A Missing Chapter of Genesis – Found, Again!

Due to a combination of being very busy this week and being lazy this weekend, I am not yet ready with the blog I am currently working on. However, instead of leaving a blank Monday I decided to repost one of my earlier blogs.  In fact, it is the one that has had the most views on my site.  First posted on May 23, 2012 here it is again.  Enjoy. 

I came across some interesting news today.  It seems that in some caves located in the deserts of northern Israel they have found a hitherto unknown section of Genesis, one that has apparently been lost and forgotten about for almost 2,000 years (there are cryptic references to it in some of the writings of Christians and Jews up to around 100 CE, but then all mention of it stops).    This section, consisting of probably three or four chapters, is not intact and there are obviously pieces missing, but what is there provides a whole new insight about the Bible and God.

Below is the translation of the first of the two sections from the lost chapters of Genesis that were found. 

“One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.  The LORD took Satan aside and said to him, “Where have you come from?”

Satan answered the LORD, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth in it.”

Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered the problem of Adam and Eve?  They have been banished from Eden and yet still are in danger of sinning further.  They are not following my commandment to be fruitful and increase in number; to fill the earth and subdue it.  Instead, they work and talk, talk and work, but do not do that which will increase their numbers as I have commanded. “

Satan answered the LORD, “Yes LORD, I have considered the failings of your creations, Adam and Eve. I have discovered why they do not procreate as you have commanded.”

Then the LORD said to Satan, “Then tell me why before I smite them and you again.”

Satan bowed to the LORD and answered him, “Because they are afraid O LORD.  When you banished them from Eden you told the woman that you will make her pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor she will give birth to children.  And you told the man that because he listened to his wife and ate fruit from the tree about which you commanded him, “You must not eat from it,” that the ground would be cursed and that only through painful toil will he eat food from it.  That the land will produce thorns and thistles for him and that he will eat the plants of the field only by the sweat of his brow. Now Eve is afraid to become with child and Adam is loath toil in more fields in order to feed more mouths.”

The LORD bowed his head in thought and then asked Satan, “Have you considered this problem Satan?”

“Yes my LORD,” answered Satan.  “Whilst in the Garden when there were no cares or fears and all came easy to them the fact that sex brought as much pleasure as drinking a warm glass of milk, to be engaged in only on nights when one or the other could not sleep was of no moment. 

But now, oh LORD, the milk has curdled.”

The LORD nodded and said, “Have you considered the solution then to this vexing problem Satan?”

Satan bowed and answered, “I have my LORD.  With your permission I will increase the size of the woman’s breast so that instead of being but slightly noticed hills upon a prairie field they shall rise up like majestic mountains and thus attract the gaze and desire of Adam. 

For Adam, I will increase the size of his member so that instead of rattling around like a thin stick in a cooking pot it shall provide a pleasurable sense of fullness for the woman so that the Eve will no longer be able to ignore it’s presence as before.

For both, I shall make the experience of love a thing to remember, an event of fireworks and blissful earthquakes; an act that they will enjoy so much that they will engage in it again and again and never consider the consequences.  Their own natures will help with that given how easily they were persuaded to eat of the apple. “

The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, everything that you need to accomplish this deed is now in your power. Go and do so, but no more than this.”

Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.”     

Now that is the end of the first fragment found of this long missing section.  There was one more fragment found though which I post below:

“After the LORD had said these things to Michael, he turned to Satan and said, “I am angry with you and your works.  Now that you have increased the size the Adam’s member and Eve’s breasts, now that you have increased the size of the pleasure that they know when intimate together; because of all that you have done they have wondered into new sins and know it not. Now I will have to teach the man and woman that most of their newly discovered pleasures are also sinful and will result in my wrath if continued.

The man now not only loves his wife but spends many hours playing with his member on his own and wasting his seed.  Or spends it in other openings of Eve not meant for procreation.  And Eve, she not only goes joyfully into her husband’s arms but also into the arms of goats, dogs, and other creatures not her husband.   

I foresee that as they procreate and fill the earth that both will know not only each other but each of them will know each of their sons and daughters, their grandsons and granddaughters, their great-grandsons, and great-grand daughters and so on down all the years of their lives!”

“LORD”, said Satan, “I only did as you asked so….”

And that is, unfortunately, all we have.  The rest of the chapter is missing.  As I said earlier I think though what we do have sheds some light on the Bible and its meaning.

Read Full Post »

Our Days are Numbered

I recently came across a group of Christians who took much comfort in their grief over the loss of a loved one from two particular Bible verses.   One that I had an almost visceral reaction against. A reaction against that was just as strong as the comfort they seemed to take from it.  The verses in question are these: 

A person’s days are determined;
    you have decreed the number of his months
    and have set limits he cannot exceed.

Job 14:5 NIV

Your eyes saw my unformed body;
    all the days ordained for me were written in your book
    before one of them came to be

Psalm 139:16 NIV. 

God has numbered our days and nothing that we either do or do not do will change the day of our dying.  Or its manner.  The their days are numbered is something that these Christians all took great comfort from and seemed to help them in their feelings of guilt over things they either did do or did not do that they believed led up to their loved ones death. 

I too have felt that same guilt overall, or in my case, one particular shoulda coulda.  However, the idea that there is nothing that could have been done to prevent my wife’s untimely death is something I find objectionable in the extreme.  It is most definitely not comforting for me.  Even though my wife and I did not choose it, I fervently want there to have been something we could have done that would have made a difference on when and how she died.  To believe that we had some measure of control.

I found more comfort in the idea, also brought up at this group, that we make the best decisions we can based upon what we know and believe and are capable of at the time conjoined with the idea that no one is perfect.  From that, I do not experience guilt as strongly as before and now it tends to edge more into extreme regret than actual guilt.  Most of the time.  But I would much rather continue to feel and experience this guilt in all its stabbing pain than to believe that there was nothing that could have been done to change the outcome – the day of her actual death. 

While I am not sure absolute free will exists, I do believe that our decisions do matter and do make a difference.  Not only in life and death issues but everyday decisions and actions – what we say and do with our children and what we do at work, how we treat others, our decision to exercise and diet or not, and on and on and on.  All are meaningful decisions.  Decisions and actions that can and usually do make a difference for good or ill. 

I can understand how believing that there was nothing you could have done or not done that would have prevented a loved one’s death can be comforting.  Especially in those rare cases where a decision made directly caused the death.  For example, a co-worker who accidentally shot and killed his significant other when cleaning a gun.  However, this is a very shallow and superficial sort of comfort.  And one that contradicts other tenets of the Christian faith.  The belief that humans have free will.  And without free will then where is the justification for some being thrown into hell and others rising to heaven? 

Further, these Christians and I have the same problem with this idea: it makes all of our actions and decisions futile and worthless.  It means that we unable to make a difference anywhere at anytime. The main difference between myself and these Christians is that I am aware of this problem. 

As I said earlier, I am not sure if I believe in free will or not. But I do believe our actions and ideas and words can and do make differences large and small in both our own lives and in the lives of others.  Atheists often are criticized for having meaningless lives.  And it is partly true. The universe has no meaning.  There is no given meaning to our lives, no large or small metaphysical reason for our being born. 

If so, then what purpose or meaning or reason can be found in doing anything? Especially since nothing is permanent.  In a million years whatever effect your life might have had would surely be totally erased from the universe. Which is true.  But also irrelevant. 

We do not live in the million years from now.  We live in the now, in the moment by moment.  The moment we live in is what we experience – love, shame, hate, friendship, elation, hunger, pain, loneliness, satisfaction, hope, despair and on and on ad on.  All the very many different ways we experience moments, as well as who we experience them with.  And if we can change and effect one moment, then so what if is doesn’t last?  For that moment it was real. And if we are lucky and work at it we string a series of good moments to experience and know.  And life is good. The memories are good as well as biting.

And this is why I was so revolted by the idea of our days are numbered. It takes those moments away and truly makes us futile creatures in both life and death.    

Read Full Post »

A Revelation of Heaven

The other day I was listening to a sermon on the radio.  I know that this sounds like a strange habit for an atheist but I often find these sermons very informative and thought provoking.  Which this one was.

The preacher was talking about heaven and what it is like, and about what we can expect on reaching heaven.  Included in this sermon he talked about the size of heaven.  Yes, the Bible includes the actual size of heaven. Something I had never realized before. 

One interesting take away from this is that God already knows how many people will wind up in heaven.  Or at least the maximum number because, after all, if it is too small and crowded that would be a strike against it being paradise. 

But this was not the most revelatory thing I received from this sermon.  The thing I found most enlightening is how the dimensions of heaven were given.  From the New International Version of the Bible, Revelation 21:16. 

“The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadiain length, and as wide and high as it is long.”

For those who somehow missed this in your school science classes,  12,000 stadia is 1,380 miles. Which makes heaven a fairly large place at 1,380 miles a side. But, the interesting thing to me, the truly revelatory aspect of this description is how many sides heaven has.  As described in this verse in Revelations, Heaven is 1,380  miles long, 1,380  miles wide, AND 1,380  miles high.  In other words, Heaven is not a square but a cube! 

This gave me my true revelation, one that helped explain so many questions I had had over the years about how Heaven worked.  Heaven is a Borg Cube Ship!!  Which means that God is the Borg Queen.

And this makes perfect sense.  One of my problems with the idea of Heaven as depicted in the Bible is that it is forever.  God takes those who believe in him… er her, and in his… dang it her (are there Borg Kings?) son Jesus into Heaven to live with…her.  However, given that her original creations got kicked out of Eden for not being able to obey all her commands, and even some of the angels rebelled and had to be cast out what was going to be different in heaven to prevent God/Borg Queen from casting them out again?  With thousands of more people living in Heaven than In Eden, that is just that many more acts of rebellion and lapses waiting to happen.  If it happened with Adam and Eve, and even among the Angels, how is Heaven going to be any different?

But now I understand. Dead people are assimilated into the collective!  Instead of a three in one God it will be a many thousands in one God.  No rebellion for ever and ever amen. Just as God intended. 

Read Full Post »

A Different Hellish Idea of Hell

Once again while eating a Subways, when discarding my trash, I found an issue of “Signs of the Times” by the Seventh Day Adventists.   And being the naturally curious sort of atheist that I am, I picked it up to look at.  And, as before, I found something to blog about.  The nature of Hell.

In an article titled “Hell, it’s not what you may think” the writer, Mark Bullock, provides Bible based reasons for not believing that Hell is a place where the damned suffer eternally.   Instead, Hell totally burns away the damned so that instead of suffering eternally they are rapidly eternally gone.

At first glance I thought this an improvement.  And, to his credit, Mr. Bullock has a problem with the idea of being eternally happy when others are suffering eternally.  However, on looking closer there are several assumptions made which I still find bothersome.

“”The wicked….will be destroyed forever” (Psalm 92:7).  The punishment of the wicked is a destruction  that will not be everlasting.

How hot hell?  Hot enough to devour the wicked (revelation 20:9)… Hot enough to cleanse the earth and melt the very elements (2 Peter 3:10,12).  Happily, after the fire has burned up all evil and every evil thing, then those who love God may confidently anticipate that “in keeping with is promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a hew earth, where righteousness dwell’ (2 Peter 3:13)”.  Page 36

Or this bit here which creates a slightly different though related problem.

“Unrepentant people would not be happy in heaven, for they objected to the principles that govern His Kingdom in this life.  If they are not comfortable in the company of good people here, they would certainly be uncomfortable with them in heaven.” Page 34

So, while he at least gets rid of the cruel idea of an eternity of pain and torment for finite crimes, there are still three issues with this idea of hell.  First, there is the more minor issue of why burn at all –why not just never waken after dying?   I am though going to focus on the two more major problems with this idea of hell –who is considered righteous and who wicked and also who would be happy in paradise and who not.

It is the “wicked” who will be “destroyed” and “devoured”.  It will burn up every “evil thing” and “cleanse the earth” and create a place where “righteousness dwell”.

So, assuming, as is reasonable given the source, that those who go to heaven and are not burned are those who believe in Christ and God, then those that go hell for a quick burn are those who do not share this belief.  There is a problem here  though.

Consider two people.  Both give their time and money to various causes and charities, both care for their family and raise their children so that the children become good adults, both are never arrested, both are honest, both help others in need such as a person changing a flat tire, both  vote in almost every election, both do well at work, both harm few and help many more.  Yet one of these two will be burned away and be described as wicked and evil, while the other will be called righteous and go to heaven.

Huh?

If there were some way that this belief in Christ manifested itself consistently into believers acting better than those who differ in life, then you might have cause for such a distinction.  But, that is not the case.  The person who lived what we would call a good life and believes just right goes to heaven.  But their neighbor who has led an equally good life but believes differently burns briefly in hell.

Then there is this part, “Unrepentant people would not be happy in heaven, for they objected to the principles that govern His Kingdom in this life.  If they are not comfortable in the company of good people here, they would certainly be uncomfortable with them in heaven.”

Really?  I live and work with believers of this writers variety every day, and am most comfortable with them.  And, as I mentioned, we share most things in common in regards to behavior.  Truth to tell, I think I could be very happy in heaven.

Again there is an unstated and invisible assumption that somehow by believing the right way a person becomes a good person, values the good things, enjoys the good.  Whereas those who do not believe the correct way do not.

It reminds me of those who abuse the idea of worldview.  So often people talk about this worldview or that worldview and do so as if each worldview were totally separate and distinct.  The reality is that most worldviews have a great deal of overlap.  They confuse belief with behavior and ignore the commonalities that are more present than the differences.

In other words, to truly believe this, one has to deny our common humanity.   And that is a problem.

Read Full Post »

God Wrote the Bible! The Word According to Prager.

I was in the process of writing a blog about something else when I came across this bit of news and couldn’t resist.

Dennis Prager, founder of Prager University, has written a book showing that the Bible was written by God!

Wowsa.  The founder of a University has written a well  and thoroughly  researched book showing that God wrote the Bible!

Never mind that his university has no brick and mortar buildings.  Nor any on-line courses.  Nor degrees. Nor certification.  No professors or teaching staff.  No required reading.  What is does have….ummm.  Oh yeah, it has a series of short videos narrated by various people on various subjects.   The ones I have watched have almost always contained serious mistakes and inaccuracies.

But, never mind.  I am sure that the book is of better quality than Prager’s university.

Now, I know that it is not really the thing to do to review a book solely based on what is being said about it.  But, this is from Fox News, so I am sure it must be right.

So, here is what  Fox said Prager said about his  book, The Rational Bible: Exodus.  Along with my commentary.

“The Bible is the “greatest book ever written,” according to Dennis Prager, a nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host and writer…”

Well, technically, the Bible is a collection of books of varying types and styles.   Rather like a short story collection.

As for being the greatest, depends on your definition of greatest.  If you are talking about literary quality, that is debatable in regards to the Bible as a whole.  Now, there are certain books and passages that are indeed great.  And possibly the greatest.  But, those parts would have competition.  So, no cakewalk.

If you are talking about influence on the world and affecting world history, then you have a good case.  The Bible has been and still is highly influential.  However, the case could be made that the Qur’an is the greatest.  It too has had a rather sizeable impact on the world.  Of course, you could say that the Torah is the greatest since it predates both the Bible and the Qur’an and is the basis for both books.  Without the Torah neither book would exist.

So, there are definitely questions about this statement by Prager.

Next reported statement.  Or rather series of related statements.

“This is the first generation in human history … that is being raised godless.”

Considering that most people are Christian and are taught by their parents and relatives to believe in God, I think this is a great overstatement.  It also confuses schools being neutral, which involves being secular, with teaching that there is no God.  Not quite the same.  Further, I do not think many of us would like having God actually taught in the schools, not when it is not our god that is being taught.

“And the results I believe are the end of Western civilization as we know it.”

So Western civilization wasn’t done in by slavery, tyranny, basic enslavement of women, oppressive child labor, imperialism, and several other things.  But having a secular government that doesn’t teach god in school will do it iin.

Wowsa.

“People go to church or synagogue, they hear the Bible and most of them don’t know how to make heads or tails of it,” Prager said. “[Exodus] has the Ten Commandments and I am using reason alone to explain everything in there … [to] show how this is life transforming — that this was the source of wisdom in American for good reason,” he said.

Funny.  Those who wrote the Constittuion consulted a great many books to create this country. The Bible was not one of them.  In fact, the Constitution contradicts the Ten Commandments and is fundamentally in disagreement with it.  The freedom of religious belief and the requirement to have no other god before me don’t go too well together.  Roger Williams knew that.

But wait.  According to the headline of this Fox News piece Prager’s new book says that God wrote the Bible.  Where are his statements about that?  Oh, here it is.  At the end.

“The great way in which non-Jews are depicted in these five books and the negative way Jews are often, not always obviously… that is one of my many arguments for ultimately a divine author,” he said.

Wowsa again.  Might have to read this book again to see how he pulls that magic trick off.  The way non -Jews and Jews are depicted is evidence of a “divine author”.

Wowsa.

Read Full Post »

The Literal Truth and Trumpian Conspiracy Theories

Recently I have noticed something that various disparate groups have in common:  climate change deniers, Biblical literalists, creationists, Constitutional literalists,  and most recently, Trump supporting conspiracy theorists.

While I am sure that they may share many traits in common, the one that I am looking at now is their belief that there is a plain and simple way to read words, even words grouped together in sentences and paragraphs and pages.  That such meanings are obvious and that anyone who doesn’t see the plain and simple meaning is either blinded by their own ideology or do not want to admit they are wrong.

Going up or coming down?

This was brought home to me by my recent discussions with a Trump supporting conspiracy theorist.

Now, this person would and does say they are not a conspiracy theorist, that they have laid out the facts and timeline and are following clear and obvious facts; and that it is only my desire not to admit mistake or commitment to a certain political and social beliefs or hatred of Trump that prevent me from accepting what is obviously true.

The facts for the most part consist of words arranged in sentences, and statements reported in the press.

This person claims that the sentences’ meanings are obvious.  However, when I look at them, I see other possible explanations besides the one this person prefers. Of course, mine are wrong and just justifications and excuses and speculations while theirs are factual and actual.  I, obviously, do not want to admit the truth.

This person believes in literal meanings.  They believe it for the Constitution.  And for this.  They think that there is one and only one way to understand these words.  Never mind that they are often devoid of context that would help make the meaning surer and clearer.  And by context, not only the other words before and after, but also situational context.  All of that makes a difference.  But, not to Trumpian conspiracy theorists, creationists, biblical literalists, constitutional literalists and climate change deniers.

I must say though that this makes their arguments much easier for them.  Instead of trying to evaluate the situation and context of those words when challenged, they just say that it is obvious and no interpretation needed.  Just a plain and simple reading of the words.

Consider this though, that even when speaking to each other we often have to explain or say again in different ways; we misunderstand or don’t understand clearly what is being said.  There is at least a little back and forth, questions and answers.  And this is with the benefit of being able to hear tone of voice, see facial expressions and body language.  How much greater a problem is this lack of understanding with the written word?

Some things to consider for those who think that words do not need to be interpreted, that their meaning is plain to see, and that you are a fool blinded by ideology or ignorance to think differently.

The Bible is an atheistic book.  The Bible says so.

What is the one plain meaning of the word bark?  Or nails? Or Jam? Or stool?  Or….

Here’s a good one, showing how when words are woven into sentences and those sentences then applied to others and then to the world, there is not a simple and plain meaning.

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

So then, what laws are necessary and proper for carrying out “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”.  Plain and simple still?

Or what constitutes a religion, with all the Constitutional protections granted such things?

The list goes on and on and on.  And it goes on because the idea that there is one plain and simple meaning that can be agreed upon by all reasonable persons is largely a myth.  There are few such things, especially when you move beyond simple descriptive statement such as red and blue (although even there are differences when the colors start to shade).

You can get agreement with most reasonable person on many things, but, usually there is discussion and sometimes debate beforehand.  You do not usually get it straight off the bat – unless of course, you limit the circle of those who are considered reasonable to your own.

Which, of course, brings up the question of what is a reasonable person?  Anybody care to provide their interpretation?

 

 

 

End Note Not Really Related to the Subject Above, But Thought I Would Toss In Because I Wanted To and Found It of Interest. 

The  Trumpian conspiracy theory is getting large, convoluted,  and very interesting.  It would be more interesting and less concerning if our President were not a member of it.

However, it now includes, from what I can figure without doing more in depth research, a story of President Obama hand picking his successor, Hillary, and, through cheating, getting her the Democratic nomination and then working to discredit and do in Trump – with the help of a “weaponized FBI and intelligence agencies” and most of the mainstream media.  Recently I saw where John McCain has now been included as part of this story.  Why it missed its timing in regards to do in Trump with the Russian story I am rather unsure of.  But, it includes a cast of President Obama (master manipulator and the most corrupt President in history), Hillary (no more need to said about “Killary”), Lynch, Comey, Bill Clinton, and many others, including McCain now apparently.

Read Full Post »

The Forgotten Gospel of Judas (not Iscariot) and the Evangelical Supporters of Trump

I confess. My title is misleading.  The Gospel of Judas (not Iscariot) has not been lost at all, just well concealed and its knowledge revealed to a carefully selected few. For example, Cardinal Richelieu had read the Gospel of Judas (not Iscariot) and successfully absorbed its lessons. However, today, with more and more Christian leaders having read this once secretive gospel and following its teachings, as is evidenced by so many of them endorsing and supporting Donald Trump and his subsequent election, the time for such secrecy is past.

Now, I do not intend to post the whole of this Gospel (it is the longest of all the gospels), only parts. My intention is to make Judas (not Iscariot) well known and force the publication of a new, revised Bible with this Gospel, the most influential of all the Gospels, taking its rightful place before Matthew and Mark as the first of the gospels.  So, without further ado, here are some select passages from the hitherto hidden Gospel of Judas (not Iscariot).

JnI 1:1 – 21

And certain of the Pharisees and certain of the Herodians were sent to Jesus to lure him and catch him in a trap of his own words.  And when they came they said unto him, Master, we know that you are true, and care for no man over that of God for you teach the way of God in truth.  So teach us Master so that we should know the way of God, is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not? But Jesus, knowing their hypocrisy and deceit said to them, bring me a penny that I may see it. And they brought to Jesus a penny.  And Jesus said, Whose is this image and superscription?  And they said unto him, Caesar’s. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. And they outwardly marveled while their hearts were filled with anger.

After the questioners of Jesus and the crowds had left, Judas (not Iscariot) approached Jesus and asked him, Lord, is not Caesar God’s too?  And Jesus smiled at Judas (not Iscariot) and said, Truly, God has given you the discernment to see this.  And Jesus took Judas (not Iscariot) aside and said to him, Listen well most favored disciple, and learn these secret teachings of God. And I charge you to listen and learn and only reveal these to those whose discernment is the equal of your own and who can make Godly use of this wisdom.  And Judas (not Iscariot) listened well and followed the words of his Master, the Lord.

JnI 2:1 – 4

Jesus said that mankind is foolish and in their foolishness they follow their own thoughts and desires over that of God’s. For the glory of God and the furtherance of his will use those thoughts and desires against God’s foes. Sow confusion among those who oppose God’s will by using the confused minds of one against the desires of another so that neither can speak the same language, so that neither have the same cause, and so that both will fall when confronted by those following the way of God.

JnI 2:16

The ways of Caesar are not the way of righteousness and justice. Therefor when working with Caesar to bring forth the intent of God, your ways too do not need to be righteous or just.

JnI 2:20 – 22

While the meek shall indeed be one of the inheritors of the kingdom it is the rich and the powerful, the loud and the boastful who control the things of Caesar’s. Such men act upon their own desires, even to choosing to believe lies as truth and ignorance knowledge.  Let such men grab the secret parts of women and cheat the weak and powerless, so long as they listen to your words and so do God’s will.

JnI 4:14

When necessity calls, promises made in the past are of the past.

 

JnI 4:24

When a man is harmed to advance the glory of God, then harm him severely such that his vengeance need never be feared.

 

JnI 6: 20

Faith need only be kept with god. Mankind is too fickle, weak, and greedy to expect or deserve faith. Keep faith with God and break faith with others when it serves your cause or God’s.

JnI 6:31

Do not hesitate to sin if it furthers God’s will. God will forgive such sins.  He will not forgive those who do not so sin and so fail to further God’s will.

JnI 7:3-8

For the things of Caesar, what is right is what those who have power say. Work hard to be the ones with power, for the furtherance of God’s kingdom.

JnI 9:1

Men are deceitful creatures.  Because of that they are easily deceived. Use that to bring about God’s glory.

JnI 9:3-5

Men are nothing compared to God, only fools braying into the night, concerned only with what will get them through from moment to moment. Use that and you will always be able to deceive them for the glory of God.

 

JnI 12: 3

Only God commands both love and fear.  For man, if one cannot be both, then be feared,

 

 

I thought it apt to close with JnI 12:3 above because today we have every cause to be fearful as those of God and the followers of this gospel work through an immoral fool concerned only with his needs and his desires.  When Godly men to the devil turn, tis time for all good souls to be concerned

Read Full Post »

What is a Religion: A Most Undefinitive Definition

What does the word father mean?  According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary (slightly paraphrased), a father is:

• A man who has begotten a child.
• God, the first person of the Trinity
• Forefather, such as the founding fathers of the United States.
• One related to another in a way suggesting that of father to child.
• An old man – used as a respectful form of address
• A pre-Scholastic, a Christian writer accepted by the church as an authoritative witness to its teaching and practice – called also church father
• One that originates or institutes, such as the father of modern science.
• Source, such as the sun, the father of warmth and light.
• Prototype, such as the father of all libraries in the country,.
• A priest of the regular clergy.
• One of the leading men (as of a city) – usually used in plurals such as a council of the city fathers.

Wow, so many meanings embedded within one word.

Now, those wedded to the idea a person can read the words of a tract, book, articles, manuscript, religious work or political document and understand exactly what it means, will, upon seeing where I am heading with this, point out that while the word father does have many different meanings, which meaning being used is usually made obvious by the context of the word.  In other words, the words around the word help define that word.  And to an extent they are right.

However, words are not only understood as an abstract intellectual concept. In fact, most of the time they are not. People insert meaning  and values to those words.

For example, what a father is will be something quite different  for a woman who was raped and abused by her father since she was a young child versus what it will mean for a young man who had a loving father who played games and helped with homework.  Which means that how a person understands a word within a given sentence embedded within a paragraph that is part of a page which is just one page in an article or a book and all of whose words influence the meaning and understanding of that particular word is going to also depend on that individual’s own feelings and emotions in reaction to that  particular word.  And let us not forget, that each and every one of those words influencing the understanding of the word in question is also being interpreted and understood by that person’s past too.

Put that way, it is really rather amazing that we communicate as well as we do.

And all of this Is happening before we start applying that rather abstract understanding of a word in a passage in a paragraph, etc to real world questions and problems.  Thou shalt not kill seems simple enough commandment when seen on a page, but what does it mean when faced with a 220 pound six foot man with blood in his eye as well as on his clothes wielding a machete?   What about a person running away from you with your money and jewels when you have a gun in your hand?  What about if you accidently kill someone by stumbling over your untied shoelace, bumping into that person and causing her to take a header down an up escalator?  Is that still a sin?  Or even a crime?

To avoid spending too much time and way too many thousands of words, let me just condense it to this: how we understand words, especially words that are accompanied by a great many words, and even more so when those crowds of words have to be applied to the world, are only partly objective. They also have a large subjective element to it, a subjectivity that is dependent upon a person’s:

• Parents
• Personal history
• Education
• Culture
• Society
• Political economic status
• Own readings
• Friends
• Acquaintances, both of the friendly and not so friendly sort.
• Movies
• Music (one person I know was greatly affected by John Denver’s songs, another by Pink Floyd’s)
• And anything else

So, to cut to the chase since I am now  trying to keep these blogs at 1000 words or less, what does this mean in regards to a definition of religion?  Which is, after all, the title of this blog.

A religion can be and usually is defined by its sacred works and doctrine. However, this never quite seems to nail it down. Take a look and you will find a great deal of variety within even a small seemingly well defined group of believers.  Even the most uniform of them will disagree on some issues. And some will prove to be more amenable to different understandings than others.   Which is strong evidence against the idea that there is some plain and literal reading to be had, and for my own view is that, while there are objective limits, they bracket a wide range of subjective understandings and interpretations.

For myself, I have read many works taken to be sacred by different religions – the Tanakh, Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita, Tao Te Ching.  In every  one of the works I have read I found things I considered good and things I considered bad. Some of these were very very good, and some were very very bad.  How these often conflicting passages are understood and applied to the world is very dependent upon how a person choses to understand them.

Given this, I think the most practical and relevant definition of a religion is that a religion is what its followers make of it – both as a group and as individuals within that group.

 

I believe that the most practical definition of religion is a religion is what its followers make of it. What they make of it is, of course, influenced by the history of that group, their society, other aspects of their cultures, geography, political and economic realities, and so forth.  To get even more basic, religion usually differs even between members of the same group, so that more properly a religion can be said to be what a follower makes of it.

For example, Rais Bhuiyan, the lone survivor of an attack by a man intent on getting revenge for 9/11, suing to prevent the killer’s execution because he believed the Qur’an required him to forgive.

Harman Singh, a Sikhs required by his religion to not take his turban off, taking it off and using it to help a young boy hurt in an accident.

And the list goes ever on and covers every variety of religion, and non-religion – Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Wiccan….

For me, I believe that often the most important definition of a religion is what does that person or group make of their religion. It is why, although very important, a particular religions sacred scriptures and doctrine are, to my mind, of secondary importance.

 

 

 

Well dang. 1,174 words.

Read Full Post »

Questions About the Hereafter and What the Answers Say About God, Angels, and Human Nature

Before getting to the questions, let me first off make this clear.  These questions are directed at the vision of the afterlife held by those Christians who believe in a “literal” interpretation and understanding of the Bible, in a very real heaven and a very real hell, and in angels, Lucifer, and fallen angels.

Second off, while written mainly in response to the above mentioned  Christians’ views about the afterlife, they also have, surprisingly, a great deal of relevance for almost any idea and conception of a life after death.

Now, having gotten the offs out of the way, on to the setting up questions.

God created Adam and Eve.  God created Angels. He created both to be his eternal companions.  Yet both failed him in that.  Some angels rebelled against God. Adam and Eve disobeyed God.

Given that so far God has a 100% failure rate in creating beings to share eternity with him, then why should the afterlife be any different?  What is the difference this time from the last two times?

Is free will the issue?  Then is God going to take away humanity’s free will?  If so, then why not do so at the beginning and avoid all the pain and suffering of humanity while on earth/. And the pain and suffering that most of humanity will be in for eternity after they die? If free will was important enough to justify that much pain, then wouldn’t taking it away mean that we become something other than human, something less?

If free will is not the answer then perhaps  it is because we are going to be purified by our life here on earth  and our dross will burn away with our deaths?   In which case, what are our impurities?  What is our dross? Often our strengths in some areas also creates weaknesses in other areas, our weaknesses in one area are a strength in another – different sides of the same coin so to speak.  What then?  Burn the coin?

In addition, we are the sum of our weaknesses and strengths.  Change them and you change who we are.  To an extent you could mess with that, but at some point in doing so that person who is experiencing heaven is not the same person who experienced life in the here and now.

Also, humans form groups.  More accurately, we are individuals who form groups.  Being individuals we form stronger groups with those who are most like us in some way.   And being individuals we are going to have disagreements with other individuals  Which means the groups are going to have disagreements.  What is to keep them from becoming violent and creating conflict and pain as they so often do now?

Perhaps  we are purified so that these differences will never get out of hand?  I am not sure how that would work.  Put a banana in a bowl of water and nothing much happens. However, take the potassium out of the banana and purify it and then drop it in the water and you get this:

Perhaps we should  be adding more dross?  Perhaps it is the dross that defines us?

Or perhaps no borders and limitless land and is the secret?  Along with limitless food and drink, and a body that does not get hurt or know pain?  All of which would reduce or eliminate the most common sources of conflict. But not all.  After all, both Adam and Eve had that, as did the Angels. And it did not work then. So, why now?

It seems that God made both angels and humanity with the same design flaw.  In fact, I think that this “flaw” would also make heaven, a paradise in a forever life after death, impossible for humanity, whether it is a God driven one or a secular one.   Humans are too diverse a group for that.

 

Somehow, I think the only way an eternity of bliss would work is if the species inhabiting it were not human.  Between our needs as individuals and our needs as part of a group, I am very much afraid that humans are not meant for an eternity of bliss and happiness.

Read Full Post »

The Quantum Fuzziness of Words

One of my pet peeves are people who believe in the literal meaning of almost anything. The argument is that people know what the words mean so there is no excuse for not understanding the clear and obvious meaning of whatever. Where I live the Bible and the Constitution are the most common items where this belief holds sway.  But it can hold true on other topics and areas too.

Just recently, a person used this argument on me in regards to the U S. Constitution. What follows is what I said to this person, in a slightly more organized and cleaned up (grammar and spelling, not what you are thinking) version of that response.

 

Yes, words do have meanings. However, when those words are applied to specific situations, fuzziness results. For those interested in science, consider it sort of a reverse quantum effect where instead of becoming more defined when measured or looked at, as happens with atomic particles, words become less defined and more fuzzy.

To illustrate this, let’s take a non-political, non-religious, and, hopefully, non-controversial example – colors. Haven’t most of us at some point disagreed with someone on the color of some object?  Is that dress red or pink, or is that car black or grey or possibly dark green. Some of you may have, at one time or another, looked at one of those  color perception tests where they lay out a large array of color circles– say blue on one end and green on the other with small differences going on in between. At what point do you say this circle is blue green, or that one green?  Yes, people can agree on the definitions of words, on the definitions of colors, but once you start applying that definition to what people are looking at, disagreements come about.

And that is the crux of the issue. Yes, people understand the dictionary definitions of words. But, in applying those definitions to the world and that understanding fuzzes.

It gets worse.

Words make sentences. Sentences make paragraphs. And paragraphs make pages.  Each rise in the number and ordering of words also increases the complexity of the meaning of those individual words since each word is modified and changed by the other words around it.   Because of this, when these masses of words are applied to the real world, greater fuzziness results.

Now, when talking about the Constitution, people who make this literalist sort of argument often also say that the reason people do not read the words as written is due to an agenda or politics or being lazy and not wanting to go through the process that the founders of this country created to change the Constitution.

However, these people never seem to consider the fact that the actual men who wrote the Constitution disagreed, often strongly disagreed, on what those words meant and how they should be applied to real world situations.  One of many examples of this was the creation of a national bank.  Alexander Hamilton believed it to be Constitutional.  James Madison believed it to be unconstitutional.  Yet both men were there and helped in creating the Constitution. This fact alone should be strong evidence that it is not just a matter of reading the words and following them.

For another example, read a good biography of George Washington, especially his years as our first President.  He frequently worried and discussed what this or that passage of the Constitution meant and how it should be applied with his staff and advisors.  Although composed of well defined words, their meaning was not clear and simple to him. And he was the President of the Constitutional Convention.  Again, strong evidence that it is not just a simple matter of reading the words.  Words become fuzzy when applied to everyday life and reality.

This means that a person’s views of the world – of law, of the issues, etc. – are going to play a role in his understanding of what the Constitution means and says in regards to this application of its words or that application of its words.  There is no way it cannot.  But, and this is also important to understand, this does not mean that anything goes.  Fuzzy is not the same as having no shape or form.  A fuzzy boundary is not the same as no boundary.  Fuzzy means that the edges of meanings of the words are not clear and sharp and distinct, but are, instead, vague and blurred. This becomes even more true when they interact with the fuzzy meanings of other words.  In other words,  there is a great deal of room for honest disagreement and dispute.

As a final example of this fuzziness, let me use this a bit of this person’s own words in his comment to me; “we the people”.

This is a phrase used many times by people all along the political and social spectrum.  And each word of this phrase is easy to understand. And even the whole when looked at abstractly can be reasonably understood. But then try applying it to the real world, as I did with this person.

“What does that mean?  Do you include those who believe and think like me?  Or just those who think like you?  Do you mean everyone, rich and poor, educated and non-educated, communist, KKK member, John Birch Society, farmer, scientist, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, and Jew?  Or is its meaning more restrictive?”

 

I am sorry sir, but your meaning is not clear.

 

Read Full Post »