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."