22. February 2009 by Frank.

Quite a number of churches around here have signs out front like everywhere else in the country. Many of them display cheesy, trite, or otherwise lame sayings and slogans. Some of them amuse me, some make me groan, and some of them really annoy me. A current one, in front of a large Baptist church, reads, “To know the Bible is good. To know its author is better.” This is one that really annoys me.

Having been involved in various churches for nearly twenty years, I honestly do not believe that very many Christians have ever actually read their Bible. They’ve read parts of it. Maybe even a chapter of two, perhaps an entire epistle. But all the way through? Never.

That has never made the slightest bit of sense to me.

The Bible is the foundation, it is the only means of learning about god directly (relatively speaking). It is considered holy, inerrant, infallible, sacred. It is supposedly the very words of god. Many churches trying to cover all the bases state that it’s all those things “in the original.” Take a look at any church constitution, you’ll see some kind of statement as to what that church believes the bible is. Keep in mind that there are no known “originals” if those words are included. All we have are copies of copies.

That’s an awfully faulty foundation to build your entire life philosophy on.

(I feel compelled to point out that there are groups, such as the King James Only crowd, that insist the bible is all those things only if it is in the correct translation. The fact that it wasn’t written in anything even remotely resembling English seems to be completely beyond these people’s comprehension.)

According to this church sign to know the bible is good. I would hope so. It’s where all your rules and regulations are written down in clear, easy to understand language which requires no interpretation. All the important doctrines, rules, and regulations are spelled out in concise carefully worded verses. There can be no doubt about what any of them mean. Which is why there are so many denominations with so many different interpretations as to what those rules and regulations actually mean. This was always a pet peeve of mine when I was in church. I frequently challenged people to explain their foundations for their beliefs. The most predominate answer was “because that’s what I was always told.”

Knowing the bible is not really required.

Knowing certain parts of it may be necessary in some circles but none of them require you know the whole thing. If the bible really is the word of god you would think it would be absolutely mandatory to know it cover to cover. The simple fact that it isn’t should tell you something. Which is what annoys me about that church sign. It’s better to know the author than what it is he wrote.

That’s an excuse for not knowing the bible. That’s permission to pick and choose what you want to know about god without having to know what god said about everything else. Not knowing the bible is allowing someone else to tell you what to believe.

How can you know god without knowing his word? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” It seems to me you can’t actually know the author without knowing his word, they are one and the same!

So the sign makes no sense. It’s good to know the word but it’s better to know the word. But that doesn’t actually mean you need to know the word.

I hope my sarcasm is making some small bit of sense to you. I spent a long time in churches that proudly proclaimed that the bible was the word of god and that it it the most important thing that you can know. You wouldn’t need five fingers to count everyone in the average church who had read the entire bible let alone actually studied it cover to cover including the pastor. So much for the most important book in existence.

Seriously, most online atheists know the bible better than most Christians.

Posted in communication, interpretation, signs, hearing, religion | Print | 4 Comments »

15. February 2009 by Frank.

The Bible is wrong from the very first page.

It is wrong by its own logic, you don’t even need science to prove it.

Everyone knows the famous line, “Let there be light and there was light.” It occurs in Genesis 1 vs 3 - 5 which clearly states the light was called day and the darkness was called night. The first day.

Think about this carefully. What produces the light? The sun. Notice that the sun wasn’t created until the 4^th day in Genesis 1 vs 14 – 19.

The source of the light, the reason for night and day did not exist for three entire days. “There was evening and there was morning-the second day” and “There was evening and there was morning-the third day” before the source of evening and morning was created on the fourth day. That’s rather messed up. Not to mention anything about the earth rotating on its axis.

If you read the NIV you find that god separated the waters from above the “expanse” from the waters below the “expanse.” Then he called the expanse “sky.” If you read the KJV you find that the expanse was really the firmament and he called it “Heaven.” Whatever you want to call it, where is this upper layer of waters? No one has ever encountered it. Nor has anyone ever found heaven. And doesn’t the word firmament sound a bit more solid than sky? Those wacky translators!

Anyway that was the second day in which there was no sun to cause there to be a day.

On the third day god gathered all the waters under the sky to one place and let dry land appear. I guess one place means pretty much the entire planet since water covers most of the surface of the earth. Then he made vegetation cover the land. Funny how plants need the sun to survive and there was still no sun to sustain them. But it was only for a day.

Then finally we get to the fourth day in which god was extremely busy. Not only did he finally get around to creating the sun he also made the moon and then made all the billions upon billions of other stars. Compare that with all the stuff he made the first three days. Apparently stars are much easier than plants and waters. Either that or he had an energy drink. He also forgot to mention the moon is not a light, it reflects light but doesn’t produce it.

Thursday we get sea life and birds. In the NIV it doesn’t sound like much of a big deal. The KJV sounds quite a bit more grandiose; great whales and every living creature that moveth which the waters brought forth abundantly. Verse 21 seems to imply that the birds came from the waters as well. Verse 20 says the birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven so I guess the NIV translators were right about using the word “sky.” Verse 23 says that was the fifth day.

On Friday we get more creatures despite the statement that god created EVERY LIVING creature that moves on Thursday. On Friday, however, we get cattle, beasts, and everything that CREEPETH on the earth. Creeping and moving apparently aren’t the same thing. But tell me, when have you ever seen a cow creeping?

That afternoon god finally gets around to creating man in his own image, male and female at the same time. He gives them dominion over all the earth and all of its creatures. And declares that all the plants and trees are for food so everything was vegetarian at that time. I guess that’s where these young earth creationists get the idea that men and dinosaurs co-existed peacefully. But tell me, if Tyrannosaurus Rex was a vegetarian why on earth did it have such a huge mouth full of razor sharp teeth? Same question applies to sharks. Why do bears have claws that can shred human flesh in an instant? If everything ate only plants there is absolutely no reason for any creature to have claws or teeth suitable for tearing other creatures to pieces.

The first chapter closes on the sixth day with everything being declared very good.

Saturday rolls around and god takes a rest from all his work. Keep in mind that he sanctified the day because he ceased working. Later on when the 10 commandments are issued the reason will be different.

Chapter 2 then goes on to recap creation. Only now things have not occurred in the same sequence. And day doesn’t mean one day anymore, it means a period of time. Also note it had never rained, mist rose up from the earth and there were no men to till the ground.

Man is created from dust and the breath of god but only the male version. Man was created to work, to dress and keep god’s garden. God brought forth not only regular trees and plants but also mystical trees which man could not eat. Since only the male version was around the yet to be announced female wasn’t given the warning. Then god decides it isn’t good for man to be alone.

So does he create a female right away? Nope. In chapter one the animals came first, now they follow creation of the male man. Only now they don’t come from the waters they come from the ground. Adam names all of them. Then god realizes none of them are a suitable “help meet” for Adam. The NIV just uses the word helper. Does god create the helper the same way he created the helpee? Of course not, the female needs to be subservient to the male so he makes her out of used parts (ribs). So what happened to “in the image of god he created him; male and female he created them?” Did this bizarre inequality also apply to all the animals? Were the sexes even part of god’s original plan?

Then comes the utterly bizarre statement, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” At this time and place (keeping things in context) this statement is absolutely meaningless. Who even knew what father and mother meant?

And they were buck naked and not shamed. Shame came later after sin. After their eyes were opened they made coverings for their naughty parts from plants. That isn’t good enough for god, he kills some animals to make some “real” clothes out of skins.

How exactly is this a better explanation for life than evolution?

Look at this without faith and all you see is a simplistic, contradictory myth by people with no idea what the universe is really like.

Posted in communication, interpretation, hearing, education, religion | Print | 1 Comment »

6. February 2009 by Frank.

So I poured my heart out during those last five posts because I tend to do that every now and then. And once again I got very little reaction. This is why I don’t comment other places very often, it all seems so futile. I know I get a decent amount of traffic, it’s just not talkative traffic.

I talk to myself a lot.

The last close friend I had was a devout Seventh Day Adventist and I backed out of the friendship because I couldn’t stand the religion permeating everything anymore. His life revolves around his god even though you could see he was struggling to make his experiences fit his beliefs. I could not be myself around him, I had to give lip service to his god in order to be acceptable. I just can’t do that anymore.

I have casual friends at work and I usually make good temporary friends whenever I do a play out at the local college. But on a day to day basis I have no one. My wife does not understand my lack of faith and gets hysterical any time I bring it up. (She broke her hip last week so she’s going to be staying with her father for a few weeks while she recovers. She can’t take care of herself all day alone.) My daughter lives with her husband to be so it’s just me and the cat.

The cat is quite affectionate but is a lousy conversationalist.

Fortunately, I’ve always been something of a loner. I can handle being alone quite well. The big drawback is simply that I never get any fresh insights and opposing viewpoints to keep my brain sufficiently stimulated. And I get bored with myself. I took this week off because of all the hospital time and related running around to get everything my wife needed. Unfortunately, my wife not only lost time from her caregiver job, the elderly lady she cared for died four days later so now she has no job to go back to when she recovers. I haven’t had any money all week so I’ve been sitting here alone doing nothing.

Frankly, I’m getting tired of me.

So I blog. I’ve been blogging for a very long time, my general purpose journal (where I talk about everything except atheism) goes back to 2004 and I started several years before that talking more about stroke than faith. My focus has changed several times but my inability to attract comments has remained consistent.

So the few of you who ever do say anything are greatly appreciated.

I’m going to get out of the house today and do something cheap. I just hope, whatever it turns out to be, that it’s interesting.

Posted in communication, wild guesses | Print | 3 Comments »