This is a continuation of my compiled writings against
Christianity. If you wish to return to the Introduction, Complete table of
contents or somewhere else, surely there’s a link for them somewhere
on this page. If you’re here by accident and don’t wish to stay
– then I didn’t want you here anyway and you now have a new
computer virus….
Table of Contents for
this page
Christian Holidays 1
Christian Mindset 3
Wrongs of the World. 7
Jesus NT. 8
Easy Salvation. 11
God is Ethical 14
Just God & Morality 15
Merciful Healings 19
The Immoral Tyrant 21
Complex Creation. 24
Christian
Holidays
Worth mentioning with
regard to the evolution of Christianity are the holidays, celebrations and
recognition paid by Christians each year.
The Encyclopedia
Britannica reports that:
"The traditional customs connected with Christmas have developed
from several sources as a result of the coincidence of the celebration
of the birth of Christ
with the pagan agricultural and solar observations at midwinter. In the
Roman world the Saturnalia (December 17) was a time of merrymaking and
exchange of gifts. December 25 was also regarded as the birth date of the
Iranian mystery god Mithra, the Sun of Righteousness."
Colliers Encyclopedia
agrees:
"After
the triumph of Constantine, the church at Rome assigned December 25
as the date for the celebration of the feast, possibly about A.D. 320 or
353. By the end of the fourth century the whole Christian world was
celebrating Christmas on that day, with the exception of the Eastern
churches, where it was celebrated on January 6. The choice of December 25
was probably influenced by the fact that on this day the Romans celebrated
the Mithraic feast of the Sun-god (natalis solis invicti), and that the
Saturnalia also came at this time."
Before Christ, December
25 was and is the birthday of Mithra, the pagan sun god. Sun worshippers
since the time of Babel recognized this time of year in honor of their
gods.
Easter
was not a Christian holiday, but like Christmas and many passages in the
bible, was taken from previous religions. Thereby, much of what the
Christians claim is actually pagan in its roots and evolved into what they
now believe and recognize. After much debate, the Nicaean council of 325
A.D. decreed that "Easter" should be celebrated on the first
Sunday, after the full moon, on or after the vernal equinox. Why was so
much debate necessary if "Easter" was a tradition passed down
from the Apostles? The answer is that it was not an Apostolic institution,
but, an invention of man!
History records that spring festivals honored the pagan fertility goddess
known as the Babylonian Queen of Heaven, later worshipped under many names
including Ishtar, Cybele, Idaea Mater, or Astarte for whom the celebration
of Easter is named. These events were celebrated at the same time as
present "Easter". Easter is not another name for the Feast of
Passover. In the year 399 A.D., the Theodosian Code attempted to
remove the pagan connotation from those events and banned their observance.
A common Christian tactic, take away the basis of the culture and force in
Christian connotations. The same may be said of Christmas, and numerous
Christianized populaces throughout history.
Back to Table of
Contents….
Christian Mindset
Answers
to prayer should be the norm for Christians. Didn't Jesus say “Ask
and it shall be given you” (Mt.7:7)? Based on Jesus’ words,
answers to prayer should be forthcoming, frequent and expected. Yet,
throughout churches, bible studies and gatherings, Christians are
experiencing extreme difficulties. Prayer requests are made daily from
Christians experiencing pain, self-doubt, exhaustion, impatience, weakness,
spiritual stagnation, fear, unrelenting bondage to sin and ubiquitous
demonic forces.
Is prayer the
panacea that it’s made out to be in the Bible? If the solution could
be solved by prayer, wouldn’t Christians have resolved these problems
long ago? Yet, the difficulties will persist as long as there are
Christians. Why? These afflictions continue because the Christian
thought-processes reject objective, rational, critical thinking. Objective
and critical thought-processes are to be done independent of God or the
Bible, which would in Christianity be considered sin. The Bible teaches
Christians to avoid such thought because it would require one to lean on
their own understanding (Prov. 3:5). It would be utilizing the wisdom of
the wise, the understanding of the prudent (I Cor.1:19); the wisdom of this
world which is foolishness with God (I Cor.3:19). It might cause them to
question their religion. This dilemma for many otherwise intelligent,
capable Christians is the crux of the problem. In various passages, the
bible even warns Christians against speaking with unbelievers (TI 6:20, 2TI
2:14-16, 3:1-7, 2JN 1:10-11).
In
contrast to objective, rational thought, Christian thinking is centered in
a Bible-oriented faith. Biblical faith believes the proclamations of only
the Bible and strongly rejects other ways of thinking. A healthy,
productive psyche is found in something fervent Christians are "not
allowed" to do. The 2nd century church father Tertullian wrote that
the personal pursuit of truth and understanding is in itself an indication
of heresy. Thus, it is heretical to consider that the earth's age might exceed
6,000 years, in spite of the geologic scientific record, lest one
compromise the Bible's genealogy of Jesus to Adam. It is heretical to
challenge the Noah flood story regardless of the extraordinary
improbability of Noah's ability to gather, feed, and keep alive two of
every fowl, cattle, and creeping thing of the earth on a one-window boat
for 10½ months; and in spite of the archeological record of
neighboring cultures which contradicts the occurrence of a worldwide flood.
Certainly, it would be heretical to question the teachings and deeds of
Jesus even though the earliest copies of copies of manuscripts date from
300 years after his alleged life; and even though the reputable Jewish
philosopher and historian Philo of Alexandria who was contemporaneous with
Jesus never so much as mentioned the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth or
the alleged miracles in and surrounding his life.
Faith as defined by the Bible requires the suspension of basic human
thought-processes which are necessary for the functioning of a healthy
mind. For example, in order to be a candidate for becoming a Christian each
person must accept that they are sinners. Why? The historical facts as
recorded in the Bible state that some 6,000 years ago a person named Eve,
who, after being made from Adam's rib while he slept, was spurred on by a
talking snake to seduce Adam into the sin of eating from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil. All objective, rational thought must be
suspended to believe this story. But, once this story is accepted, the
process of exploitable, child-like faith and cognitive dissonance is the
established modus operandi.
Often,
religions associate critical thinking with desires, sin, and doubt.
However, to be critical thought, it must be independent thought. It is
called “independent thought” because it is to be independent of
personal desire. You may want very badly for the ocean’s water
to be purple. Your desire may be strong. You may have very good personal
motives for wanting water to be that color, and you can convince yourself
with self-deception that it is. But evaluating and thinking, outside
of your bias and desire, would prove otherwise, which is a matter of
critical thinking.
Critical
thinking is characterized by careful evaluation and judgment against the
tendencies that your personal prejudice place on you as far as you are
able. Blind trust, while having noble attributes, leads to
destruction. Ignorance is the mother of devotion, and devotion
without thought is dangerous. Look at the massacres of the crusades,
the witch hunts and burnings, the terrorist groups… If people
weren’t so bent on their desires and used critical thinking and
independent thought, such atrocities might have been eluded. When you
bring every thought into captivity, into obedience of a preset state of
mind and an already drawn set of conclusions, then you are no more than a
puppet. And puppets cannot judge whether their master is good or
evil, just follow his commands. That is why the master demands each
thought be captive to his way of thinking. That is also why religion
depends on faith and not rationale. Without reason, you are afloat on
a sea of superstition, traditions and fallacies. Most often, your
devotion will lie in whichever superstition is taught to you first.
And most often, doubt in that belief is a sin, a crime and a shame.
“The
whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” -
wished I could remember who said this….
Back
to Table of Contents….
It
is a common phrase to hear “god did not cause your problems”,
though of course, the same people are all too eager to tell you that god
did cause their good fortunes. Come now, did god cause Adam's
problems? Certainly he did! He created Adam in the garden,
naive and unknowing of right and wrong, evil or good - and he's in there
with whom? Satan, the master deceiver, god's archnemesis – cards
were stacked against Adam from the beginning. God knows if he allows Satan
to be there, then Satan is going to help with the downfall of man. God
knows if he creates Adam, he'll sin and billions of people thereafter will
go to hell because of it. Yet he does it anyway! That is where the potter
created the vessels of wrath, as Romans tell us… Another passage of
interest in that book is Romans 9:11-13 “Yet, before the twins were
born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in
election might stand: not by works but by him who calls--she was told,
‘The older will serve the younger.’ Just as it is written:
‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’"
“What
if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with
much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction”
Just
like Jacob and Esau, our places are set. Some of us are vessels of wrath,
fitted for destruction from the beginning by our creator. Did Esau
ever stand a chance? – No! In order that god's election would stand -
he was screwed. God hated him, before he was born or “had done
anything”, so god set the scenario so that Esau would serve Jacob.
ROM 9:15-18
God has mercy on (and hardens the hearts of) whom he pleases., GEN 4:4-5
God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's., etc…
World
hunger, murder, rape, etc.. all a consequence of god choosing to create
people in a place and situation where he knows that we’ll screw
up. And all of this, so that god can have some company and a few
followers for eternity?
People
starving while an almighty god sits by idly… Even if you wish to
argue that the wrongs of the world aren’t god’s fault (just a
consequence of his actions and choices, which led to consequences of our
actions), there is certainly no arguing that he doesn’t step in and
help. When children are starving, to a loving god - does it really
matter what their beliefs are? And there are Christians dying of
cancer, starving and suffering from the same ailments and tragedies as
pagans and atheists. Why? Some mysterious, divine plan god has
for the cosmos – that requires the suffering of mankind?
Surely, for a god with whom all things are possible – there are
better ways to gain followers and enact his divine plan than one requiring
the suffering at present… So either god is the reason for the
problems at present, or god is unwilling or not able to intercede with the
problems, or simply god is not.
Back to Table of
Contents….
Jesus NT
A
common yet rather odd quip is that the OT god and the NT god are
“radically” different, given different covenants with the
people. Odd, when god says “he changes not” and he’s
“the same yesterday, today and forever”. In fact, this is the
god “with whom there is no variableness”. Nonetheless, a look
at the NT, aside from the gospels’ accounts of the resurrection.
People
are always debating on verses in the bible, yet “God is not the
author of confusion," as I Corinthians 14 33 tells us. "If
the trumpet give an uncertain sound," Paul wrote in I Corinthians 14
8, "who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye
utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what
is spoken?" So it should be simple to understand, not confusing
– yet debate rages on, sects continue, etc… If all things are
possible with god, and god knows that things should be clear... then why
isn’t god’s word clear? Why can’t Christians agree on
dogma and verses?
Jesus
said, "Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send
peace but a sword." (Matthew 10 34) "He that hath no sword, let
him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22 36) "But those mine
enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and
slay them before me." (Luke 19 27. In a parable, but spoken of
favorably.) The burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was
based on the words of Jesus: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast
forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into
the fire, and they are burned." (John 15 6)
"If any
man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot
be my disciple." (Luke 14:26) The Greek word here is miseo
which means simply "hate," not "love less than me," as
some suggest. Its derivatives include misogyny, etc..
In the
canonical gospels, Jesus himself makes many illogical contradictions
concerning some of his most important teachings. First, he repeatedly
states the he is sent only "to the lost sheep of Israel," and
forbids his disciples to preach to the Gentiles. Then he is made to say,
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (It is also
interesting to note that the Trinity was not adopted by the Church until
the 4th century, long after "Jesus’" purported statements
concerning it. These proselytizers, then, were awfully slow in their
preaching of this doctrine!) Next, Jesus claims that the end of the world
is imminent and warns his disciples to be prepared at a moment's notice.
Then he tells them to build a church from which to preach his message. Now,
if the end of the world is coming, why should they build anything? We know
that this "prophecy" didn't happen; nor has Jesus returned
"soon," as was his promise.
Jesus told his
disciples that they would not die before his second coming: "There be
some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son
of man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28). "Behold, I come
quickly." (Revelation 3:11) It's been 2,000 years, and believers are
still waiting for his "quick" return.
"I am
come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against
her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's
foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:35-36)
When one of
his disciples requested time off for his father's funeral, Jesus rebuked
him: "Let the dead bury their dead." (Matthew 8:22)
Jesus never
used the word "family." He never married or fathered children. To
his own mother, he said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"
(John 2:4)
He did nothing
to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some expensive ointment to help the
poor, Jesus wasted it on himself, saying, "Ye have the poor with you
always." (Mark 14:3-7)
Jesus said
that whoever calls somebody a "fool" shall be in danger of hell
fire (Matthew 5:22), yet he called people "fools" himself
(Matthew 23:17).
Regarding his
own truthfulness, Jesus gave two conflicting opinions: "If I bear
witness of myself, my witness is not true" (John 5:31), and
"Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true" (John
8:14).
Back to Table of
Contents….
Easy Salvation
“Whosoever
calls upon the lord will be saved”, “repeat this prayer after me
and your place in heaven will be set”, on and on the messages of
salvation flow. It certainly doesn’t sound hard does it?
Believe in Jesus, repeat this prayer and confess your sins – then you
will be greeted at the pearly gates. For each instance of how easy it is to
be saved, the bible has instances that seem quite the contrary. It says
“many will seek to enter in and shall not be able”. You missed
the end – shall not be able. They try and are not able. The bible
also says: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have
compassion on whom I have compassion. It does not, therefore,
depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.”
The
bible reads “narrow is the way that leadeth to eternal life and few
that find it”. It is narrow and many shall not be able because god
chooses who he will have mercy on – it does not matter whether you
try or on your desire – does that sound so hard? Yes. So in one part
of the bible it is easy – just believe (John 3:16), just call on the
lord and be saved – easy right? Passages that are great for those
sermons on god’s love for all men. But then later the bible says that
it is hard! Few will be able, few are chosen, narrow is the way,
only those in the will of god, etc... We like to believe that god hears the
cries of people – but the bible says this is not always so.
Matthew 7:21:
"Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of
heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
Lamentations 3:8 :
“Even when I call out or cry for help, he shuts out my prayer.”
Why?
Because god has created some for destruction? Does he chose who he wants,
just as Romans suggests?
Joshua 11:20 “For
it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts against Israel, so that
he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy”.
If our fellowship and
salvation is of the utmost importance to god, why would he harden people
against him? If god is love, merciful to the end – would he destroy
people without mercy? And is everyone and everything really all about god,
the pain of everyone a result of an ego-maniac?
Pr.16:4
“The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for
the day of evil.”
Does
a kind and benevolent god create all things for himself? Does he create the
wicked for the day of evil? Everyone is predestined, just as the verses I
listed in the previous document confirm. The loving god creates some of us
for hell, some of us for heaven, some of us gifted and some of us deformed?
Exodus
4:11: “The LORD said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes
him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the
LORD?”
Back to Table of
Contents….
God is Ethical
Ethical: adj. Conforming to accepted
standards of social or professional behavior.
God is NOT ethical. Sending bears to maul children is unacceptable
behavior. (2 Kings 2 23, 24). Forcing people to do your bidding or be
utterly destroyed (including ordering women, children and infants to be
slaughtered) is not accepted as a standard of behavior (I Samuel
15:2,3,7,8).
"God is Moral"
Moral: adj. Relating to principles of right and wrong; i.e. to morals or
ethics.
God is NOT moral. Forcing people to eat their own children due to a famine
imposed because god is mad is not moral. (Duet. 28 53) Placing lies into
the mouths of people in order to deceive, and speaking evil against people
is not a moral act (2 Chronicles 18:22).
"God is Just"
Just: adj. Used especially of what is legally or ethically right or proper
or fitting.
We are told that "No man who has any defect may come near: no man who
is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed" (Lev 21 18), yet Exodus
tells us that god creates some blind, deaf and mute in 4 21 "Who gave
man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him
blind? Is it not I, the LORD?" So is it fair that god creates some
blind or mute? And then consider that he tells the church not to allow them
near the temple after he creates them that way! Blaming and punishing a
generation for the wrongs of generations long since gone (Ezekiel 18:20)
and punishing someone seven times worth their wrong (Lev. 26: 28, 29) is
not just.
"God is Good"
Good: adj. Having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable
for a thing specified.
Romans: "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power
known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to
destruction." Is it fair, good, for some to be created to suffer wrath
and others to enjoy the splendors of god? So they are "prepared in
advance" to show his wrath and make his power known... who exactly is
he trying to impress? If a strong man beats up a weak boy, what has that
proven? Aren’t there better ways for an almighty, with whom all
things are possible, to show his wrath and power than to create people for
that very purpose and take it out on them?
Forcing
people to eat their own, rubbing dung in faces, committing and ordering
merciless killings, etc. is not good, positive or desirable.
Back to Table of
Contents….
Just God & Morality
Often
after confronting a Christian with the examples of unnecessary and spiteful
cruelty, I have been told "God's actions do not need
justification."
Alas,
if a servant never questioned its master, is it ever any more than a
puppet? And if we, the slaves and marionettes, never judge the actions of
our master, then how can we state that he is good? Labeling something
good is passing judgment, equally as much as labeling something evil. Are
we supposed to blindly adhere to the indoctrination of our youth and
culture? If so, then how can we condemn other religions and why would we
try to dissuade them from their belief?
Gods
require faith, each and every god, so what are we to use to distinguish
which god is true and real, and which is not? Each claims truth, each has a
sacred document or a plethora of documents. Each claims evidence that
is often narrowly backed by shreds of science, archeology and history, yet
often contradictory to the scientific consensus. With the enormous
array of myths, superstitions, religions, deities, messiahs and their
protagonists - what do we have but reasoning and logic! The need for
justification and congruity are quite necessary.
Look
at the numerous, atrocious events throughout history that have been caused
due to people’s adherence to religious doctrine. If they would
have used their minds and compassion to evaluate and justify their creed
– then how many of the dreadful events of the past would have been
avoided? German Christians built human ovens for the burning of
pagans and witches centuries before the Nazis. How many people were stoned
to death, burned at the stake or ostracized because of obedience to the
“good book”? Terrorist cells, the crusades, the
Inquisition, the witch hunts, the holy wars – all repercussions of
religious observance without justification and critical thought. Each
god and religion requires faith and the loyalty of its followers, while
labeling pagans as deceptive, manipulative self-seekers and wrongdoers.
Why
is it that Christians are so distrusting of human rational and conclusions
that they will readily trust in what a book states over critical thought?
Yet in so doing, they are trusting in their human rational and conclusion
to believe in a god and, even more so, trusting in a book written and
interpreted by human rational about humans interacting with god?
Lastly,
if we do not assess the justification of our deity and our dogma, and
continue to teach and spread the doctrine – aren’t we just
spreading immorality? Before answering consider what morality is, by
definition:
Morality:
noun. (1) Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and
wrong; right or good conduct.
Evil:
noun. (1) Morally objectionable behavior (2) That which causes harm or
destruction or misfortune (3) Having or exerting a malignant influence.
Good:
noun. (1) Having desirable or positive qualities especially those
suitable for a thing specified. (2) That which is valuable or useful.
People
define morals; they decide that which causes harm, destruction or
misfortune (evil) is unwanted, unacceptable behavior or conduct, and to be
avoided. They also decide that which is valuable, useful and positive
(good) behavior or conduct – and from that we determine our laws,
lives and society in general. Christians, however, wish to take the
entire word and have it mean something else entirely. They want it to be a
set of standards laid out by a creator that everyone must adhere to (except
the creator itself). But this is not morality, it is regulation.
Might makes right and since god is mightiest then he sets the rules.
While there are problems with that mindset, notice there is a large
difference in rules and morals. Rules are decrees governing conduct
and behavior. God gave us rules, not morals. To spread a
doctrine, with a god whose actions you never ascertain to be justified, is
taking away a person’s concern with distinction between good and
evil, which is morality.
How
many people would consider forcing people to eat their own children,
rubbing dung in people’s faces, ordering the destruction of infants,
etc to be morally objectionable? These are things the god of the
bible has done (or threatened to do). The only way for it to not be morally
objectionable is to state that god’s actions need no justification
nor can they be assessed as good or evil. It is taking away thought,
morality, and the very concept of evil and good. I prefer to keep my morals
by using my mind to see an evil act as an evil act and a deplorable god as
deplorable.
Back to Table of
Contents….
Merciful Healings
I
have been asked "If God were not merciful, would He have cured the
blind and the lame and the dying?"
Though
the questioner seems to never consider if god were merciful would he create
people blind and lame? Exodus 4:21 "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes
him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the
LORD?" It is “Munchhausen's by proxy”, in which someone
makes someone else sick in order to gain attention, respect, or worship.
God tells us that he creates people blind, deaf and lame. Various instances
in the bible dictate god creating disease. If someone is cured, does that
make god merciful? Or rather, would the truly merciful god not have
created the disease or person deformed in the first place? It
isn’t merciful for someone to make you sick in order to make you
better and gain praise – that is demented, selfish cruelty.
Much
like the creation of people, God wants to show his mercy and make himself
look good by setting us up to fail, then giving us a way out! Evil and all
the iterations and variants thereof, sickness and all the variants thereof,
etc are all thanks to god. Yes, people brought it on by sinning in the
garden, I will certainly concur but god knew they would sin! God knew that
it would happen; He put a stacked deck on the table. He knows we will
succumb to the laws that he places on us – just as he knew Adam would
fall. Everyone is subjected to the pains and trial of life, billions
to an eternity of hell – so that god can have the fellowship of true
believers in the end times. His benefit, arguably with that of the
chosen few, at the expense of all – that is not mercy!
The
bible tells us in Romans "what if god, willing to show his wrath and
make his power known, created with much longsuffering the objects of his
wrath fitted for destruction". Does this sound like mercy to you?
People created as objects of wrath, fitted for destruction? Who's he
trying to impress? "show his wrath and make his power known"... if
a strong man beats up a child, what has that proven? If a stronger, smarter
man sets a child up for failure, then let's him off, is that mercy or just
someone toying with an underling?
Back to Table of
Contents….
The Immoral Tyrant
Morality:
noun. (1) Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and
wrong; right or good conduct.
Evil:
noun. (1) Morally objectionable behavior (2) That which causes harm or
destruction or misfortune (3) Having or exerting a malignant influence.
Good:
noun. (1) Having desirable or positive qualities especially those
suitable for a thing specified. (2) That which is valuable or useful.
People
define morals; they decide that which causes harm, destruction or misfortune
(evil) is unwanted, unacceptable behavior or conduct, and to be avoided.
They also decide that which is valuable, useful and positive (good)
behavior or conduct – and from that we determine our laws, lives and
society in general. But Christians often wish to take the entire word
and have it mean something else entirely. The context of their wanted word
is a set of standards laid out by a creator that everyone must adhere to
(except the creator itself evidently). Might makes right and since god is
mightiest then he sets the rules. There is a large difference in
rules and morals in the theological sense. Rules are decrees
governing conduct and behavior. God gave us rules, not morals.
But
either way, morality is relative to intelligence. Independent
thinkers assert that ethical values and morality are relative to human life
and human intelligence, while Christians wish it to be relative to
god’s intelligence. Christians believe themselves too persuaded
by biases and desires to correctly use their intelligence to determine
morality – yet these same Christians that distrust human thought,
completely trust their human decision to believe in god, to believe in
man’s writings of god and what god wishes, and in the human
interpretation. Highly incongruent…
Religious
morality does not allow you to think, to use your intelligence or
principles, to determine what is acceptable and good. Rather it
spells out what is good and requires that you follow these precepts
unquestionably. So, for instance, if a person did not lie because it
is forbidden by their creator – this isn’t per say a
“moral” act or “moral” person, but an obedient
person. The moral person, according to the definition of moral, is the
person that chooses not to lie because they believe lying leads to ill
consequences on others or themselves, i.e. is harmful.
Often
times, people try to stop the pain of others, which is compassion. Atheists
can perhaps express compassion more easily than believers. If we minimize
the pain of others and enhance their quality of life, we are moral and
good. If we don't, we are immoral or amoral, depending on our intentions
and evil. Without the Ten Commandments, would it never have dawned on the
human race that there is a problem with killing? The prohibitions against
homicide and theft existed millennia before the Israelites claimed the
copyright.
Christianity
strips you of morals. Why do you treat your neighbor nicely?
The Christian is obligated to because a rule was placed on them by the god
of the bible. Since we are all connected – part of the same species,
linked by common genetics, ideas, feelings and compassion – I want to
be nice to my neighbor. I do not have a rule or dominion over me to be nice
to my neighbor. I could flip him off everyday or ignore him entirely
if I so wished. But I want a strong stable society of goodwill and
peace. I want to be there to help if needed or just for
comradery. Since I value myself, you and my neighbor, and the others
to whom we are related, I recognize that when someone is hurting, my
natural family is suffering. When someone wishes to talk, they have a need.
By nature, those of us who are mentally healthy recoil from pain and wish
to see it ended. Those of us want to see others happy. Not because
we are commanded to love our neighbor, but because our neighbor is a person
bearing inherent value in and of themselves as they relate to us.
If you were in need, I would be there to help
you. But what does the bible say about you helping me? “Shouldest
thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? Therefore is wrath
upon thee.” II Chronicles 19:2. If you needed a place to stay,
I’d help you out. But 2 John 1:10 “If anyone comes to you
and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and
do not give him a greeting; (11) for the one who gives him
a greeting participates in his evil deeds.”
Hosea
(9:15) quotes God: “. . . for there I hated them: for the wickedness
of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no
more.” In Psalms 139:22 David seeks god’s approval since he
hates those that are not of god with “perfect hatred”. So
while there are passages about loving people for god’s sake, there
also those of hating people for god’s sake. Seems contradictory to
say god is love.
Back to Table of
Contents….
Complex Creation
Christians
love to point out the complexity of life, the diversity of living beings.
And the quick retort is that the complexity necessitates a creator.
But what of the ever complex god of the Christians? If complexity
necessitates a creator, who created god? If the complex to creator relation
ends at god, why can’t it end before him or after him?
The world is
not proof of god. It is just something theists like to attribute to a god
or gods. Whether due to our fear of death, our need for assurance, or to
explain the natural world around us - people have created god/gods. Is the
Christian god immune from our tendencies to manufacture deities?
The fact that
many people continue to believe in a god that doesn't show himself is
pretty amazing. The physical world is evidence of only one thing - the
physical world. It is the attempt of the theist to make the world -
"the creation". You have no proof for your god. You may have a
book (which is sacred to you), the world that you wish to attribute to your
god, etc., but nothing more than any other theist or polytheist, nor
anything that is exclusive and conclusive.
People like to
attribute things to god/gods. People like to pray over food, lives and
troubles and believe someone's listening, helping and watching. People like
to be important in a cosmic plan. If that is what you choose, it is what
you choose. It may not be the most logical thing, or the most probable.
You want the
complexity of earth to reveal a creator. Yet, the complexity of the creator
does not reveal another creator. You want the unseen nature of god to mean
mysterious, not non-existent. You want the pain of the world to mean an
inexplicable, immense plan for greater good, not a consequence of a
stochastic universe. All the while, you have no proof of god. Stating
that something exists requires evidence. And as Carl Sagan coined
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
There is no
evidence of non-existence, and what direct evidence could there be? If I
said I had a purple centaur that spoke Spanish locked in my basement, you
could not disprove it. You could make many reasonable assumptions that I do
not, plausible arguments against it. However, since there is no direct
evidence that I do not have a purple centaur that speaks Spanish, nor any
evidence of a purple centaur, you couldn't disprove it. As for my claim, I
would have to provide proof! I could show you the creature or
conclusive evidence of the creature, but sadly I don't have a purple
centaur that speaks Spanish, but my cousin does!
But certainly,
we have no evidence of god/gods - so why would we believe in something's
existence that hasn't shown itself to exist? Even if we do belief in a god
or gods, to try and back that belief with a creation science is faulty.
Scientific creationism is a pseudoscience; it attempts to pass
itself off as science even though it shares none of the essential
characteristics of scientific theorizing. Creation science will remain
unchanged as a theory. It will engender no debate among scientists about
fundamental mechanisms of the universe. It generates no empirical
predictions that can be used to test the theory. It is taken to be
irrefutable. And it assumes a priori that there can be no evidence
that will ever falsify it.
Religious
creationism could be scientific, however. For example, if a theory says
that the world was created in 4004 B.C. but the evidence indicates that
Earth is several billions of years old, then the theory is a scientific one
if it is thereby taken to be refuted by the evidence. But if, for example,
the ad hoc hypothesis is made that God created the world in 4004 B.C.
complete with fossils that make the Earth look much older than it really is
(to test our faith, perhaps, or to fulfill some mysterious divine plan),
then the religious theory is metaphysical. Nothing could refute it; it is
airtight.
If the age or
scientific dating techniques of fossil evidence is disputed, but considered
relevant to the truth of the religious theory and is prejudged to be
consistent with the theory, then the theory is a metaphysical one. A
scientific theory cannot prejudge what its investigative outcomes must be.
If the religious cosmologist denies that the earth is billions of years old
on the grounds that their own “scientific” tests prove the
Earth is very young, then the burden of proof is on the religious
cosmologist to demonstrate that the standard scientific methods and
techniques of dating fossils, etc., are erroneous. Otherwise, no reasonable
person should consider such an unsupported claim that would require us to
believe that the entire scientific community is in error. Duane Gish, of
the CRI and various creationism books, has tried this. The fact that he is
unable to convert even a small segment of the scientific community to his
way of thinking is a strong indication that his arguments have little
merit. This is not because the majority must be right. The entire
scientific community could be deluded. However, since the opposition issues
from a religious dogmatist who is not doing scientific investigation but
theological apologetics, it seems more probable that it is the creation
scientists who are deluded rather than the evolutionary scientists.
There are many
believers in a religious cosmology such as that given in Genesis who
do not claim that their beliefs are scientific. They do not believe that the
Bible is to be taken as a science text. To them, the Bible contains
teachings pertinent to their spiritual lives. It expresses spiritual
ideas about the nature of God and the relationship of God to humans and the
rest of the universe. Such people do not believe the Bible should be taken
literally when the issue is a matter for scientific discovery. The Bible,
they say, should be read for its spiritual messages, not it lessons in
biology, physics or chemistry. This used to be the common view of religious
scholars. Philosophical analyses of the absurdity of popular conceptions of
the gods were made by philosophers such as Epicurus (342-270). Creation
scientists have no taste for allegorical interpretations.
Back to Table of Contents for
this page….
EMAIL ME: orcinus06@yahoo.com but not hate
mail… broken links/discussion=GOOD, “You’re going to
hell”, etc=BAD
To the Entire Table Of Contents
|
|
|
