe they will find my passage inspiring.

Please note that it is never EVER my intention to offend anyone with my opinions, ideas, or conclusions. I do acknowledge however that the subject of religion is incredibly touchy, and any opinions regarding it (especially those that may reveal a disagreement or discrepancy) will inevitably offend someone. That's a risk that I am forced to take as I document my journey into the unknown. But it is never my direct intention to offend or deride or blaspheme. If you wanna make an omelette, yadda yadda. I am genuinely and earnestly researching as much as I can, then just relaying my conclusions based on the evidence I find. Or I'm just documenting my perspective of situations I've encountered. And sometimes I do insert some humor into the equation, and those of you who know me shouldn't find this a surprise at all. If we can't laugh at ourselves and the world around us, then why bother? Nothing I write here is ever to be taken as my declaration of the truth, but just me calling 'em as I see 'em.

I am very grateful for those of you who read the thoughts and opinions that I write here, contribute to the discussions that result (however constructive or incendiary they may be), or email me your private thoughts, or engross me with long chats in person. I consider many of you dear friends, and all your contributions are really helping me sort all this crazy shit out.

So I say a hearty "thank you" for reading, and "I apologize" if I've offended you, and "you're welcome" if I've inspired you, and "Hey I'm just trying to figure things out here" if I've challenged your beliefs, and "don't mention it" if I've made your faith stronger. And get ready because there's a good chance you may be any of the above in any future post I write here.

My god is an AWESOME god

I just wanted to take a minute to profess my intense love and faith for my god. He is in everything I do, everything I see, everyone I know… whether they know him or not :) His love is so endless and powerful, he created the universe with a thought (and even that was a piece of cake for his infinite powers), he knows every thought I'm thinking at every moment, and knows every thought I will ever think. And he knows you too, even if you aren't aware of it.

He is the only way to true happiness. All you have to do is have total faith in him and put your life and your heart in his hands, he will guide you and bring your life into such perfect perspective. He knows your faults, your struggles, your mistakes, and if you just take that one step and give these over to god, then no matter what has happened in your life, no matter what you've done, you will be forgiven and loved. It can be a rough and bumpy road sometimes, but in the end, god will be faithful. And by accepting him into your heart, you will be granted everlasting life to be by his side in the next life. Can you imagine, being next to god in the most beautiful place that you can't even imagine for all eternity? How awesome is that!

Many many years ago, when he first created his covenant with his chosen people, he proved himself over and over again with miracles and by physically being present on earth, and by actually showing up and speaking to people. He doesn't manifest in such an obvious, physical way anymore, but he doesn't need to – I see his presence in every good deed that people do around me, every child's laugh, every sunset. Every ounce of love that I share for my fellow man is hard evidence of my god's existence.

This, my good friends, is why I give my complete faith over to my god, the Purple Unicorn. He truly is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, mighty to save. Place your trust in him and you too can know his peace. The only proof you will ever need of his existence is all around you, because he IS love. And whenever people share in his love, grace, and mercy, he is there. That's all the proof I ever need. If you even have faith in Purple Unicorn the size of a mustard seed, you can truly move mountains. His love is amazing, for Purple Unicorn is the redeemer of all life on earth.

In Purple Unicorn's precious name I pray, Amen.

For love or Jesus?

Having religious differences in a relationship is something that many people are familiar with. Some find ways to work around it, some find it a complete and utter deal-breaker. Some friends of mine got engaged last weekend, they make a fabulous couple and are very much in love, but their differing of core beliefs kinda makes me nervous. The guy in the relationship (for privacy sake, we'll call him Scott) most certainly has Jesus at the center of his heart, and his whole reality is based on a faith in the Christian God. God empowers him, challenges him, gives him a way to find all the answers he needs in life. However, his new fiancé Tracy is not exactly a polar opposite, but is very agnostic. She was raised under the Christian faith, but developed her doubts as she got old enough to make her own decisions. In fact, she and I have had many long conversations about our religious pasts because they're so similar.

I guess I have two questions: 1) Has Tracy in fact decided to fully accept Jesus into her heart and truly declare herself a Christian? 2) If not, then will Scott be able to live with the fact that his wife doesn't share in his Christian faith? No I haven't asked them these questions myself because they live in Michigan and I don't see or talk to them that often; and yes, they will probably read this blog and it will spark more long phone conversations, but I guess that's half the point :)

My grandparents are in a similar situation, except not nearly as concerning. My grandpa drives my grandma to mass every Sunday, he sits in the car and reads the paper while she holds hands with other Catholics, sings songs about God, takes communion, and professes the Creed. Neither of them seem to mind the other's position, considering they've been married for 50+ years now. I wonder if Scott and Tracy will be able to settle into such a neutral lifestyle, or if it will eventually eat away at them and the love I know they have for each other.

They've been a couple for several years now, and they've always known and talked about their differences and been very accepting of them. In this kind of relationship, in the long run, it seems that it's the more agnostic/atheist person that is less concerned about it. They seem to be of the mindset, "Sure honey, I'll go with you to church, and I'm happy you have your faith," even though they really don't have it in their heart to join them. And it always seems that it's the more religious of the two who is the most concerned about their partner not joining them in their united life in Christ. Because a Christian marriage isn't just about two people as a couple who buy a house and have kids – it's supposed to be about living a life for God and Jesus together, and teaching those ideals to your children, and those are very serious and deeply-rooted things. It's not always as simple as "Ok honey, I'm off to church, enjoy your paper while you wait in the car."

Prayers on deaf ears

Recently a close friend of mine was experiencing a matter of life and death. The suddenness by which it appeared to her and her family was only equaled by its potential for utter heartbreak. However a strange side effect happened to me that I wasn’t expecting. Someone came to me and asked that I pray for her about this situation, and since they know that I’ve been going to church weekly, they asked that I tell other people and ask them to pray about it too. It was a very dire request, and it took me off guard. This person said, very sincerely, to please ask as many people as I could to pray for our friend and her family. Which got me thinking very hard about prayer. And needless to say, I’m confused.

It’s been told to me many times that God has a plan for all of us, for the earth, for the entire universe. If this is true, then we are silly indeed if we think we can change this plan – or even more audaciously, if we think we can ask God to change his plan for us measly humans. And to me, every time I hear someone praying for something, they’re asking for something they want to happen. It’s not necessarily a selfish request; in this case, people were praying for my friend and her family to avoid deathly catastrophe. But every time, a prayer is us asking God, “Please, let this happen.” Now correct me if I’m wrong, but God already knows whether he’s going to allow someone to die or not, since we’re all living out his plan, right? So us asking him is rather futile, because whatever’s written in his plan is going to happen, no matter what. If the person lives, God didn’t really answer anybody’s prayer, because he already planned on letting that person live. And if the person dies, God didn’t ignore anyone’s prayer, because he planned on killing that person anyway. It’s almost like the prayer falls on deaf ears, because why should God care what we want, he’s the big boss with the all-knowing reasons behind everything, why on earth should he change his grand plan just because we ask him to?

And it also seems to be the belief among all peoples of faith that the sheer number of people praying for one specific thing will effect how God will answer. I think it’s already apparent that God’s going to follow his plan no matter what. So whether it’s one person or 10 million, if God wants that person to kick the bucket, there ain’t nothing we can do about it. If all 7 billion humans on earth prayed every day for 10 years for an amputee to suddenly sprout a new leg on their own, it would still never happen. And that’s a lot of prayer power right there.

If a person dies, people quickly forget that God completely ignored their earnest requests for keeping this person alive and healthy, because they immediately start praying for God to provide comfort to them and their family. When again, God already knows whether or not that’s going to happen. OR… if this person lives, people walk around wide-eyed and reverent, claiming that it was a miracle and a sign of God’s faith. God didn’t do anything different than what he already had planned, we’re just the ones going up in arms about it either way, as if we actually had something to do with it. We’re so freakin’ melodramatic.

What I’ve also been told is that God wants us to pray, because he wants us to attempt the communication with him. To keep up the personal relationship. If we were to hear God’s side of the conversation, it might be kind of heartbreakingly ironic: “Aww shucks guys, I really appreciate the communication. I still let them die anyway, but thanks for the effort!” That’s the cue for Buddy Christ to appear and give us all the thumbs up.

People's explanation for what prayer is seems to change to fit the situation. God answered your prayer because God is faithful and he answers prayers. Or he didn't answer your prayer because there must be a lesson you're supposed to learn. It's all part of God's grand plan, but let's ask for something else we want and hope God answers because he is faithful and he answers prayers. It seems strangely circular. And futile. And I don’t get it.

Will blog for food

I’m a little torn on how I feel toward homeless people. Everyone’s seen them standing at the freeway offramp, or at a stoplight on the center median, holding the stereotypical cardboard sign with some phrase describing their hardship written in a sharpie (one question always comes to mind: where did they get the sharpie?). Some are old, some surprisingly young, some have their pets with them, some have their children, some are Vietnam vets, others recently lost their jobs. However, despite their apparently destitute situation, I’m always hesitant to hand out money or sympathy whenever I see such a person.

I currently work two careers to make my living and to fuel my ambitions for a prosperous life. I’m at a desk for 50 hours a week doing commercial graphic design, and for my fine art career I probably spend another 30 hours at home painting or hustling at art events. I’m constantly up into the wee hours of the night to get my artwork done, when many times I’d much rather just go to bed. But I do what I must to progress my career(s) forward. Hell even when I was a kid, my dad and I used to collect aluminum cans in alleys, take them to the recycling center, and he'd let my brother and I have all the money that we earned. So I can’t help but feel a little resentful when I’m driving home after just having spent 10 hours in an office earning a living, and I see a perfectly healthy looking man standing on the street corner with his cardboard sign, holding his hand out. I can understand if someone has just lost their job and are having a hard time, but I know for a fact that there are a multitude of programs out there to help people off the street. Shelters where they provide you with food, clean clothes, an address so you can apply for jobs. Or if they have the drive, they can start their own career working for themselves – just as I’ve done with my fine art career. I can’t help but feel many homeless people are there because they either choose to be there, or don't fully understand how to be anywhere else.

I made this silly little chart showing what I think are different categories of one's acknowledgment of their poor situation, as well as their understanding/desire for how to get out of it.


I bring up the homeless issue on this blog because it’s always the poor and misfortunate that are the supposed to be the recipients of our charity in many religions. And I’m all for helping people on hard times get back on their feet again. Soup kitchens, unemployment programs, food stamps, shelters – to help them in their time of destitution to get back on THEIR feet. Not to sustain them indefinitely. I feel the same thing is being done when I reach into my pocket and hand someone my spare change. I’m perpetuating their lifestyle of pan-handling. I’ve seen too many immigrants come over to this country with the shirt on their back – not even speaking our language – who work their asses off and prosper very nicely. So I know it can be done.

Though I guess there may be certain incentives to a homeless lifestyle. Standing at a busy intersection all day, being passed by 20 cars a minute for 10 hours – that could be 12,000 cars. And if only 1% of them stop and give that guy $1, that guy just made $120 cash. The tax-paid equivalent of that could be $144. And he just stood there, looking unhappy. Some people sweat all day with a hammer in their hand or pushing groceries across a barcode scanner and don’t make that much. This is not to say I think at all that being homeless is an easy, lucrative lifestyle. I can only imagine the extent of disease, drugs, and prostitution that are part of that way of life. But you'd think that would be even more of an incentive to climb out.

I do feel that many sidewalk wanderers are not mentally stable. And perhaps this is what prevents them from having the drive to move out of their situation. Perhaps the sane ones in the shelters trying to clean up and get their life back together actually DO, so we don’t seem them anymore. In college I helped a friend of mine film a documentary in LA on homeless people, and we interviewed several people on the street, and then several more in a shelter. And my sentiments were pretty much dead on. The grungy people living by the dumpster at 7-11 made me feel like I was talking to a cross between Jim Carrey and Hannibal Lector, and many people in the homeless shelter were folks who had lost their jobs and their homes and were earnestly trying to get back on top of their life. But there are also great numbers of people who don't know any other way of life, so their pit of despair is invisible to them.

So all in all, I agree with what many religions say about helping the needy and the poor. And I think helping the wretched souls of the world doesn’t need to hinge on any religion, just the desire to extend a hand to those who need it. However I’m all about teaching people to fish so that if they choose, they can realize their own ocean of potential – rather than handing them anchovies the rest of their life.

My last blog post :(

Since the Rapture is happening this Saturday, May 21, and I doubt I’ll have time to write another post until then, looks like the earth will be destroyed and I won’t be around to write another blog post here. And if I survive the apocalypse, then all the Christians will have been sucked up to heaven and no one will be around to share their ideas about Christianity with me, so I’ll have nothing to write about. Or I’ll be whisked away up to heaven too and all my ponderings about God and the Universe will finally be answered. So thanks for reading, commenting, and supporting my search for the divine.

This potentially alarming (and fucking ridiculous) prediction comes from Christian radio host Harold Camping, who used his civil engineering background to feverishly compile calculations from the bible to arrive at this Saturday as the end of times. Or, as my friend Gary put it, he’s “cherry-picking random numbers from the bible, multiplying, adding, dividing, and hockey-pockey-ing them willy-nilly, until they come up with this date.” Camping claims this prediction to be 100% accurate: “I know it’s absolutely true, because the Bible is always absolutely true.” To see for yourself, here is the scientific method by which Camping predicting the date:

1. According to Camping, the number 5 equals "atonement", the number 10 equals "completeness", and the number 17 equals "heaven".
2. Christ is said to have hung on the cross on April 1, 33 AD. The time between April 1, 33 AD and April 1, 2011 is 1,978 years.
3. If 1,978 is multiplied by 365.2422 days (the number of days in a solar year, not to be confused with the lunar year), the result is 722,449.
4. The time between April 1 and May 21 is 51 days.
5. 51 added to 722,449 is 722,500.
6. (5 × 10 × 17)² or (atonement × completeness × heaven)² also equals 722,500.
Thus, Camping concludes that 5 × 10 × 17 is telling us a "story from the time Christ made payment for our sins until we're completely saved."
7. 722,500 days from Christ’s crucifixion would be this Saturday, May 21, 2011.

This prediction has become noticed by enough people around the globe to become the next official moronic prediction about the end of the world, among countless others proven to be false as the dates harmlessly came and went.

For the record, Camping self-published a book in 1992 called “1994?” in which he predicted, with 100% accuracy, the Rapture would occur in September of 1994. After that date came and went, he revised his theory by claiming to have made a mathematical error. And after that, someone else predicted the Rapture would happen on December 31, 1999, and when that didn’t happen, a bunch of other nutters predicted any number of other dates that they pulled from a large orifice on their body located between and below their hip joints.

Either that or the Rapture did actually happen on one of those dates, and, to quote Gary again, “no one noticed, because the only person who went missing was some random hermit in rural India.”

Oh and by the way, if I’m still here on Sunday, and the earth hasn’t been shaken to pieces by earthquakes, then I will be sure to write another post here soon. Whew! I knew you were scared there for a second.

The US as a Christian Nation?

It’s common these days to hear Christians proposing the idea that the United States was founded on Christian beliefs, and we are in fact a Christian nation. Rather than give my immediate opinion on this idea, I’d like to bring up the most common arguments used, and respond to them with some facts about the founding of the US and see what conclusions can be drawn.

Argument: Our nation’s motto is “In God We Trust”. It's even printed on our currency.
Response: The original motto of the US in 1776 was “E Pluribus Unum,” which is Latin for “One From Many”. It wasn’t until 1814 that Francis Scott Key first mentioned the phrase “In God We Trust” in the last (and rarely sung) stanza of what would become our national anthem. It was used on coins as early as 1864 (almost a full century after the founding of the US) and has gradually made its way onto all of our currency since. In 1956, at the height of the cold war scare and communist witch hunt, the US adopted the phrase as our national motto in order to differentiate ourselves from communism, which usually promoted Atheism. This has also had the unfortunate side effect of linking Atheism with “evil communists”, which is no more true than the Pope being Jesus reincarnate.

 You know what else is on our currency? “The Great Seal”, a very pagan symbol with a pyramid and an eye peeking out of a glowing triangle. The phrase “ANNUIT COEPTIS” appears there, which some argue is a reference to the Christian God, however the phrase is taken from Virgil's book IX of the Aeneid, "JUPPITER OMNIPOTES, AUDACIBUS ANNUE COEPTIS”, which translates as “All-powerful Jupiter favor [my] daring undertakings.” The Roman supreme god Jupiter is at the heart of this phrase, not the God of Abraham.

Argument: We are “One nation under God”, as it’s said in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Response: The original Pledge reads as follows: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

In the 1940s, a number of Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to say the Pledge at all, claiming that the pledging one’s allegiance to a flag represented idolatry. The hand-over-your-heart gesture was actually added after WWII, because the original outstretched arm solute used for the Pledge too closely resembled the Nazi salute. It wasn’t until the 1950s that “under God” was proposed, failing several times until it was brought up to the Eisenhower administration. Eisenhower, ironically enough, had just been baptized Presbyterian a year earlier, and thought it a wonderful idea. He introduced the final successful bill that added the phrase to our pledge.

Argument: Isn’t the US founded on Christianity?
Response: The 1st Amendment to the Constitution states very clearly: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Thomas Jefferson interpreted this with the explicit phrase “separation of church and state”. The word “God” does not appear anywhere in the entire US Constitution. The Declaration of Independence mentions the phrase “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God”, which in no way specifically indicates the Judeo-Christian God.

The Declaration also has the phrase “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The phrase “all men are created equal” is very much against literal bible doctrine, as the bible teaches from Genesis a very top-down hierarchy: God-man-woman-animal. And Catholic dogma even inserts priests between God and man. And “their Creator” does not specifically reference the Christian God, and could be interpreted as the earth, nature, one’s parents, or any thousands of other gods. And the fact that the word Creator is capitalized doesn’t indicate a deistic reference, any more than the capitalization of the words Right, Life, Liberty, and Happiness do.

Also many of our Founding Fathers were deists, freethinkers, and some even outright attackers of Christianity. Even their graves, tombs, and monuments have no references to Christianity whatsoever.

Argument: The statue of Moses outside the Supreme Court building shows that the US was founded on the 10 Commandments.
Response: The two tablets Moses holds are actually blank, and he sits next to Confucius and Solon, and this is all on the East side of the building, representing great law givers from the Eastern part of the world. On the rest of the building are 17 other notable law givers, including many notorious pagans, even Mohammed holding the K’oran. And on the actual entrance to the building is a scene of pagan figures that represent Order, Liberty, and Authority.

In fact most government buildings are designed after Roman and Greek styles, with pagan statues and references all over the place. And the statue of Moses is more reference to Judaism than Christianity, since his events took place well before Christ.

Conclusion: based on these very brief responses to common arguments, I conclude that the United States is in no way founded on Christianity. In fact it was founded with the deliberate and very specific absence of any religion for the sole purpose of preventing our government from interfering with our unalienable right to practice or not practice any religion we choose. I feel that all references to God added into our practices and doctrine are very baby steps in ultimately violating this covenant, which history has proven countless times only results in the removal of religious freedom. As counter-intuitive as it seems, keeping a 100% secular government absolutely GUARANTEES that no one at any time will EVER be able to change how you worship.

For a more detailed read on the subject, read this guy's blog on The US Not Founded on Christianity. He also has a great entry called Pagan America, which gives an overwhelming number of direct pagan references in US government. There are so many in fact that it's a wonder people don't think we're Greek, Roman, or Egyptian, or wonder why our motto isn't "In Gods We Trust."

Poor black kids

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel a weird vibe every time see happy white American folks doing mission trips to African villages and coming back with a photo album full of themselves hugging poor little black kids? It’s almost like the act itself and the visuals are of a token value. These missionaries feel so good about showing up in a foreign country, dressing the kids up in what always seem like private school uniforms, teaching them about Jesus, taking lots of happy photos, then coming home and sharing it with their church amidst crying squeals of cuteness from the congregation. It almost has the air of visiting a bunch of cute little abandoned puppies.

Or like it’s some kind of rite of passage as a Christian. You may already love Jesus, and you may help out in your local soup kitchen, but you’ve reached the ultimate state of showing God’s love when you visit Uganda and hug a village of poor black children for a month and post all the pictures on your Facebook.

I’ve never been on one of these mission trips, so I don’t know exactly what goes on over there. I don’t know the state these villages are in, nor these children, so I don’t claim to know anything about the work they’re doing there. I’m sure they provide food and medicine and clothes and hope and all that wonderful stuff. I’m just relaying the tone of the act itself as I perceive it. It seems so… stereotypical.

In America, right here within our own borders, about 50% of the impoverished and destitute people are white. They’re human beings, and they may not even be Christians yet (and hence in need of being “saved” like the African children), but they’re starving. And neglected. And maybe fatherless. And living in the same set of clothes for years at a time. And they’re not a 15 hour flight away to the Sudan. I wonder why you don’t see many Facebook photos of college students taking a mission trip to Kentucky and hugging lots of poor dirty white kids? Or what would be even more ironic, to see photos of a cleanly-dressed black man during his mission trip to Tennessee with 8 raggedy, dirty white kids grabbing on his leg and smiling.

Celebrities aren’t helping the stereotypical sense of this foreign aid either. How many African kids has Angelina Jolie adopted? Like 800? Madonna tried to start a private school for African impoverished girls (only to have the designated $3.8 million vanish into thin air, as well as the hopes for the school itself). And every time I see a gossip magazine in a grocery store checkout line, it’s Sandra Bullock and her little African adopted baby, fresh from the village with a necklace of colorful wooden beads around the boy’s neck, as if to make sure to say, “Just in case you didn’t get it, MY NEW BABY IS FROM AFRICA!” Hell, judging by the look on the baby’s face, even HE seems to be growing tired of the stereotype.

Let’s also not forget some big reasons why many countries in Africa are so freakin’ destitute and volatile to begin with. Residual effects of colonialism (usually by European countries) created many unstable tribal relationships, causing constant civil violence and unrest (anybody watch Hotel Rwanda?). The World Bank has caused much governmental restructuring by the incessant amount of loans to African countries and the financial slavery that inevitably results. And the abundantly valuable natural resources such as oil and diamonds are exploited by other wealthy nations, which drives a lot of the African working class into slave labor and war (a big reason why many including myself hate and boycott the diamond industry).

So instead of showing up to help in the African villages stamped into poverty by other parts of the world, maybe the entire world should just leave Africa alone for a few decades and let them be a nation by themselves. I think the African people are more apt to cope alone than any other country. They were, after all, the first modern humans on this planet capable of rational thought, and their ingenuities enabled them to survive the worst of odds and spread across the globe over the last 150,000 years. If they can do that, surely they can sort out their own tribal differences, establish their own sovereign forms of government, clean up their own drinking water, sell their own diamonds and maybe become a first world continent. So maybe the whole world should help by just chillin’ on Africa. Perhaps then there won’t be as many poor villages in such desperate need of happy white missionaries.

The testimony of a redeemed lesbian (oh, and drug addict)

Last week at church, we had a guest speaker come up and give her “testimony” about how God changed her life. It was relevant to the group they have called “Celebrating Recovery” that helps people break their depilating addictions: drugs, alcohol, sex, whatever. This girl looked about in her mid twenties and talked about how, since she was 13, she became involved in alcohol, drugs, and sexual promiscuity with both guys and girls. She continued to say how these things tore her life apart, she was homeless, a junkie, a miscreant, hated her life, etc. She went on a roller coaster with having God in and out of her life, until finally something clicked and her relationship with God helped her overcome her addictions and become “a fully redeemed woman through the blood of Jesus Christ.” And good for her, because she’s obviously not lying in a gutter somewhere dead, or an empty shell of a person trudging through addiction, but she’s living her life and happy and fulfilled.

However I was confused mainly about her dealings with lesbianism. She continued to relate her same-sex relationships with her falls back into her degenerate lifestyle. I agree that excessive anything can ruin your life, especially drugs of course, and even sex. But I honestly don’t think homosexuality is inherently a doorway to degeneracy. I personally don’t think they’re related at all, and I think there are equal proportions of healthy and toxic relationships among hetero- and homosexuals everywhere. Nor do I think promiscuity itself is wrong either – if people are single and consenting, go for it and enjoy yourself. It’s the addiction and abuse that are the additives for disaster.

Now of course her opinions are very biased because of her religious perspective, since the bible admonishes homosexuality and promiscuity in so many ways. She openly renounced her promiscuity along with the substance abuses, however she was rather vague on the lesbian part. She never openly renounced her homosexuality, and several questions started running through my head. She knows her own self more than anyone, so perhaps she’s accepted that she is naturally a lesbian and can’t change that. If that’s the case, then I think if she wants to adhere to Christian morality, she has two choices, both of which I feel are ultimately disastrous:

1) She can attempt to pursue a normal relationship with a man, get married, have kids, etc. But you can’t stay married to someone you’re not in love with or attracted to, and it just sounds like the breeding grounds for a fabulously dysfunctional and abusive family  – a scenario probably all too typical among closeted homosexuals trying to lead a “normal” life.

2) She can attempt to maintain a life of celibacy, which I think goes against the grains of general human nature. We are physical creatures bent on one purpose: to reproduce. Hence our inherent sexual nature that only kindles when intentionally suppressed. It’s this kind of deliberate suppression of a desire that leads to a destructive binge.

I’ve asked this question before, and always seem to get different interpretations, but I wonder if homosexuality is really supposed to be admonished by the Christian faith, any more than eating shellfish or wearing two different materials of fabric. If all sins are the same in the eyes of God, then every Christian alive today is going to hell. Unless some of those old laws don’t apply anymore, which of course is up to an individual’s own interpretation of the book they came from. I honestly think this girl should listen to her heart, embrace the fact that she wants to be in love with a woman and not a man, and find a solid relationship with a woman who empowers her. I think she can still love a woman and love Jesus at the same time, since he did, after all, make her this way right?

Genesis and the history of the universe

I've been reading the book of Genesis from the beginning, and I must admit it's quite challenging to me on many levels. Every time I read a particular story that sounds pretty fantastic, I poke around and see what other people have to say about it. It's lead me to put together an entirely new interpretation of the creation story than if you took the book of Genesis literally, word-for-word. After a little research, I’ve put together two basic timelines for comparison. One is the Naturalist timeline, based on as much scientific data as we have available today: archeological, radioactive, chemical, genetic, etc. The second is a timeline based on the events listed in chapter 1 of the Book of Genesis.


Naturalist timeline:

Universe forms from a single point and all matter is expelled outward.

Earth forms and solidifies from swirling nebulaic dust. Sun begins to form about the same time. Earth is a rotating celestial body, being bathed on one side with light and radiation energy from our developing sun. You could say these are the earliest “days” and “nights”.

A giant object strikes primitive earth, blowing a tremendous amount of matter into orbit around the earth, forming the earth’s only moon.

The earth’s surface cools, earth's first atmosphere is formed from volcanic activity and steam escaping from the crust. Oceans had not yet formed, as there was not enough water on earth yet.

Icy protoplanets and comets impact the earth, vaporize, and eventually settle onto the earth, covering the entire surface with water.

The first land masses appear as a result of the cooling of earth’s crust and mantle.

First life appears in the oceans in the form of single-celled organisms. Blue-green algae, archaeans, bacteria. Due to the incredibly high-energy asteroid bombardment of earth at the time, it is possible that life developed and was extinguished more than just once.

The many land masses merged into one supercontinent, called Rodinia.

Ocean is filled with all existing phyla of life, albeit in their primitive forms. Supercontinent of Rodinia breaks up into smaller land masses.

First primitive plants appear on land.

Bony fishes and other complex marine life evolves. First amphibians appear - essentially the first animals to live at least partially out of the water.

First winged insects appear. These are the first living creatures that fly through the air.

Land masses again form into one supercontinent called Pangea. Reptiles appear; along with winged insects, these are the first animals that can live solely out of water.

Dinosaurs and the first mammals appear, and follow through the 3 periods of dinosaurs: Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretacious. The supercontinent Pangea breaks up and the resulting land masses start to resemble modern-day continents.

The first birds appear in the Jurassic period. Most of modern plant life evolves during the dinosaur era.

Dinosaurs end in extinction probably due to asteroid impact or high tectonic/volcanic activity. The first marsupials develop.

The first large mammals develop and proceed to thrive successfully.

First hominids appear – these are the first primitive primates to walk upright. Australopithecus Afarensis is among the first known hominid species. Megalodon (ancient giant shark) appears in the seas.

After about 20 different hominid species, the first modern humans (Homo Sapiens) appear in east Africa. Prehistoric beasts are aplenty: mastodons, saber-toothed cats, wooly mammoths, giant ground sloths.

Human civilization develops as humans leave Africa to populate the Middle East, Asia, Australia, Europe, and the Americas. The migration is mainly fueled by the increase or recession of ice ages, which provided either an abundance or shortage of available food, and also geographically unlocked different parts of the globe.


Biblical timeline:

Universe forms. Earth and oceans form.

Light from the sun provides the first days and nights.

The sky/atmosphere develops, separating the earth’s water from the rest of the universe.

First land masses appear. The land produces all modern complex plant life.

Every other celestial body in the universe develops (or at least appears visible on earth), appearing as our solar star during the day, and our moon and other stars in our night sky.

Life develops in the oceans. Birds develop.

Life appears on land in the form of all complex modern life.

Modern humans appear on land, namely the Garden of Eden, hypothesized to exist anywhere from Iraq to northeast Africa (in between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers)

Human civilization develops in Mesopotamia until God scatters humans across the globe after the building of the Tower of Babel.


Reading these two sequences of events gives obvious notice of their differing order, and the lack of mention of many events in the Biblical timeline. The timespan of the Naturalistic timeline is about 15 billion years, with the earth forming and all life on earth developing during the last 4.6 billion years. So for each item in the list, figure anywhere from tens to hundreds of millions of years. The bible gives a timespan of 6 days. However in recent years, as more Christians accept scientific data showing the true age of the earth, these “days” have been interpreted as ages or eons, so that the biblical timeline extends to hundreds of millions of years and more closely reconciles with the actual age of the earth.

This last note about the 6 “days” or “eons” gives rise to a very important note: If you take the first chapter of Genesis literally, it doesn’t even remotely agree with an overwhelming amount of scientific data that has been discovered since Genesis was written. However if you choose to interpret the story as a metaphoric narrative, then it can be loosely reconciled with the naturalistic history of the universe. But of course this is where the whole of the faith comes to a gripping paradox: if the creation story itself must be interpreted a certain way to make sense, and is not necessarily the literal infallible word of God, then what else in the Bible can we take this way? If Genesis can only make sense when taken with a grain of salt, then it leaves the entire faith up to interpretation.

There is much in the bible that is pretty historically accurate, although sometimes a little contradictory. It was written by many different sources over thousands of years, but when brought together the core of the different stories overlap pretty well to give a fantastically detailed history of north Africa, Mesopotamia, and the Middle East over the last several thousand years. But like the history of the universe and earth, it fails to mention what was going on in the rest of the world. That doesn’t make it inaccurate, just incomplete. I don’t think it challenges the validity of the bible just because they didn’t give a detailed history of South America, I just think the people who wrote it had no idea about the rest of the world, just the parts that they were directly experiencing. But many people will say that this itself challenges the divinity of the bible. If its authors were being channeled by God’s divine and all-knowing word, why wouldn’t they write about things that no man could have truly known at the time, such as the existence and extinction of dinosaurs? Or at least the proper order of the development of life in the sea, land, and air? It could be said that the history recorded in Genesis is really a matter of the authors' perspective and limited understanding of the world. Maybe God did impart to them the infinite nature of the universe and the exact formation of the earth, but they really only understood and wrote down a small fraction of it. This still of course challenges the literal word-for-word infallible nature that the bible is supposed to uphold. However personally, I don't have a terrible problem with it if that's the case. If these people were gifted with such an overwhelming insight, I think they did pretty well with what they had to work with.

It is also safe to say that science isn’t always 100% accurate either. Just the discoveries made in the last 15 years through genetics has already shed new light on old scientific facts. However science is much more accepting of changing data then religion. Despite politics and profits, over the course of time science will always gravitate toward new and provable data to mold its most updated explanations of the universe. Whereas religion already has their answer, and they will pick and choose (or re-interpret, or ignore) data as they see fit to property reconcile with their holy doctrine.

I’ve heard it said “Science has questions that may never be answered. Religion has answers that may never be questioned.”