The bible is a really long book. There's lots of information in there; almost too much to comprehend. I think nearly every Christian looks at the bible differently though, even though they're all reading (pretty much) the same words. Basically, though, the readers can be broken down into these three categories.
The Literalists:
These are the people who believe every word of the bible verbatim. There are no mistakes and there is no necessity for interpretation. The bible is what it is. One of the benefits of this method is that it requires pretty much zero thinking. There's no need to interpret anything. The folly for this believer is that the literal reading of the bible leaves no room to reconcile contradictions in the bible; and there are a LOT of them. How can literalists believe in something that contradicts itself over and over?
The Intepreters:
These are the people who read the bible and believe that some of the bible is a historical account of events and that other parts require interpretation to be understood. On the surface, this seems like sound reasoning. This somewhat resolves the issue that the literalists have with contradictions as they can be explained away as either meaning something else or inserting a personal understanding of the bible that resolves the contradiction (well, God said don't kill but God is always right so if he commands you to kill it's OK). There are a couple problems with interpretation, however. 1.) How do you know what parts are supposed to be interpretted? 2.) How do you know what the correct interpretation is? If I'm going to be following rules to assure my ascendancy to heaven when I die, I want a firm list of rules. If I have to go about interpretting what is right and wrong than I run the risk of doing wrong even when I believe I am doing right.
The Buffet Lovers:
The buffet lover is very similar to the interpretter, but with one key difference. I would consider the interpretter to be someone who interprets the entire bible. The buffer lover on the other hand is someone that believes what they want to believe, literally or interpretted, and simply ignores the rest. This method allows the believer to get around contradictions, because they simply ignore them. It still suffers from the same issues of interpretation, and probably moreso, because now they are discarding parts of the bible they don't like rather than trying to explain them away.
I find it impossible to be able to reconcile the teachings of the bible in my mind seeing it through one of these three archetypes. How do believers do so? Am I missing an archetype?
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Some Examples of God and his Follower's "Love" and "Compassion"
The following are just a small sample of the horrible things that God does or commands his followers to do:
Joshua 21:16 'They devoted the city (Jericho) to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.'
Numbers 14:18 'The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.'
Deuteronomy 3:3-6 'So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og's kingdom in Bashan. All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city—men, women and children.'
1 Samuel 15:2-3 'This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'
I think these passages really speak for themselves. How can a benevolent God be so unfair and command his followers to commit these heinous acts? It's also interesting that these acts are in contradiction to the commandment to not kill and Jesus's concept of turning the other cheek. I don't understand how a book that is supposed to be the rule book to life and, presumably the after-life, can have so many mind boggling contradictions and promote so much bloodlust and violence.
Joshua 21:16 'They devoted the city (Jericho) to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.'
Numbers 14:18 'The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.'
Deuteronomy 3:3-6 'So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og's kingdom in Bashan. All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city—men, women and children.'
1 Samuel 15:2-3 'This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'
I think these passages really speak for themselves. How can a benevolent God be so unfair and command his followers to commit these heinous acts? It's also interesting that these acts are in contradiction to the commandment to not kill and Jesus's concept of turning the other cheek. I don't understand how a book that is supposed to be the rule book to life and, presumably the after-life, can have so many mind boggling contradictions and promote so much bloodlust and violence.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Thoughts on Faith
Faith. It's a word that's trumpeted by almost all religions. They say, "you just have to have faith". Do I? Why?
Here's something I don't get about faith. I think, most of the time, the word faith is used interchangeably with hope or desire. "I have faith that my cancer will be cured" translates to "I hope my cancer will be cured". "I have faith that so and so will do the right thing" translates to "I hope so and so will do the right thing". Most of us though, at least those of us who want what we're having faith in/hoping for to happen, don't just have faith; we do something about it! Most of those of us who are unfortunate enough to have cancer don't just have faith it will go away, we go to the doctor. Most of those of us who have a child that is turning to drugs don't just have faith that the addiction will go away, we intervene to try and get them to clean up their life. Some people might say that they have faith that the doctor will be able to cure their cancer or they have faith that intervening in their child's drug addiction will save them. But at this point, it's really not faith. You're taking an action that you know will statistically result in a better outcome. When your faith or hope becomes action, I think it ceases to be faith anymore and becomes playing the odds. I'm sorry, but pure faith just doesn't work. Ask any parent that's lost a child to a curable illness because they decided to have faith that God would heal them instead of taking them to the doctor and saving their life (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8180116.stm). Relying on faith alone, in God or anything else, without action is a worthless gesture. To get the results that you want, you need to play the odds and perform actions that give you the best statistical advantage. This to me is just common sense.
Another thing I don't get about faith is that requiring followers of a religion to have faith without any objective evidence puts all religions on an equal playing field. Think about it. All religions are trying to get people to follow them with no objective evidence. If all you have to go on is faith, then how is one religion any more convincing than the other? Yet, this doesn't stop any follower of a religion from claiming that they've found the one true religion. It's also strange that religion is one of the only things in the world people are just willing to have faith on. You wouldn't just have faith that the suspicious person claiming to be a police officer to get into your house is a police officer, you would ask for identification or verify with the police station that that person is, indeed who they say they are. We wouldn't let this suspicious stranger into our house without verification, yet everyday billions of people let religion into their homes on pure faith, with no object evidence at all. And while the suspicious "police man" may only rob you or kill you, the effects of not verifying and believing religious claims can be far more damaging including mass genocide and the poisoning of the minds of endless generations.
I think people need to question supposed truths more and rely more on action than faith.
Here's something I don't get about faith. I think, most of the time, the word faith is used interchangeably with hope or desire. "I have faith that my cancer will be cured" translates to "I hope my cancer will be cured". "I have faith that so and so will do the right thing" translates to "I hope so and so will do the right thing". Most of us though, at least those of us who want what we're having faith in/hoping for to happen, don't just have faith; we do something about it! Most of those of us who are unfortunate enough to have cancer don't just have faith it will go away, we go to the doctor. Most of those of us who have a child that is turning to drugs don't just have faith that the addiction will go away, we intervene to try and get them to clean up their life. Some people might say that they have faith that the doctor will be able to cure their cancer or they have faith that intervening in their child's drug addiction will save them. But at this point, it's really not faith. You're taking an action that you know will statistically result in a better outcome. When your faith or hope becomes action, I think it ceases to be faith anymore and becomes playing the odds. I'm sorry, but pure faith just doesn't work. Ask any parent that's lost a child to a curable illness because they decided to have faith that God would heal them instead of taking them to the doctor and saving their life (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8180116.stm). Relying on faith alone, in God or anything else, without action is a worthless gesture. To get the results that you want, you need to play the odds and perform actions that give you the best statistical advantage. This to me is just common sense.
Another thing I don't get about faith is that requiring followers of a religion to have faith without any objective evidence puts all religions on an equal playing field. Think about it. All religions are trying to get people to follow them with no objective evidence. If all you have to go on is faith, then how is one religion any more convincing than the other? Yet, this doesn't stop any follower of a religion from claiming that they've found the one true religion. It's also strange that religion is one of the only things in the world people are just willing to have faith on. You wouldn't just have faith that the suspicious person claiming to be a police officer to get into your house is a police officer, you would ask for identification or verify with the police station that that person is, indeed who they say they are. We wouldn't let this suspicious stranger into our house without verification, yet everyday billions of people let religion into their homes on pure faith, with no object evidence at all. And while the suspicious "police man" may only rob you or kill you, the effects of not verifying and believing religious claims can be far more damaging including mass genocide and the poisoning of the minds of endless generations.
I think people need to question supposed truths more and rely more on action than faith.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
What would it take for you to believe/disbelieve in God?
I've been wondering, what exactly would it take for me to believe in God? This is something I've thought about quite a bit and, unfortunately, I feel like I have more questions than answers.
My initial thought was that I, and several other individuals who I could verify were in no way delusional at the time, would have to witness some kind of testable, miraculous event. However, such an event could easily be perpetrated by a deceptive individual like Satan. If my goal in life was to turn people away from God, like Satan, that would be a good way to do it. That raises other questions as well. When people think that they hear God telling them to think and do things, how do they know that it's not Satan tricking them. This is particularly interesting when two people are "told" by God to do conflicting things. Which one, if any, is right?
So after thinking about this for a while, I really can't come up with a particular event that could happen to make me believe that God is real.
I would be very interested to hear other people's opinions on what would make them believe in God. I'm also interested in finding out what it would take for the faithful to turn from God.
My initial thought was that I, and several other individuals who I could verify were in no way delusional at the time, would have to witness some kind of testable, miraculous event. However, such an event could easily be perpetrated by a deceptive individual like Satan. If my goal in life was to turn people away from God, like Satan, that would be a good way to do it. That raises other questions as well. When people think that they hear God telling them to think and do things, how do they know that it's not Satan tricking them. This is particularly interesting when two people are "told" by God to do conflicting things. Which one, if any, is right?
So after thinking about this for a while, I really can't come up with a particular event that could happen to make me believe that God is real.
I would be very interested to hear other people's opinions on what would make them believe in God. I'm also interested in finding out what it would take for the faithful to turn from God.
Evidence for God - the Banana
OK. I know this video is pretty old and has probably been debunked and discredited a million times all over the web, but because of how ridiculous it is, I just have to put my two cents in.
Click to view Ray Comfort's proof of God's existence; the banana.
Really? A banana? That's the best we have for evidence of design and the existence of God?
Below are several of Ray's arguments as to why the banana clearly had to have been the product of design (please note I didn't pick every single point, just some of the more interesting/ridiculous ones):
1. It has ridges that make it easy to grip with the human hand.
2. It has a tab at the top for easy opening.
3. It shaped like the human mouth, easy to digest and points towards the human mouth.
Ray's explanation falls short on so many levels.
He claims that the fact that the banana has ridges and easily fits the human hand is evidence of design. Is it possible that, given a human's understanding or patterns, humans decided to hold the banana in a way that made it easier to eat and not because it is "supposed" to be held that way by design? Also, is the watermelon then evidence against design or existence of God? Holding and eating a watermelon in one, or even two hands, is quite a challenge.
Ray also claims that the banana has a tab on top for easy opening. Again, why is this a design feature of the banana and not just a clever pattern that humans have found over the years for opening one? Is the pineapple or the coconut evidence against design? I love pineapple and coconut, but they're not exactly easy to open. If they were, in fact, designed, they were designed very poorly from the ease of opening perspective.
Lastly, Mr. Comfort claims that the banana being shaped like the human mouth, easy to digest and pointing towards the human mouth are evidence of design. Well, I can think of several other orifices that the banana could fit in, but that doesn't mean they were designed to go in any of them. As far as digestion is concerned, insoluble fiber from plants is a regular part of the human diet, however this fiber cannot possibly be digested. Is this then evidence that plants were not designed? Lastly, if I hold a banana backwards to eat it, is that evidence against design? Rather than due to design, I think it more likely that holding a banana towards the face is a pattern that human beings have discovered that makes bananas easier to eat. Nothing more.
Again, sorry for posting such an old video, but I find this to be particularly absurd. Comments are welcome.
Click to view Ray Comfort's proof of God's existence; the banana.
Really? A banana? That's the best we have for evidence of design and the existence of God?
Below are several of Ray's arguments as to why the banana clearly had to have been the product of design (please note I didn't pick every single point, just some of the more interesting/ridiculous ones):
1. It has ridges that make it easy to grip with the human hand.
2. It has a tab at the top for easy opening.
3. It shaped like the human mouth, easy to digest and points towards the human mouth.
Ray's explanation falls short on so many levels.
He claims that the fact that the banana has ridges and easily fits the human hand is evidence of design. Is it possible that, given a human's understanding or patterns, humans decided to hold the banana in a way that made it easier to eat and not because it is "supposed" to be held that way by design? Also, is the watermelon then evidence against design or existence of God? Holding and eating a watermelon in one, or even two hands, is quite a challenge.
Ray also claims that the banana has a tab on top for easy opening. Again, why is this a design feature of the banana and not just a clever pattern that humans have found over the years for opening one? Is the pineapple or the coconut evidence against design? I love pineapple and coconut, but they're not exactly easy to open. If they were, in fact, designed, they were designed very poorly from the ease of opening perspective.
Lastly, Mr. Comfort claims that the banana being shaped like the human mouth, easy to digest and pointing towards the human mouth are evidence of design. Well, I can think of several other orifices that the banana could fit in, but that doesn't mean they were designed to go in any of them. As far as digestion is concerned, insoluble fiber from plants is a regular part of the human diet, however this fiber cannot possibly be digested. Is this then evidence that plants were not designed? Lastly, if I hold a banana backwards to eat it, is that evidence against design? Rather than due to design, I think it more likely that holding a banana towards the face is a pattern that human beings have discovered that makes bananas easier to eat. Nothing more.
Again, sorry for posting such an old video, but I find this to be particularly absurd. Comments are welcome.
Welcome to agnostablog
Welcome to my blog!! This being my first post, I'd like to explain a little more about the purpose of my blog and my reasons for starting it.
To put it bluntly, this blog is about faith -- well, rather lack of faith. This blog is a place for me to post thoughts and questions regarding religion. Currently, I would consider myself an agnostic, so most of my posts will be related to this topic; hence the title. However, I do not want my blog to be exclusive to only people that doubt the existence of God. Quite the contrary. I am actually very interested in the theist/deist perspective on my posts. I would like this forum to be a free, civil exchange of ideas between myself and readers, both theist and atheist.
Perhaps you're wondering how I became an agnostic? I was raised a Methodist until about the age of 13. Although I went to church and felt like I understood my faith, it never really took root for me. I never quite felt that I was hearing truth. Don't get me wrong, there were times when I definitely felt more certain of my faith, but for the most part I felt doubtful. As I grew into my late teens and early twenties, I found other religions, especially eastern religions, to be quite fascinating. It was interesting to me how different philosophically they were than Abrahamic religions. I still believe in much of their philosophy today. However, as a religion and an explanation of the world around us, they fell as short as other mainstream religions. For a long time after that, I considered myself a deist. I felt pretty sure that a God existed but I felt that he left people up to their own devices. I felt this way mainly because almost all religions believe in a God, yet they all portray Him differently. I figured that there had to be some truth to God's existence. However, I then began to question the existence of other things such as Heaven and Hell. And if I couldn't pinpoint which religion that the official "God" supported, how could I ever expect to do what He would consider to be right and just. How could I get to Heaven and/or avoid Hell? I later realized that I was trying to rationalize existence using an irrational method. How can I try and explain the natural world using an invisible, supernatural means? Once I understood this, I was able to read religious texts, such as the bible, objectively and in this light, it seemed absolutely absurd. This is not to say that I am not open to possibility of the existence of God; hence my careful choice of agnosticism. But I see no reason to believe in God for lack of a better explanation of the world and its origin.
Again, thank you for looking at my blog and I look forward to making future posts and hearing the thoughts of readers.
To put it bluntly, this blog is about faith -- well, rather lack of faith. This blog is a place for me to post thoughts and questions regarding religion. Currently, I would consider myself an agnostic, so most of my posts will be related to this topic; hence the title. However, I do not want my blog to be exclusive to only people that doubt the existence of God. Quite the contrary. I am actually very interested in the theist/deist perspective on my posts. I would like this forum to be a free, civil exchange of ideas between myself and readers, both theist and atheist.
Perhaps you're wondering how I became an agnostic? I was raised a Methodist until about the age of 13. Although I went to church and felt like I understood my faith, it never really took root for me. I never quite felt that I was hearing truth. Don't get me wrong, there were times when I definitely felt more certain of my faith, but for the most part I felt doubtful. As I grew into my late teens and early twenties, I found other religions, especially eastern religions, to be quite fascinating. It was interesting to me how different philosophically they were than Abrahamic religions. I still believe in much of their philosophy today. However, as a religion and an explanation of the world around us, they fell as short as other mainstream religions. For a long time after that, I considered myself a deist. I felt pretty sure that a God existed but I felt that he left people up to their own devices. I felt this way mainly because almost all religions believe in a God, yet they all portray Him differently. I figured that there had to be some truth to God's existence. However, I then began to question the existence of other things such as Heaven and Hell. And if I couldn't pinpoint which religion that the official "God" supported, how could I ever expect to do what He would consider to be right and just. How could I get to Heaven and/or avoid Hell? I later realized that I was trying to rationalize existence using an irrational method. How can I try and explain the natural world using an invisible, supernatural means? Once I understood this, I was able to read religious texts, such as the bible, objectively and in this light, it seemed absolutely absurd. This is not to say that I am not open to possibility of the existence of God; hence my careful choice of agnosticism. But I see no reason to believe in God for lack of a better explanation of the world and its origin.
Again, thank you for looking at my blog and I look forward to making future posts and hearing the thoughts of readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
