Doodlemastery Bible School Part 3: False promises and exaggerated claims

Here it is at last, the product of all my postponed projects and procrastination. And we're only on Chapter 3 of Genesis. Gah... Some quick notes first.

It should be clear to readers which comments I make as legitimate logical and moral claims, and which are just me dicking around with wordplay, etc. If I'm being uber-literal, chances are it's just me poking fun at a confusing document and making inappropriate and lame references to things. However, do keep in mind that many self-proclaimed Christians interpret the Bible literally. So while I'm probably missing the richer literary significance and undertones of the book, I'm also pointing out its inadequacies as a moral guide.

And it's also poorly written.

Also keep in mind that I'm reading this as both a work of fiction and a list of purported historical accounts. Mostly fiction, since no historian would take this seriously and themselves be taken seriously by anyone other than backwards patriarchal conspiracy theorists. When I'm referring to the characters of the Bible, they are just that, characters, not actual people. Just like in The Passion of the Christ. So when I call God a dick, I mean God the character. If the biblical God were to be real, he would be a dick. A dick of infinite, incomprehensible magnitude.

Thank God he doesn't exist.

Wait...

Oh! And we're in for a treat for this reading, since in this Bible (Douay-Rheims, for those of you who recall) Chapter 3's introductory lines tell us that the reading includes "the promise of a Redeemer". Oh, joy of joys! We're finally going to see how Jesus fits into this misogynistic jumbled cooked-up creation myth. I mean, this most holy creation account.

Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made... (Genesis 3:1)

As Ricky Gervais noted, "In my humble opinion, I think the snake was a mistake."

Really, what is the function of this snake if not to deceive people? Seeing as there's little good in deception during this (fictional) period of time, it seems the only thing this snake can do is be a bastard, since God created him to be a bastard. But then that would make God a bastard too, wouldn't it? Same goes for God creating psychopaths and the violently insane. If you ever get any high-minded ideas about free will and God's benevolence in creation, just remember there are people with neurological disorders that make it medically impossible to make morally good decisions.

Also note that this chapter never states that the serpent is actually the devil. It's heavily implied, I know, but then the punishment that follows for the serpent doesn't make much sense. This chapter also seems to suggest God made the devil a liar deliberately.

... And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?

And the woman answered him, saying:... (Genesis 3:1-2)

"Holy shit, a talking snake, what the fuck??" Kidding, she never seems to question the presence of a talking snake. Maybe it was like a Disney movie and all the other animals could talk? I don't know. But it doesn't seem to matter, since humans at this point appear to have the IQ of a cup of noodles.

By the way, I didn't add those italics. I don't know why they're in the goddamn Bible.

... Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat:

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. (3:2-3)

Well why the hell put the tree there in the first place? What purpose is there in a tree that causes people to die? Or what point is there in arbitrarily punishing people for eating from a tree that's like any other? It's like having a door that's not broken, won't set off an alarm, doesn't lead to a prohibited area, and has no special designation, but still has a sign on it that says "Use Other Door". Just put a fucking wall there!

Consider the obvious fact that Adam and Eve - who, I remind you, represent all of the potential future for humanity - are dumb as bricks, since it's implied that they were just created a day or so ago. They don't even know what lying is, for Christ's sake. And as far as they can tell, each fruit is like every other, and there's no reason for them to think their beloved God would plant a tree there just to trap them into becoming mortal. So for a more apt moral comparison, it's like filling a baby bottle with arsenic and then warning an infant not to drink from that one bottle, which looks the same as the other bottles.

This doesn't bode well for God's reputation as the moral nexus of the universe.

And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. (3:4)

"You shall walk the walk."

For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. (3:5)

I hate to bring this up, but... knowing the difference between good and evil is a good thing. Ignorance isn't virtuous, especially not as far as moral discrepancy is concerned. If you're wearing a blissful smile on your face while you're maiming and killing people... that's fucked up. God's word doesn't really have any input on that. And if you think it does, I'd like to stay as far away from you as possible.

Knowledge = gladness.

And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: (3:6)

"Um... Eve, the... the fruit, you're supposed to go for the fruit. Don't look at the tree like that. Keep your eye on the prize, Eve. Honey? Hello?"

...and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat. (3:6)

So she didn't even have to bother tempting Adam, she just handed the fruit to him and he said "Yes, Dear". Didn't he know it was the forbidden fruit? If he didn't then he was suckered into damnation and God was wrong to judge him, and if he did know then he was a passive moron. Did God not create intelligence yet?

And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons. (3:7)

Okay, Christians, Jews, seriously, stop trying to pass off your prudishness as part of human nature, or from some unseen moral source. Human bodies can be pleasing to the eye. Oftentimes people want sex. We're not all suddenly going to become sex offenders if we admit that sex, even casual sex, can be nice. It's part of who were are. Get used to it.

Come to think of it, Adam and Eve were butt-naked back when they were without sin. And once they knew they had sinned they became ashamed of their nudity. So doesn't this mean that we can only be free from Original Sin if we're naked and not ashamed of it? The message is clear: all Christians must become nudists upon being saved. It's the only way to be sure.

Also, where did they get the thread and know-how to sew those leaves together? And were they really wearing aprons? That means their backsides were completely exposed, butt cheeks flapping in the wind.

Gah. I need goggles to read this thing.

And when they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise at the afternoon air, Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the Lord God, amidst the trees of paradise. (3:8)

Oh, so God's voice was walking along in paradise. That makes perfect sense. What the fuck does that mean? Sure I'm being an anal literalist, but why don't you tell me what the correct interpretation is? Did God have a body that was walking? Did he say something? Did Adam and Eve just sense him? What could the writers possibly have been trying to say??

And yeah, I know that God is omnipresent and omniscient, so Adam and Eve are being idiots for trying to hide. But then how does God alarm people like that? Did he just say "OOGA BOOGA, I AM HERE, FLEE BEFORE MY GODLINESS"?

And the Lord God called Adam, and said to him, Where art thou?

And he said: I heard thy voice in paradise and I was afraid because I was naked, and I hid myself. (3:9-10)

Clever dick, that God, asking where Adam was. Adam had not yet learned the first lesson of not being seen: not to stand up.

Gotta sympathize with Adam here, though. I know I'd be afraid if I was naked and out in the open. This is textbook psychology stuff.

And he said to him: And who hath told thee that thou wast naked, but that thou hast eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat? (3:11)
"Shouldst"? Quick posthumous tip for Olde English writers: if you can't pronounce it, don't write it. Can you imagine trying to contract the negative form of that word? "Shouldstn't."

And Adam said: The woman, whom though gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat. (3:12)

Adam: the world's first rat.

And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat. (3:13)

Well, the snake asserted something that wasn't true. He didn't really go to great lengths to conceal his intentions. I know it's supposed to be the first lie in the history of creation, but where's the lesson in that? Were the writers afraid that Jews/Christians were so gullible as to believe anything a talking animal tells them? Then again, we are talking about people who take a fair amount of bullshit based on faith. If skepticism were the actual lesson then we'd all be a lot better off. Critical thinking does a clayman good.

We're all claymen, remember? We didn't evolve from goo, you know. God crafted us from clay. So instead of being treated like animals, we're supposed to be treated like... dirt... yeah...

I think you may have heard this before.

And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle,... (3:14)

Good thing the snake isn't a cow.

...and beasts of the earth. (3:14)

Damn, spoke too soon.

Upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. (3:14)

I'm pretty sure snakes don't eat dirt, unless God is assuming snakes keep their mouths wide open as they crawl along the dirt. God is kind of dense, isn't he?

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. (3:15)

Hey, go easy on the snake, man. He's only doing what he does best. If you had just given him some legs, spats, and a top hat, he could have been a great entertainer. That would have been much more fulfilling (and awesome) than the cunning you gave him.

Also note the first instance where God creates hostilities where none existed previously. God's love at work, ladies and gentlemen. Just imagine how much suffering could have been alleviated if we were still at peace with snakes. Anti-venom would be obsolete. God must be pushing antidotes for profit.

I'm talking about living life on peaceful terms with snakes. Sometimes I think this book will drive me out of my damn mind.

To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions. In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee. (3:16)

Welcome to Misogyny 101.

About making childbearing painful... Did Eve have a wider pelvis before the Fall, and God shrunk her down a couple sizes? It's like a magical hereditary corset. This would also suggest that C-sections are sinful. Won't all our mothers be thrilled to find out.

Just going to interject an idea of mine, as if it's not what I've already been doing. What would have happened if Adam and Eve didn't have any kids? What if they told God "No, go fuck yourself" and lived the rest of their lives and died childless. That'd put God's panties in a bunch. He went through all this effort to create a universe to set himself up as master of the human race (Why?), and then the first generation just dies out uneventfully. What would he have done? Would he just say "Well, that happened" and start all over again? Would he try creating more humans? What if he did and didn't tell us? That'd be quite a story, I think. God keeps trying to make mortals to rule over, and evolution by natural selection beats him to it. God sounds like the kind of guy who could try over and over for 4 billion years without getting anywhere.

And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife,... (3:17)

Ohhh, so Adam's mistake was listening to his wife! That explains it. Nope, can't see where anyone gets any ideas of patriarchy from the Bible.

I think Adam should have said "Hey come on! The writers didn't even give me a chance to make an argument!" I know I'd be pissed if I were a character in a book that was this poorly written as to skip over a critical piece of dialogue.

...and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. (3:17)

If hard labour in the field is supposed to be Man's curse, isn't smart agriculture cheating? Why did no one give any explanation once agriculture technology yielded massive surpluses? Shouldn't someone have said that we have to leave our fates up to God? But then, that'd mean a lot of theocrats going hungry. You see if it were a woman trying to use reproductive technology, then it's a different story. We can't have women making decisions about their own lives, there's a God to appease!

Speaking of women and agriculture, since men are supposed to suffer in the fields, what about when women till the earth alongside men? Does God get pissed?

Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. (3:18)

Herbs? Do we have to? Can't we stick to fruit and meat? Next thing you know, you'll be forbidding us from eating bacon. But God wouldn't do that. Nope. That would be mighty stupid.

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread til thou return to the earth,... (3:19)

"And in the sweat of thy back shalt thou eat beef, and in the sweat of thy pant leg shalt thou eat butter..."

...out of which thou wast taken, and into dust thou shalt return. (3:19)

See? We're all claymen. Or dustmen. Whatever.

And Adam called the name of his wife Eve: because she was the mother of all the living. (3:20)

So Eve didn't have a name at this point? Did Adam just call her "woman" up until then? It seems so, since he's said a grand total of two things in his entire existence so far.

And I presume she's mother of all living humans, rather than other animals. And not the dead, fuck 'em.

And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of skins, and clothed them. (3:21)

It's good that they glanced over the part where God makes the animals come apart at the seams. I don't think we needed to see that.

And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. (3:22)

What? What?? Wait, what?! They hadn't eaten from the tree of life yet?! Why?? They were allowed to before, and you didn't mention it? God is a cheating, selfish bastard. That means humans don't die because of Original Sin, it's just because God is a prick who didn't let them eat from the Immortality Tree. Then why create the tree in the first place??

And as for the extremely abstract Christian claim that "us" in this passage refers to the Trinity (three persons in one god and all that nonsensical nonsense), keep in mind there are angels that God appears to talk with routinely, including the devil. Or maybe he's just a schizophrenic.

And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, to till the earth from which he was taken. (3:23)

Dick.

And he cast out Adam; and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. (3:24)

Isn't it great proof for the Bible that we can't find Eden anymore? It must be under a spell, like Hogwarts. If one can claim that Eden exists somewhere, then I'm going to find a magical means of breaking in. You'd think someone would try by now, or at least that they'd mention such attempts in the Bible. Can't you imagine it, people trying to break into Eden, The Great Escape style? Just imagine how many tunnels Adam and his descendants must have dug.

The question that should be on all of our minds at this point is this: Where is the "promise of a Redeemer"? That's right! Abso-fucking-lutely nowhere. God just said "You fucked up, grab your shit and get the fuck out." The real point of this chapter is this: Don't piss off your boss.

This is supposed to be the epic story that is the prelude to the salvation of mankind. Let that sink in when doing further biblical readings. I expect better storytelling from The Office than I do here. This tale is flat, unsympathetic, and with no meaningful metaphors. Why this story? Why this creation story? There are better ways to communicate the Fall of Mankind than eating a piece of fucking fruit. Literally interpreted, the story sucks. Figuratively interpreted, the story blows.

So do you understand now why God needed to send his beloved Son to bloody himself for our own good? I don't. But hey, we're just reading it from beginning to end, so that we're always thinking in context, right? At some point it'll all make sense, right?

After all, we've just started page 4. Only 1,228 pages to go...

No Bible review, but a general review of biblical things

Yeah, big disappointment, but as soon as I get back to that copy of the Bible I have on campus I'll resume tearing it apart (metaphorically) starting from Chapter 3 of Genesis. In case you've forgotten I ever did that sort of thing, here's Part 1 and here's Part 2. I might, might do Part 3 next week, but that's unlikely. So the week after, definitely.

Really. For sure.

In the meantime, I have to comment on that particular bit of literature and its impact on humanity. No, not the Necronomicon, that'd be too interesting. Maybe you've heard of this new movie The Book of Eli, the story of a man on a quest in a post-apocalyptic world, at odds with a despotic villain who knows of the power Eli has, with the hope of humanity hanging in the balance. I'm going to ruin this for you: it's a Bible. The guy owns a King James Bible, supposedly the only one left in existence. Yeah, because in the future suddenly the most stubborn faith America's ever known is totally abandoned because... the plot demands it. And where the hell did all the Bibles go? Isn't it supposed to be the most published book in existence? And isn't this a "Christian nation"? Really, do they expect us to buy this? America's population is far more religious than just about any other first world country, and you notice ours isn't doing quite as well in terms of economic stability, equality, freedom, democracy, health, happiness... okay, you get the idea. So yeah, we're least likely to survive Armageddon, but whoever's left is bound to be reinterpreting the Bible to explain why the end of the world isn't quite the end of the world.

After all, you can reinterpret the Bible to explain the earthquake in Haiti, because absolutely everything must be explained from a biblical perspective if you own a Bible and can't get your nose out of it. Yeah, as far as I can tell most of the news coverage of the earthquake is decidedly secular, but some of our religious residents feel the need to comment on how this fits into their particular worldview. Which is perfectly alright, as long as I have the chance to logically dismantle their arguments. For instance, I've been personally (repeatedly) confronted with the interpretation of the Haitian people as being "good people" because of their religious conviction. I don't doubt that they're good people - whatever the hell that's supposed to mean - but I don't much fancy folks being defined by their beliefs. I don't deem people to be "good" just because they're atheists, just that they have more realistic religious views than theists. It has no more moral bearing on people than if they preferred stuffing to potatoes. Hearing about Haitians singing hymns amidst the rubble in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake does not exactly warm my heart, regardless of comparisons to the Whos of Whoville.

Did that sound inappropriate to you? Sounded that way to me when I first heard it, spoken as if it were bemusedly insightful. For Christ's sake, their capital city is in ruins. Cute little tidbits about their deeply-held convictions have no place in serious conversations, especially not at a time like this.

I gotta get out of Jersey.

But leaving the state will not save me from the ramblings of Pat Robertson. If you haven't heard his latest babbling nonsense about Haiti, you've been missing all the good television. He's claiming that the Haitians did a deal with the devil back when they were slaves rebelling against "Napoleon the Third or whatever". I love the way he quotes the devil himself. "Okay, it's a deal." Apparently the devil is a used car salesman. That's a decidedly shortsighted deal on the part of the Haitian slaves, don't you think? "Oh yeah, he's the master of lies, but he's also the master of great savings." Okay, what exactly did the devil do to help the Haitians get freed? Near as I can tell the Haitian rebels did a fine job of defeating the French on their own. Could it be that Napoleon (the Third or whatever) had no interest in maintaining his American territories? Nooo, I'm sure it was our awesome Americanness that made him sell the Louisiana territory to the United States. And how exactly does a deal with the devil entail economic poverty and political instability? I'm pretty sure those events that led to Haiti's sufferings unfolded by themselves without some magic imp with a pitchfork egging people on.

This brings up another interesting problem with the whole "deal with the devil" idea. What does the devil get out of it? Haiti is in ruins and suffers continuously and... then what? What good does that do the foul deceiver? Okay, Dick Cheney probably has some interests in human suffering, but what about Satan? What benefit or profit is there in this deal? Power? I'm pretty sure the devil would have all the power he could want. Hell, if direct possession of a human being's body is within his power, what isn't? God doesn't seem to care about keeping him in check that much. Sure, the guy in the sky saves a soul here and there, but that's just for PR (which is doing remarkably well, I might add). Once you're on this earth, you're in Hades territory. All the holy water and biblical babbling in the world can't keep cancer at bay, so what good does it do against the devil? So if the deal isn't for power, what else could a supernatural entity want? Just watching human suffering? Hell, I can do that for free. I could watch myself watching Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen to do that. Or does the devil want souls? If he wants the souls, I think he can get them himself. For fuck's sake, if he can possess a person, why doesn't he just make the guy curse God's name and kill himself? I have to doubt God would really care whether a person intends to do what he does. It's the action and not the intent, you know what I mean? If not, then I'm sure God would be perfectly alright with two people of the same gender being sexually involved with each other, right?

So what does that leave us with? There's not really any other reason why a demigod - in effect if not in name would be interested in freeing some slaves in return for making their descendants miserable. Ohhh it's because he's EVIL, right? That's the hallmark of bad writing, in my opinion. So he has no personal reasons for doing what he does, he just does it, because... the plot demands it. Great. We're right back where we started. Basically we've restated what Socrates said way back in the dialogue Euthyphro, that there's really no way to serve anyone with godlike powers.

Can you hear me in the back, Herr Holiness?

So what does all this have to do with the Bible? An excellent question. How many objections to these issues would include anything to do with the Bible? I've heard the complaint that the view Pat Robertson presents on his show is not a biblical one, but I have to point out that the Bible has no one single perspective, and any perspectives in there are bound to be ones that no living human being still retains without believing themselves to be a biblical character. Have you read the Bible lately? Man, I try to get through it from beginning to end and I'm already sidetracked on the third chapter by the monumental quantities of stupid that precede it. There's a lot of things in that there Bible that most self-proclaimed Christians tend to ignore, for reasons fairly obvious. So, who's biblical now? I'm guessing sociopaths and inbred mountain folk. Doesn't that give you so much confidence, knowing our leaders are such pillars of virtue with a biblical perspective on life?

My whole point with this is that the Bible is really irrelevant. Totally and completely, with the exception of a few nutters. Even Christian fundamentalism is a religion that's only about one hundred years old, part of a revival movement in the Western world concerned totally with contemporary issues that matter only to social conservatives: sexually promiscuity and deviance, irreverence, and questioning the way the world works. It's just very handy that the writers of the Bible were as ignorant and bigoted as the leaders of the conservative movement.

The Bible's not a guide you see, it's a reference.

And as for the Bible's impact on people who have never read it before: if they're impressed, it's because they want to ignore all the awful bits in favor of the more "Christian" parts. If there was only one Bible left on earth, its contents would not remake the world. There's far more important ideas to preserve, and human beings are far more important than any of those ideas. That makes the people of Haiti worth more than all the Bibles on earth, so what good would "turning to faith" (as if they didn't have enough) do for them now? When a nation is in a state of ruin and people are in despair, belief in oneself and in other human beings does far more than anything contained in any one tome.

If only someone could tell the makers of The Book of Eli that. It'd save a whole lot of moviegoers money.

Doodlemastery Bible School: Part 2: God's Image = dirt

"If you're descended from monkeys, does that make you think you can act like one?"

No, the truth is much more hopeful. You see, our Lord God saw fit to craft us from dirt. Which means we should act like... dirt... human... things... with ghosts...

Yeah, I'm not sure how anyone can go through their whole lives and not notice that loop in logic. And also never care to learn the difference between monkeys and apes. Just to make it simple: monkey -> tail; ape -> no tail. Not to mention the denial of our nature as apes. Being an animal biologically does not imply anything about our behavior, no more than a cheetah can be expected to be a house cat.

Now with that little bit of ignorance out of the way, let's resume our reading with Genesis, Chapter 2.

So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture in them. (Genesis 2:1)

God's done some remodeling. The last time we saw creation it was an empty world that was somehow full of water at the same time.

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work he had done.

And he blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (2:2-3)

This is the only time I've ever seen anyone create a holiday for not doing anything. How exactly can a celestial being "rest"? Does that just mean he refrained from doing anything? What about sustaining existence through his willpower? If that's not considered an action, then neither is creating anything since it's all done the same way, with God willing it to happen. And by that same token everything that ever happens is a direct result of God's will, so he's responsible for everything. That will be important to remember for later. Very, very important.

These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: (2:4)

Right off the bat we have a contradiction with Chapter 1. Right there, clear as daylight, it says that God created the heavens and the earth in a day. A single day. And it's on that day that he does all the things that follow in this chapter. Even though just a few verses ago we had this whole spiel about the six days of creation. Chapter 2 even begins by saying that God finished creation on the seventh day. This sounds a lot like two creations myths smashed together with a few verses left in the second chapter. Seamless transition, isn't it? Maybe I'm being too harsh. Let's see what else the chapter has to add to the account of our creation.

And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth and there was not a man to till the earth. (2:5)

Apparently this is before God invented rain. He just held the water vapor up in our atmosphere with his magical firmament. I suppose that's easy for a theist to accept. The guy is God, after all. And good job pointing out that humankind predates agriculture. Even though agriculture also predates this creation myth, by a couple dozen thousand years.

But a spring rose out of the earth, and watering all the surface of the earth. (2:6)

In a more interesting creation myth, this is where the earth's water would break and the earth would have birth pangs before giving birth to the first life or a god warrior or some crazy shit like that. Amazingly what we get instead is even more distasteful than birth metaphors.

And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (2:7)

Ewww. Our first ancestors were made from slime? Say what you will about the human body and its reproductive system, making human beings out of slime from the riverside is pretty damn disgusting. Why did God see fit to craft us out of this naturally occurring smegma? He could have just, you know, conjured us up out of nothing. He did the same thing for the rest of creation, so why the all-natural sculpting all of a sudden? Why did he reserve this treatment for a species supposedly created in his image, complete with an immortal soul? You could say that this is God's way of making something partially divine out of something as simple as clay, but if God were said to have made us out of stardust would the interpretation have any different result? It's like the Barnum Effect. You could say anything about the way we were created and interpret it into something beautiful if you really want it to be.

Or you could interpret it into something that views humanity as being the equivalent of dirt, which some guilt-driven individuals would have no problem with.

And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed. (2:8)

Oooo, a paradise of pleasure? Ah not so fast, hedonists, no such luck in a story like this. There's nothing in this text that suggests pleasure includes anything, um... pleasurable. Apparently pleasure in this context entails having enough to eat and not dying. As much of an improvement as that would be for the many, many starving and dying people all around the world, that actually sounds pretty boring. How did God decide on this as being paradise? He couldn't even let us... you know... have fun? Eh? Know what I mean, know what I mean? Nudge nudge, nudge nudge, say no more.

And the Lord God brought forth of the ground all manner of trees, fair to behold, and pleasant to eat of: the tree of life also in the midst of paradise: and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (2:9)

I'd be an ass and say that trees were created before humankind, but it's probably just a way of saying that the trees were created beforehand. What's notable here is the addition of the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The footnotes at the bottom of the page describe the tree of life as giving anyone who ate of its fruit perfect health and continuous life. It's the biblical philosopher's stone. The tree of knowledge is simply described as being the one "To which the deceitful serpent falsely attributed the power of imparting a superior kind of knowledge, beyond that which God was pleased to give." If you've never heard of this creation myth before, you're going to be confused as hell when you first read that. "The deceitful serpent"? What deceitful serpent? In a few moments we'll get into the details of this particular tree and the nature of all the trees mentioned in this chapter.

This is just riveting stuff, isn't it? EPIC BOTANY.

And a river went out of the place of pleasure to water paradise, which from thence is divided into four heads.
The name of the one is Phison: that is it which compasseth all the land of Hevilath, where gold groweth.
And the gold of that land is very good: there is found bdellium, and the onyx stone. (2:10-12)

Gold doesn't groweth, my Lord God. It's not physically possible. Gold just sits there. It's probably a figure of speech describing plentiful reserves of wealth, but it's still a primitive way of putting it. Very precise point of gold being very good, too, because indeed, gold is awesome. Although it's next to useless in the hands of people who look on it as nothing more than a rare and shiny metal.

And I have no idea what bdellium is.

And the name of the second river is Gehon: the same is it that compasseth all the land of Ethiopia.
And the name of the third river is Tigris: the same passeth along by the Assyrians. And the fourth river is Euphrates. (2:13-14)

It's amazing that I still remember where these rivers are. At least the Tigris and Euphrates. These rivers run through what is now Iraq, formerly the site of the earliest civilizations. It was even called the "cradle of life" for its historical significance to humankind. A natural starting point for a creation myth centered on the Middle East. This does however tether this story to actual locations that can be traced geographically. And in case you hadn't noticed, the Garden of Eden, the paradise we're reading about here, simply doesn't exist. God's inspired authors said paradise lies somewhere in the Mesopotamian, and such a place doesn't and never has existed. If it did it would have left a trace. Or maybe God is being ever-so-sneaky again, obliterating earthly paradise to dust before we can inspect it. Ah well. On with the reading.

And the Lord God took man, and put him into paradise of pleasure, to dress it, and to keep it. (2:15)

Keep it how? It's paradise. It's supposed to be perfect. And you know men, they're just going to turn the whole place into a mess. But God will take care of that in a few moments.

And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat:
But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, though shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death. (2:16-17)

Now, my mortal advice might not be worth much, but I think this might be God's first honest mistake here. There's a certain tree which causes those who eat of it to become mortal and die. Why put it there in the first place? It's not doing anything constructive. It's just sitting there, soaking up sun and water, producing fruit no one can eat, and just generally being evil. Does this tree serve any purpose other than to fuck with people? I've heard people trying to reinterpret this passage to refer to free will itself, and even then that's a really steep and unfair scenario to put someone in, especially if that person has existed for just a few minutes. It's like building a house in a nice neighborhood, selling it to decent law-abiding people, telling them how to live in it and make it their home, with one condition: that there is a button - in easy reach, in the living room - which they may not under any circumstances push or tamper with, since it activates a nuclear bomb built into the basement of the house. You can't say that's entirely the owners' responsibility. Any sane individual would move out immediately, call the authorities, and have those responsible for the death machine in the basement arrested.

Although in this situation, no one can prosecute God. With great power comes great responsibility, but with infinite power comes the ability to screw with people.

And what's with these magical trees? Are there only two of them? Is there a genetic sequence associated with the Tree of Life so that one could replicate its amazing health benefits? Or is the whole issue of trees just an extended metaphor for human actions? What were the other trees supposed to be if not ordinary plants that one could eat fruit from?

I think the Bible's message is clear. The sooner we realize that trees are all probably evil traps and just destroy every last one of them, the better off we'll be, really.

And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone; let us make him a help like unto himself. (2:18)

I didn't screw that up, it's in the edition I have. This was approved by the Catholic Church, by the Archbishop of New York in 1941. "Let us make him a help like unto himself." Speaks for itself, doesn't it?

And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name. (2:19)

So all the other animals were made out of dirt too, huh? Does that put us on par with the animals, my neighborly biblical literalists? No, on second thought, I retract that question, since if I ask it then I'll get caught in a vacuous discussion about the difference between spiritual souls and non-spiritual souls. I'll bet you didn't even know of such a thing. Yeah, apparently animals have souls, but not immortal souls. So souls can die... Huh. Makes you want to just sit down and take biology again.

Oh by the way, the Adam in question is the first man we read about earlier. Didn't we mention that? No? Eh, fuck it.

And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself. (2:20)

A helper? Oh, you mean a help! Keep your grammar consistent, my biblical friend. So Adam named all of the animals that live on the land? Zoologists are still busy doing that today, so nice job, you ancestral ass-hat. Also, it's strange that God would think that animals would be suitable partners for the first human being. Very strange considering that bestiality will be explicitly forbidden later on, but we'll get into that another time. Better than nothing, I suppose. ... What? I don't... you know, I'm just saying that... someone, in that situation, might... Christ, nevermind. We can't talk hypothetically anymore, can we?

Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. (2:21)

???

And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. (2:22)

...

This is a weird book.

And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. (2:23)

Okay, forgiving the skeletal reconstruction earlier, this is horseshit. Nothing other than patriarchal myths like this suggests that the human species can be derived naturally from full-blooded males. It's biologically impossible. Human beings and most other mammals have two chromosomes, one from each parent. About half inherit two "X" chromosomes, which generally makes that half of the population female; the other approximate half inherits one X chromosome and one Y chromosome, making that half male. The Y chromosome is a special genetic sequence only about half the population has. You can't get an XX pair entirely from an XY chromosome. That would be a hell of a mutation. Nearly everyone has an X chromosome, and having that chromosome paired alone technically makes one female. If anything, we are all derived from women. I say "technically" since God apparently fucked up in a minority of cases. An XX chromosome may still make one male, and an XY chromosome female. And there are still other chromosome pairs with various effects on one's gender. Sexuality and gender are very complicated matters. Many Christians would do well to remember that.

And the asserted origin of the word "women" is just as idiotic. I don't know about the original ancient Hebrew vocabulary, but English is a Germanic language. The German word for man or person, "Mann", comes from the gender-independent word for a human being, male or female, in an earlier form of German. The modern word "woman" comes from this older German, the original term being "Wiffmann"; for a man, the word was "Weremann". You know, as in "werewolf".

This is absolutely fascinating.

Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. (2:24)

Yes! Haha! I knew there would be "pleasure"! Oh wait, this isn't talking about now instead of back then, is it? So being "one flesh" is still forbidden in paradise? Dammit! You know, if this was how it was going to be, I'd look forward to the Fall. What's living forever if you can't ever get it on?

I can't stand how this passage alone is considered enough for people to be convinced that only heterosexual sex should be allowed. You know, sex does more than one thing. It doesn't only make babies. It can be for pleasure, for health, or you could just do it out of sheer boredom. And if you're looking for a divine sanction for something you should be able to work out on your own, it'd better be in a far more impressive display than this bizarre ancient tale.

And they were both naked, to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed. (2:25)

Is that good or bad? I ask because in the next chapter ignorance and knowledge become key parts of the destiny of humankind. I'd say that being content and not at all repulsed by the human body is a good thing, but often you'll find Christians saying that you can't be going around strutting your stuff. Is that only because we're in the age after the Fall? Shouldn't we be striving toward better appreciation of ourselves? Or is ignorance a virtue, and knowledge something that makes our bodies unclean?

That's an interesting message: being ignorant of the world's workings will make the shame go away.

That explains why abstinence never brought me any closer to God.

Doodlemastery Bible School: Part 1: In the beginning was a godless heathen and a book...

So, here's what I'm going to do every Sunday. My mom wants me to "try", basically put aside all the logic and evidence I find convincing and delve into stuff that makes no sense outside of a believer's context. If that's what she wants, so be it. I'm going to read the Bible from beginning to end, starting today, and verse by verse I'm going to indicate exactly what about this book (more like a collection of heavily-edited loosely-related manuscripts) isn't as good as the nickname suggests.

It's not that I look down on religious people or enjoy controversy, it's just that there are very good reasons to believe that this is not a good book, for historical, literary, or moral value. As long as people are detached from reality there will be conflict, and as long as books like the Bible and the Koran are deemed "good" or even appropriate in the mainstream, there are going to be problems. You can't marginalize fundamentalists and literalists from mainstream religion just for trying to understand these texts as they are, and I'll try to include as much citation as my laziness will allow. For those of you who are curious, this is from the Douay-Rheims Bible. I'm not using the King James Bible because a) I highly doubt the highly poetic Anglican edition could be any more accurate in capturing the original meaning of the text, and more importantly b) I don't own a KJB and would rather save my money on more important things. Like video games.

Why am I including the readers in this? Well, I thought I would share with you what it's like to appreciate what this highly influential text actually contains. Yay? I'll go verse by verse but spare you going over each and every word by skimming over unimportant or uninteresting bits. To keep it in context, I'll give you a sum-up from the perspective of a believer and the real-life implications. Come on, it'll be fun!

(It's not going to be fun.)

Now then, let's settle in with Genesis.

CHAPTER 1:

"God createth the Heaven and Earth, and all things therein, in six days."

You knew this would be the first issue to come up in a review of the Bible, and that fact is probably inducing some moans from people who didn't want to drag creationism into the reading, so bear with me.

What do you think when you hear the words "creation in six days"?

I bring this up because almost everyone I speak to seem convinced that I'm implying a fringe nutjob group is representative of the mainstream. "No, of course the universe wasn't created in six days, that's ridiculous to ask, you're making a strawman argument, it's supposed to be symbolic, don't be so condescending to religious people," etc. etc.

First of all, it's not a fringe belief. It's a minority, but it's mainstream all the same. By that token, I think it's condescending to say anything to the effect of "No one could be that stupid. You're trying to make religious people look like idiots." If that's the reaction to taking creationism seriously as a problem, then said person has unwittingly referred to a large portion of the population as hopelessly idiotic. I'm not that blunt and hateful, since I believed in the creationism mess at one time in my life. You don't have to be an idiot to be fooled. It could happen to almost anybody.

Second, without even addressing the intention of the original authors, consider the symbolic interpretation. What exactly is a symbolic day? What does the day represent? Eons? How many years is a symbolic day? How many millions? Has anyone thought this through? And then there's the issue of this creation supposedly taking place only 6000 years ago. What's a symbolic year? How are the years shorter than God's days? I've heard the claim that time is insignificant to God, and so a day to him would be eons to us, and a year to us would be a microsecond to him. But even this is moot on its own terms. What's a finite amount of time to an infinite being? Next to nothing. In fact, an omniscient and omnipresent being would perceive time a lot like Doctor Manhattan, with time being simultaneous and interconnected, despite human perception of time as being linear. So it wouldn't be a day to God. All of time to him would be next to nothing, an imaginary point in the midst of infinity. And actually, the use of the word "imaginary" could not be more appropriate when dealing with a being that's supposedly the foundation for everything, for whom willing something to be is enough for it to become so. We'd all be figments of a greater being's imagination... This is starting to sound too existential for most religious people I've known. In fact that's the sort of vision of despair I've heard being paired up with disbelief.

We haven't even gotten past the subtitle of the first chapter. God help us all.

In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. (Genesis 1:1)

For the sake of religious moderation, I'll just assume earth means all of material existence and that the beginning is the beginning of existence rather than the beginning beginning, before there was even a universe for nothing to exist in.

And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved over the waters. (1:2)

What waters? I thought the earth was void and empty. A glass can't be empty and full of water at the same time. And how can the spirit of God - "spiritual substance" not bound by time and space - move? Maybe there's some literary devices or phrases I'm not picking up on.

And God said: Be light made. And light was made. (1:3)

Yoda in this edition, God is.

And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. (1:4)

I'd say that God arbitrarily deeming light to be good and dividing light from darkness would be unnecessary, but presumably these are things that needed to be spelled out before anything existed in the first place.

I'm just getting the gears out of this God thing while we're starting, it won't continue later unless there's a particular problem I've got with something.

And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night. And there was evening and morning one day. (1:5)

OK, now we're getting somewhere. The first day of creation is over. But isn't a day a measurement of time based on the sun's exposure to a particular location on the Earth's surface? I thought this was when everything was starting out, and the planets and the stars weren't properly formed yet. There couldn't have been days, much less evenings or mornings.

Speaking of which, where was the light coming from? Light has to have a source, so there would have to be energy before there could be light. If God wanted people to be aware of the making of the universe, shouldn't he have pointed out to somebody, anybody, that energy would have to predate light? But then that would be too much scientific knowledge for humans to handle, and who the fuck needs science when we can have mythology?

That brings me to the symbolic interpretation of this so-called origin. This does not in the slightest resemble the Big Bang Theory astronomers take as the most likely origin point for space-time and matter as we know it. I've seen so many attempts to retell Genesis that have the words "Let there be light" and then there's a big explosion that supposedly links the two explanations together. Theists everywhere seem so proud of the fact that science has shown that existence has a starting point, as if that were integral to the claim that God is necessary for sanity or morality, or the Christians' claim that Jesus was God incarnate. There's nothing to suggest that this means an infinite being caused it to happen, or even that the Big Bang needed a cause. I've actually heard arguments that use scientific principles to explain exactly how something can come from nothing. Common sense doesn't matter for shit if it doesn't make any sense in light of evidence.

We'll get more into the inadequacy of this particular story later. We've still got a whole chapter to read.

And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament. And it was so. (1:6-7)

Ah, the firmament. The wall dividing the waters on Earth from the waters in the sky. This doesn't sound like old nonsense, does it? What waters in the sky, exactly? The natural water vapor in our atmosphere? There's plenty of that here near the ground anyway. Sounds a lot like some primitive mojo explaining how water can fall from the sky by having a deity open up celestial floodgates to let the blue water from the sky fall down. I'm glad people believe in a God who was nice enough not to tell us about something as simple as water vaporization cycles. Or the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun.

And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and morning were the second day. (1:8)

God decreed that Heaven was literally in the sky, keeping the water from falling down. Anyone who's flown in an airplane should know this is not a good claim to make if you want to sound credible. Come to think of it, why do people still look up to Heaven and down to Hell? I'm pretty sure places that by definition can't exist in the material world don't... um... exist in the material world.

Then there's the separating of the waters on earth so that land could appear. Fine and good.

And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And so it was done. (1:11)

Wait, this isn't trying to say that plant life was the first on the planet, is it? Not bacteria? No, of course not bacteria, since the writers couldn't have known about it. But then that would put this book on par with mortal writers rather than the inspired word of God, so what do we make of this?

Professor Andrew Parker, a research fellow at Oxford University, actually wrote a book on this matter, reinterpreting the Genesis account to match the scientific explanation of origins. He describes this particular passage as being the development of lifeforms that rely on an early form of photosynthesis. Yeah, bacteria. That spread seeds. And bear fruit in trees. Right.

So the third day was a total fuck-up in orderly creation.

On the fourth day God made the sun and the stars to rule the sky during the day and the night.... Wha?

And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day: and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars.

And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth.

And to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. (1:16-18)

So after God created plants (or photosynthesizing bacteria, whichever you prefer) he made the sun and the moon. Oh, and the vast majority of the stars in the universe. But mostly the sun and the moon. Even if we blatantly ignore the fact that this does not even come close to resembling the truth that the sun and the stars formed long before the Earth and the moon, and that the Earth and the moon formed long before any life; even if we ignore all that, how in the hell is plant life supposed to exist without sunlight? In fact, how are light itself, evenings and mornings, night and day, supposed to be possible without the sun and the moon and the stars? Where was the light from the first day of creation coming from? How could there be night and day with no sun or moon?

Oh right, because God says so. Checkmate.

This is something else Andrew Parker wrote about, suggesting that this period refers to the evolution of sight, enabling creatures to become aware of the sun and the moon and the stars. Okay, what creatures are we talking about? Because at this point in creation, the only living things on this Earth are plants. Or bacteria. Goddammit, this is stupid.

And then on the fifth day, God created aquatic animals and flying creatures. WTF?

And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. (1:21)

This presents another problem to the symbolic interpretation of Genesis: birds being created before land-roving animals, at the same time as sea-dwelling creatures. This is completely counter to everything human beings can possibly infer from the fossil record, which tells us that birds would have to develop from dinosaurs starting in the Jurassic period. Hell, I learned that as a kid from a Magic School Bus PC game. The "inspired" writers of this text could not have surpassed modern 1st grade level intelligence. Oh, and if we're going by Oxford fellow Professor Parker's logic, these animals came after plant-bacteria with eyes. I can see why he's so credible in religious spheres.

Also notice the use of the word "kinds". There's going to be some problems when making interpretations of this word later in Genesis. We haven't even gotten to the crazy part of this book. Yeah, this is the easy stuff. It's only going to get worse.

And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea; and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. (1:22)

This little ditty will become an interesting counterpoint to a popular claim in a minute.

So, the fifth day: plants with eyesight evolve into whales and birds. Next.

On the sixth day God finally creates land-based animals, which should have gone before birds, but whatever, that's not even the stupid part. He also creates human beings on the same day.

And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness; and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. (1:26)

The word "us" here is interpreted as proving in the Old Testament that God is plural, that there are three persons in one God. Don't even get me started on this nonsense concept that is the Trinity, but even this verse has no biblical support for the plurality of divine persons. God seems to speak to his spiritual counterparts, the angels, on a regular basis, and it doesn't seem strange in an ancient Israelite context for God to speak with them as a group. Unless we're going to suggest that God "inspired" the Jewish authors to write about a trinity they didn't believe in, just to be sneaky.

And God created man to his own image; to the image of God he created them. Male and female he created them. (1:27)

I think this passage is trying to tell us that God created them. And that man and woman came about simultaneously, which from an evolutionary perspective is accurate, but from a biblical perspective... it's complicated. We'll see in Chapter 2.

What exactly is God's image, anyway? Apparently it's supposed to mean that we have reason and free will like him, but that's a stretch of infinite magnitude, literally. No mortal being could come close to comparing to an infinite being, at all. It's just not possible. On a scale of infinite standards, a saint is on par with both a sociopath and dirt. How exactly are we supposed to be in God's image? And how are we supposed to know what God's image is? Wouldn't an infinite being be impossible to comprehend? So then how can we talk intelligibly about it at all? The main reason why people try to talk about God's image in the first place is so that there's some objective standard of morality beyond what we perceive. I just don't see the point. Isn't happiness and contentment enough? Isn't altruism hard-wired into our minds enough to make us want to live together without appealing to impossible rationale from the sky? I guess not.

And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all the living creatures that move upon the earth. (1:28)

Anti-environmentalists bring up this passage all the time, as if we can't do a damn thing without consulting ancient myths written by ignorant men long before scientific knowledge. But I'd like to point out verse 22, which says that the animals should be able to multiply as they damn well please. So aren't we doing God a disservice by limiting their dominion and hunting and harvesting them for food? I know there's an obvious contradiction here, with both parties being told to multiply to no ends, but then what's this passage worth if there's another one within the same chapter saying the complete opposite? But that's something you get used to with the biblical perspective: contradictions are resolved entirely by personal preference, as long as you declare your personal preference to be the inerrant word of God. Brilliant.

Wait, if we're supposed to be fruitful and multiply, shouldn't we be having more open sex with everything and everybody? I guess with the Catholic Church the multiplying part is no problem. Just anecdotal evidence, but I'm from a family of 4 children. My father's one of 8. My mother's one of 11. Global responsibility pales in comparison to God's word.

And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all the trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat:

And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done. (1:29-30)

Wow! We're like kids in a candy store! We can have anything we want in this place! Every living thing on the planet can be used for our nourishment, and it's all for the taking! I'm sure that all of this stuff is edible and none of them are just dangerous and poisonous traps to catch many of us off-guard before we learn simple culinary techniques! And I'm most certain that none of the animals our God has created will suddenly be considered unclean and verboten under divine law! And I'm sure there isn't one tree in particular which will be placed inexplicably on the earth only for us to be forbidden under penalty of death from eating from it, essentially bringing the fall of our species into suffering and despair down to a decision about eating some otherwise harmless fruit, right?

Right?

And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And evening and morning were the sixth day. (1:31)

See? It's not just good, it's very good! There's nothing on this earth which could inevitably result in the misery and destruction of countless lives. And even if it did, our Lord God has decreed it very good, which renders the concept of good meaningless, but don't question his logic! After all, God created logic! Which proves... I dunno, something.

So, for anyone who's been keeping track, according to the inspired authors of God's word on Earth, the creation of all existence is as follows:

In the beginning: The spiritual realm of Heaven and the empty realm of matter. And possibly the planet Earth, which is empty and filled with water.
Day 1: Light from no source in particular. Or all the mass and energy ever. Day and Night and evening and morning despite the lack of a sun.
Day 2: An invisible wall keeping the monstrously large amounts of water in our sky, and Heaven again.
Day 3: Dry land and oceans, and plant life. Or photosynthetic microorganisms, the first lifeforms are kind of implied.
Day 4: The sun and moon and stars, 3 days after the light they should have been emitting along with the day and night they make possible were created, and 1 day after the plants (or bacteria) that depend on sunlight were created. Or eyes evolved... on bacteria.
Day 5: Sea creatures and flying animals. 1 day after the eyes they should have had first developed, and 1 day before the dinosaurs they evolved from were created.
Day 6: All the other animals on the earth, and humans. Everyone's told to multiply like crazy.

Aren't you glad we have people insisting on teaching the controversy? Not the controversy of the science, but just based on the views of anyone with a book they haven't read from beginning to end. I'd like to hear your interpretations.

Although it'd be easier if we just said the writers were wrong. Regardless, this is probably a better Bible School then you'll find for your kids. The fact that this is being taught to kids as truth, and that people are trying to push it into the public curicullum, is actually pretty scary.

See you next Sunday!

It's personal

I'm routinely angered by the Catholic Church. It's not like I can help it. My whole family is devout, with the possible exception of my older sister whom nobody really respects.

This isn't just a spiritual, feel-good kind of devout. If you can think of a ludicrous and terrible idea that would reside in the minds of stereotypical ultra-conservative catholics that you're pretty sure exist as a minuscule minority, they wholeheartedly believe it. The Pope's words are spoken on behalf of the untested and unquestionable Creator of the universe, no matter how ignorant or bigoted or downright idiotic his statements are (You can wear condoms as long as you punch a hole in it to let the semen get out. Dead serious.) The Vatican II council is considered too liberal and to be ignored, because who the fuck needs open dialogue? All atheists are fools, but I am somehow exempt from immediate retribution as long as I "try" to believe. Homosexuality is a disgusting and depraved act, yet somehow this isn't considered homophobia. A woman's best possible gift is a child, so she has no right to what happens to her body once she becomes pregnant. Secularists and homosexuals want to destroy America by becoming equals. Condoms help spread disease. Evolution is only true as long as it confirms intelligent design (Think about that one for a while). The Church and its doctrines are exempt from criticism, so even if a blasphemous act is committed in the privacy of one's own home, they should be smashed with insults that they hate catholics and are violating their rights (Which rights? The right to shove your religion down my throat?) The all-encompassing liberal media hates catholics, and so does everyone else. Masturbation is a terrible thing that nobody should ever do at any age, and if you do it then there's something terribly wrong with you. The Virgin Mary regularly makes herself known by scaring the shit out of little illiterate children, and this is considered sweet and moving. A man beaten and bloodied and nailed to a beam of wood is the most beautiful thing in the world; not symbolically, literally, the blood and torn flesh is meant to be strikingly beautiful. Miracles are indisputable and if you think they are the result of cheap parlor tricks, natural phenomena, or hyped-up mania, you are an idiot and evil for not wanting to believe in God. But God loves you, and everything he does is good, even if it's regularly stated that everything is God's will, and as such everything is rendered "good" in some way, including millions of people starving to death or being stricken with AIDS or being stranded in a region that will never know Jesus and thus dooming countless souls to Hell forever and ever for petty mortal crimes, many of which are victimless. God loves you.

And you must love God.

If you don't know what it means to be told that you absolutely must have complete trust and love in a person you've never met and never will, on the penalty of eternal damnation, then let me tell you what it sounded like in my head, for days on end, for years: "I love God I love God I love God I love God I love God I love God I love God I love God I love God..."

Yeah, that's not at all damaging to a child's mind.

I used to believe every single solitary thing you just read. I believed it all. It was my reality. I wanted America and the world to become a theocracy. I thought homosexuality was a disease. I thought it would all turn out right in the end once we were all dead because God said so. I believed the most important thing I would ever do in my life would be to receive Christ in the Eucharist (It really is supposed to be his flesh and blood, disguised as crackers and wine.) I thought every bit of the Bible was historically accurate, interpreted symbolically or otherwise. I was even a creationist for several months, after reading one book filled with scientific misinformation that was approved by the Church.

I didn't have any choice, because this was the only option I was presented with. Why would you turn to science when your family tells you the scientific community is full of evil liberals and atheists who could not be trusted? I was a religious fundamentalist, and I wasn't even 17 years old. And my family thought this was great. I was the pride of the family, the oldest boy and the most devout. My mindless devotion made me the most virtuous child out of anyone.

I suppose this made my fall from grace all the harder for them to accept. I'm not going into the details of my deconversion, other than to say it started as a moral crisis prompted my logical flaws in the theology I had been taught. I couldn't live with myself and believe anything I'd been told about God at the same time. At one point I promised myself that I wouldn't want to live in a world without God. The fact that I'm still here testifies to the inhumanity of that idea. It all came apart in a few month. Homosexuality wasn't a disease, atheists were decent people, science was as accurate as humans can hope to be without relying on faith, happiness determined what was good, and there was no God. Jesus didn't answer because he wasn't there. It felt odd.

I felt alive. I could think and the thoughts would be my own, nobody else's.

So of course this meant I had to endure more trials with my family who supposedly knew better than I did. I was subjected to shitty book after shitty book, I was told the usual about atheist liberal bias, I was expected to come up with answers for things no human being could know, a couple of my books were stolen, and my mother broke down on a number of occasions. Discussion was and still is impossible. It all ends in fits of tears. During one such argument my father shouted me down, calling me cold and unfeeling, and dared me to show him my reason. So I cried. I cried like the whole world was coming down around me, like I was going insane, like a cornered animal crawling up in a little ball and cowering for its life.

Things are neutral now. My father still listens to and reads the same bigoted ignorance that is right wing media. My mother still pokes at me about my stand on religion. I tell her something to the effect that I feel the same way as before, but I'm thinking about it. This appeases her enough to make her leave me alone. I often have to go to Mass, and my family uses me as an example of a respectful atheist, just to throw it in the face of my older sister who openly dislikes going to these needless services. "Yes, that's right, it's evil to go to Mass," she'd say in biting sarcasm, "It's evil."

She doesn't know it, but she's right. If there is such a thing as evil, this would be it. It's not the worst in the world, but then having acid slowly dripped on your skin probably isn't the absolute worst thing in the world either, is it? Isn't it enough to say that it's really bad? That Catholicism is logically, empirically, morally bankrupt? That it's a corrupt system whose only heart lies in those willing to set aside their religious fervor and acknowledge their humanity? Isn't it enough to say that it's child abuse to subject young minds to this kind of ignorance and bigotry at an early age? Isn't that enough to cut back on "parents' rights"? Why do we respect this horseshit? This should be a fringe nutjob cult, not one of the most powerful organizations in the world. Why do we let them hide pedophiles from justice? Why do we let them spread lies about condoms in HIV-stricken areas? Why don't we criticize them like they claim we do? Why is it so normal to pledge allegiance to a being nobody can ever nor ever will see who speaks through a group of bigoted senile old men in wizards' robes? Why do so few people care? Why??

What more do you want to justify my frustration?

An idea I hope I can go through with

I just got an idea. I get them all the time and my laziness ensures that they never come to fruition. But I figure if I post it somewhere, it'll kick me in the direction to actually do something with it.

So my idea is a combination of two aspects I've been tossing around in my head. One is a comic that takes the point of view of the villain, because nobody seems to want to see things from their perspective. Seriously, imagine how hard it is to try to take over the world, etc. Then some jackass comes flying at you spouting off some kind of moral code you simply can't identify with, and then takes it upon himself to crush you in ways your plans could not have anticipated, and then he gets applauded by the public as a hero. It would be interesting to actually have the roles reversed.

But even though that's most definitely been done before, it's not really what's important about the idea. The second part of the idea is to have the villain be the antithesis of the religious fundamentalist: an atheistic, materialistic, logical being proclaiming "evil" and setting his sights on dominating the planet through SCIENCE. And his archnemesis is basically the instrument of God, a saintly being who upholds the fundamentalists' virtues to the greatest degree. I'd explain later how both of these two are able to manifest their abilities through their respective origins.

The whole idea is pretty much to show how distorted the fundamentalists' ideas of good and evil are, with good being kinda dark despite its supposed glorious aspects, and evil being quite reasonable really. It's the kind of embracing of the "evil atheist" label that manifests itself in fetus-shaped cookies and such, and it's actually kind of fun to play with. Seriously, all it does is show how ludicrous the idea that all this is so heinous and unspeakable. It won't even offend anyone you could talk to anyway, at least not yet. As long as it's not outright anticlericalism or eugenicism or some other ignorance like that, it's all in good fun. If they can't take the joke, what chance have they got to be reasoned with? They'd have to undergo some serious changes to be talked to, and in the meantime we shouldn't be deprived of the ability to express ourselves.

I'm not really sure if I wanted this to be entirely from the villain's point of view, so I might toy with the idea of both of them being used alternating as protagonists. I'm not asking for artists or anything while this thing hasn't really gotten out of my head and into text, but it's something to keep in mind for later. Seems like an interesting idea anyway.

Later peeps. For SCIENCE!

Pro-life status conditional

If you're convicted as an abortionist by due process of the law in a country where abortions are unconditionally illegal, it's ok to kill you in God's eyes. Evidently. At least judging from this sermon. But if you take matters into your own hands and kill a man you believe is a murderer because pastors like this told you so all your life, then you're a murderer yourself because... um... something about rebellion. Seriously? Rebeling against authority is the only thing he did wrong? So if the United States became a theocracy and this man became an executioner killing all the abortionists lined up on death row, that would be ok?

I wanted to reply in a comment, but naturally the moment anyone outside of their congregation discovered the sermon's inanity, they shut down commenting on the thread. So here's what I wrote right after they shut their eyes to criticism:

"I am not impressed with the justifications given for what was said in this sermon. Suppose you informed a minority group in Nazi Germany of the Holocaust and they wholeheartedly believed that it was horrifyingly amoral and must be stopped. Then suppose you told them that they should use the Word of God and due process of the law to fight the Holocaust rather than form a sort of resistance against the German Army and join up with the Allies, as reason would dictate. They would either be disgusted with your ignorance and irrationality concerning the situation, or somehow be extremely gullible and get themselves killed in due process of the law.

Now imagine what you claim to be true right now. Supposedly 50 million or so human beings have been massacred in due process of the law, and all available evidence suggests that the influence of God's Word in America seems to be decreasing. What in your God's name makes you think the best way to fight an unborn Holocaust is to try in vain to change the minds of lawmakers? And why are you taking your time in doing so? Why aren't you making this your number one priority, and if you are, we are less than amazed by your fervor. Everything in this country should grind to a halt when you demand this, you shouldn't be going about your day as usual if there's a Holocaust in your backyard.

And then this sermon comes along and somehow the pastor feels the need to say that killing is not always forbidden. I don't care if the sermon says to use due process of the law, because that, as mentioned, is a horrendously stupid idea if you truly believe a Holocaust to be occurring. There is no reason to point that out in a condemnation of a murderer. Someone who hears this kind of stuff all the time throughout their lives is bound to reach the conclusion that they should take matters into their own hands and try to save many lives by taking one, and would also be dismayed to find that you don't take abortion seriously enough to rise up as one and demand that it stops at any cost. And who are you to say that it's not God's will that he should do this? Maybe he was right and your concept of God is a terribly misrepresented idea of your own personal beliefs. Or maybe everybody's concept of God is like that.

I'm not justifying Tiller's murder, as you can no doubt tell from my use of language; I'm pointing out the terrible inconsistency and inanity of your beliefs concerning this matter. And I'm disgusted by all of this gibberish that's supposed to be a critique of a murderer but ends up supporting the very reason why he took Tiller's life. And I'm further disgusted by the fact that there is nothing in your moral dialogue that includes secular reasoning. Is your only reason for hating the idea of rebellion because God told you to respect authority? Do you seriously believe that the only reason Tiller's murder is wrong is because his killer did it against God's wishes? It disturbs me that your moral conscience could turn on a dime if the right people told you that God thought differently than you previously believed. Or that if God himself told you something of that nature, that it wouldn't even occur to you to get your head examined.

Really, I don't understand why you can't take a reasonable approach to any of this. I don't understand why you don't try to take the other side's point of view and understand why "God-haters" are so distraught by your words and actions. (The term "God-hater" is fairly indicative of your ignorance of atheists and atheism in general.) I don't hate anything or anyone; I'm just terribly concerned by this pseudo-criticism of a murderer. I’m a former believer who at one time fully believed everything the thoughtful Christian readers here have written, and came to realize how bizarrely counterproductive it all was to my moral development. I truly believe that this is making Americans suffer unnecessarily for the sake of a belief in the consciousness of the unborn that simply doesn't exist.

I know this won't change anything, but it had to be said."