Noah is kind of a douche

Genesis spends several chapters talking about the heroic work of Noah with his whole ark-building business, collecting and housing every animal on the planet for several months while God washed the entire world away, then repopulating the earth full of humans with just him, his wife, and his sons and their wives. Sure there are innumerable logistical problems with this story – actually finding and keeping every species of animal in one place for that long, repopulating the earth with such a small gene pool (which means he had to get it on with his son's hot wives, go Noah), no fossil record of a true global-wide flood (though much evidence does exist of catastrophic floods in many parts of the world), etc. Nonetheless, the Bible spends a good amount of precious scripture telling us the noble tale of how Noah was single-handedly responsible for continuing life on earth.

However, ironically in the final chapter of Noah's bold life, he gets drunk on wine from grapes that he grew and passes out naked on the floor of his tent. And when his sons find him there, they are kind enough to cover him with a sheet, all the while keeping their back to him to respect their father and not gawk as his old wrinkly naked drunk ass on the floor. And what does he do in return? Gets pissed and curses his grandchild Canaan to be a slave to his sons for the rest of this life. Thanks Grandpa, I was in the yard shooting marbles during your happy hour and now I'm a slave to my dad and uncles forever.

And apparently nothing else worthy of mention happens in Noah's life for the next THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS until he finally dies.

Not quite sure why this last story was so important that Moses and his scribes included it in the holy scripture, and it was copied down meticulously hundreds of times by the highest of Hebrew scholars for 2000 years, so that we could read about Noah saving the world, then being a drunk old fart.

Still searching...

First I’d like to say that my lack of posts recently has been a bit of a downer to me, and I apologize to any who have been frequenting my site and reading my humble insights only to find the same posts staring at you for weeks on end. My newly forming art career has taken much of my time and mindshare, and it’s been hard to find the time and concentration to post regularly. That doesn’t imply however that my search is over, or there aren’t a thousand ideas in my head all day long about God and the universe. Just the opposite in fact. Anyway, rather than trying to put together perfectly organized, well-researched, and very time-consuming posts, I’ve decided to make it more of a stream of consciousness, a place for me to simply share my thoughts and feelings. And anyone wants to present some research to either back up or refute my thoughts, then please do.

I’ve lately been spending a lot of my driving time to and from work listening to podcasts or videos on the internets, thanks to the wonders of the iPhone 4. It’s an endless sea of arguments, discussions, debates, and seminars for and against Christianity, or any religion for that matter. And it’s great for stirring up fodder for some new blog posts. And saves time on my “research” for certain facts when talking about a topic. Hopefully this will allow me to post much faster, since I might be able to recall ideas or evidence from memory, rather than constantly researching while I’m writing. I also might take the liberty to spontaneously share an idea I’ve had, with no argument being made, something that I am sometimes hesitant to do.

Anyway, thank you for all for reading, and I hope to share more thoughts and insights more often.

Using the Bible to prove itself

I’d like to address an argument that I hear often about the credibility of the bible. Many people assert that the bible’s credibility about so many events (such as fulfilled prophesies, the life/death/resurrection of Jesus, etc) is non substantial because there exist few extra-biblical sources of these alleged supernatural events. Not to say that the historical events in the bible didn’t happen, i.e. the Jewish exile from Jerusalem. But to use the prophesies made in the bible to prove events recorded later in the same work is considered by many a circular argument. In other words, using the bible to prove itself is a weak argument.

However I would like to present this idea. The bible itself is not one book, but a collection of 66 different books, written by 44 different authors, over a period of 1500-2000 years. It is a compilation of volumes assembled into one book over a period of time, first the Old Testament as the standard Jewish bible before the birth of Jesus, and later the New Testament about 400 years later due to the efforts of the Roman emperor Constantine, the council of Nicaea, etc. I believe if one book asserts a certain bit of information, and a different book written by a different author in a different time period verifies that information, that is a valid comparison.

That would be like people claiming the same facts in different issues of Time Magazine, written by different authors decades apart, are not substantial because they both appeared in Time Magazine. Assembling the books into a compilation doesn’t discredit the information one bit.

And if you’re wondering about the variations of the text that could have taken place over time (mistranslations, deliberate editing, the game of telephone that changes as the story is re-told a thousand times), after studying much about the ancient Jewish culture, it seems this is considerably unlikely or virtually non-existent. The ancient Hebrews took their culture very seriously – and very meticulously. Before the texts were actually written down and were passed on by word of mouth, it was frowned upon to alter the core of the story in any way. Slight details and nuances were acceptable to change, depending on the characteristics of the storyteller, but the core work was always intentionally kept intact. And they had their entire population telling the same stories, so any variations would have been noted and corrected simply by the vast amounts of people who already knew the correct story.

And once the text was finally written down in the original Hebrew or Aramaic (Old testament) or original Greek (New testament), only the most educated scribes were tasked with meticulously transcribing every character. And the review process was exhaustive, so that there was a near 100% accuracy of each new text. Even if one character was found to be erroneous, the entire text was thrown out and destroyed. Not to mention that every time the endless oceans of Middle Eastern sand cough up an older version of any part of the bible, the accuracy compared to the previously older versions is near 100%.

So with all that, I think that it is a valid argument to use different books of the bible, written by different authors at different time periods, to prove facts or assertions also found within the bible.

Jesus apologetics

Regardless of my lack of posting on this blog, my religious search has far from ended. Even with my new and very time-consuming artwork endeavors that have used much of my time and mental resources, I am still always seeking out new information, trying out new experiences, and asking questions. One habit I’ve developed since getting an iPhone is finding interviews and lectures on youtube to listen to while driving to/from work. Fantastic way to spend a boring 30+ minute drive. Found a really good lecture the other day on proving the Jesus story, which gives insightful details into the Jewish culture, fleshes out much of the context of gospels themselves, and compares Christian beliefs to other religions. There are 7 parts, but they're pretty short. I found it was very worth time spent. Just FYI, the last video is a little worship-y (especially when the piano comes in), but I guess that’s to be expected from a Christian apologetics topic. Otherwise it’s very intelligently argued.

Jesus Apologetics: part 1, Why believe?


Part 2: Legend


Part 3: Story, lie


Part 4: Gospels contradict


Part 5: No corroborating evidence


Part 6: Miracles


Part 7: Ending

Eat or be eaten

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do atheists believe in love?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why focus on Christianity?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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