It's hard not to have them when your family's relationships are best defined by mutual disrespect. My parents don't respect my sisters, my sisters don't respect me or my mom, and nobody really respects my dad. The whole religious guilt equation doesn't help either.
All of it just builds into my fear of not being taken seriously. Especially since all my school years were filled with me being a spaz and all my "friends" being sure that I was mentally impaired. And aforementioned family feels the need to scold me for minor mistakes as though it indicated something was terribly wrong with me. Just today we were ordering takeout (from a friend's house that's a ways away, since my dad has a tendency to inform me of these things at the last minute, so some of my virtual crops withered) and as soon as I got the menu my sister told me to hurry up. They took their time looking at the menu so I don't know why I got a warning even though I hadn't done anything. And then when they called the place up we were told they ran out of one side dish I'd ordered, I asked for a little clarification and my sister scolded me again saying "Just. Pick. Something." As if I couldn't grasp that concept. I hate being talked down to like that.
I don't know if this has to do with their awareness of the fact that I (and possibly my dad) have Asperger's Syndrome, but it shows a pretty cruel interpretation of it, where somehow my being aware of it means I'm still responsible for the way my minds works. (I'm still worrisome about the idea that I may become more like my dad in the future, both slow and impatient.) And I don't know what this means for the people I know at school. My social anxiety is not nearly as bad as it used to be, but when I lack confidence in myself it tends to show in the way I act around others. I don't know what some people would think if they knew that I talk to myself in private at times or that I flap my hands when I get excited. I'm getting better I guess, but some things will never change.
At least I have some more direction right now. (I pretty much typed this up because I couldn't think of much else to write about. Enjoy my complaining rants!)
Monday, August 17, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
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 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!
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Remember when summer used to be fun?
Yeah, those were good times. But those were also the times when I was considerably more annoying and completely unaware of how my ignorance would bite me in the ass later.
I'm spending most of my time at the north Jersey shore now, so it's like the beach you would go to, only dirtier. Not being home alone anymore ensures that I will have to spend more time with my family, which for me is not good. Our relationship never really went back to the positive levels it was at in my childhood, ever since my confirmation into the Catholic Church (since 15-year-olds are perfectly capable of deciding which organization they will tether their immortal soul to for eternity) around which time I figured out my family would act in certain ways regardless of their own moral convictions and would never listen to reason or compassion. This wouldn't have been so bad if faith weren't so important in holding the family together, and ever since I became an atheist at 17 things have been somewhat tense whenever those issues come up. Which they do. A lot. As long as I keep my mouth shut and hide all my books, I'm fine. Otherwise there'd be disagreements and... well, you know about all that already.
Basically I can just use all this as an excuse to use all my time to study chinese, which I really need to get going on before classes start again. Other than that there's just a bit of light reading and a lot of dvds to keep me busy. So there's not too much for me to write about as yet, although I do have a certain idea of what to do with my Sunday entries, which I'll show when Sunday comes around ;)
I miss the campus and everyone living there, and I look forward to working, studying, advocating, and socializing. Two more weeks, and I can have my life back. Three more years, and I can be free.
NOTE: I just remembered something else here at the shore: a psychic's office on the boardwalk. I'm a Gemini as I recall, so what's that supposed to make me again?
I'm spending most of my time at the north Jersey shore now, so it's like the beach you would go to, only dirtier. Not being home alone anymore ensures that I will have to spend more time with my family, which for me is not good. Our relationship never really went back to the positive levels it was at in my childhood, ever since my confirmation into the Catholic Church (since 15-year-olds are perfectly capable of deciding which organization they will tether their immortal soul to for eternity) around which time I figured out my family would act in certain ways regardless of their own moral convictions and would never listen to reason or compassion. This wouldn't have been so bad if faith weren't so important in holding the family together, and ever since I became an atheist at 17 things have been somewhat tense whenever those issues come up. Which they do. A lot. As long as I keep my mouth shut and hide all my books, I'm fine. Otherwise there'd be disagreements and... well, you know about all that already.
Basically I can just use all this as an excuse to use all my time to study chinese, which I really need to get going on before classes start again. Other than that there's just a bit of light reading and a lot of dvds to keep me busy. So there's not too much for me to write about as yet, although I do have a certain idea of what to do with my Sunday entries, which I'll show when Sunday comes around ;)
I miss the campus and everyone living there, and I look forward to working, studying, advocating, and socializing. Two more weeks, and I can have my life back. Three more years, and I can be free.
NOTE: I just remembered something else here at the shore: a psychic's office on the boardwalk. I'm a Gemini as I recall, so what's that supposed to make me again?
Friday, August 14, 2009
Your money's no good here!
After seeing District 9, I could tell you about how it parallels the discriminatory politics and economics of apartheid South Africa, or how it tells the story of a man of privilege and his redemption by facing the harsh reality of being scorned and oppressed, or how the CGI and creature effects expose us to the notion that it doesn't matter so much how one looks or even lives as much as it does how one needs and feels.
But I think the best reasoning to see this movie can be expressed through an advertisement:
*New, from Human&OtherCorp! It's the PrawnMech 9000! Utilizing the latest in extraterrestrial technology, this mechanized armored exoskeleton features a direct neural interface allowing you to decimate enemies with a mere thought! No training or understanding of alien language required! Also featured is a direct uplink to your personal mothership, giving you remote control to help allies from afar!
The PrawnMech 9000 is highly resistant to small arms fire of all sorts, allowing one to take thousands of hits and keep on going! It even features a remotely magnetized telekinesis module that enables you to literally take rounds from enemies and fire them right back at them! The suit's reflexively activated movements allow for agile movement in the blink of an eye! You can even catch a launched RPG in midair!
Included in this unit's amazing array of alien armaments is a full set of land-to-land missiles, plasma weapons that liquefy any humanoid creature instantly, highly accurate chain guns, rocket-propelled electric brain-scramblers, and the TK module can even be refitted to lift and fire pigs and other livestock with incredible force!
All of this can be yours for 100 cans of cat food! That's a 10,000 cat food can value, yours for just 100 cans of cat food! Order now!
(Individualresultsmayvary, bodyarmordoesnotguaranteesurvivalundersustainedfire, catchingactiveexplovivesinmidairmaycausebodilydismemberment, largequantitiesofbiofluidmaycauserednessandirritation, consultyourdoctorbeforelinkingupwiththeneuralinterfaceorrectalsteeringcontrol, allHuman&OtherCorpproductsonlyfunctionforthosewithextraterrestrialgenetics, pigssoldseperately.)*
PIG. GUN. Go see it now.
But I think the best reasoning to see this movie can be expressed through an advertisement:
*New, from Human&OtherCorp! It's the PrawnMech 9000! Utilizing the latest in extraterrestrial technology, this mechanized armored exoskeleton features a direct neural interface allowing you to decimate enemies with a mere thought! No training or understanding of alien language required! Also featured is a direct uplink to your personal mothership, giving you remote control to help allies from afar!
The PrawnMech 9000 is highly resistant to small arms fire of all sorts, allowing one to take thousands of hits and keep on going! It even features a remotely magnetized telekinesis module that enables you to literally take rounds from enemies and fire them right back at them! The suit's reflexively activated movements allow for agile movement in the blink of an eye! You can even catch a launched RPG in midair!
Included in this unit's amazing array of alien armaments is a full set of land-to-land missiles, plasma weapons that liquefy any humanoid creature instantly, highly accurate chain guns, rocket-propelled electric brain-scramblers, and the TK module can even be refitted to lift and fire pigs and other livestock with incredible force!
All of this can be yours for 100 cans of cat food! That's a 10,000 cat food can value, yours for just 100 cans of cat food! Order now!
(Individualresultsmayvary, bodyarmordoesnotguaranteesurvivalundersustainedfire, catchingactiveexplovivesinmidairmaycausebodilydismemberment, largequantitiesofbiofluidmaycauserednessandirritation, consultyourdoctorbeforelinkingupwiththeneuralinterfaceorrectalsteeringcontrol, allHuman&OtherCorpproductsonlyfunctionforthosewithextraterrestrialgenetics, pigssoldseperately.)*
PIG. GUN. Go see it now.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Esoteric humor ftw
It's damn near impossible to distance myself from jokes and references few people will understand. Not that I haven't made acquaintances with those few people and that I won't have to worry about it as much, but it seems odd and awkward when the majority of my humor comes from places where one would have to see a movie or an online video in order to understand what the fuck I'm talking about.
So far this summer I haven't been seeing or talking to many people so it's not as much of a problem, and the few people I chat with in the meantime are mildly bemused by my nonsensical quips. But really, when just hearing "Only, it doesn't make a bit of difference, guys..." or someone shouting "STAAAAY!!" is enough to get me giggling, I have to wonder if I might want to try more conventional avenues of humor...
Nah. XP
What's on the television, then?
So far this summer I haven't been seeing or talking to many people so it's not as much of a problem, and the few people I chat with in the meantime are mildly bemused by my nonsensical quips. But really, when just hearing "Only, it doesn't make a bit of difference, guys..." or someone shouting "STAAAAY!!" is enough to get me giggling, I have to wonder if I might want to try more conventional avenues of humor...
Nah. XP
What's on the television, then?
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
I'm a slacker
And I suck at getting jobs on campus. I thought Dining Services was always hiring... Apparently they're all full. I should have done this first year, but there you are.
I've been lagging behind on pretty much everything: socializing, job searching, studying, and writing. I've yet to finish my review of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, which I need to get out of the way sooner or later since that piece of shit really deserves a once-over. With pipes.
Also I haven't really written much that's in a positive light of any kind, and the only personal information I've cared to disclose is probably too sensitive for most peeps my age to touch. At least that's what the comment count suggests. No, I'm not going to dumb down my attitude towards religion and pseudoscience. That's a part of who I am, and goddammit it's interesting to talk about. At the very least it's a critically important topic.
I'll have to do more to advertise my blog, but first I actually need something to work with. So starting today I'm going to be posting daily, just to get anything that's on my mind down into text where it could be more meaningful.
Because seriously, summer alone blows. At least it's almost over.
To start off these daily triads and rants, I guess I could talk a little about the coming semester on campus. I'm really looking forward to seeing everyone again, although sometimes I ask myself why. It's not like I had such promise in the previous year, either socially or academically. The academic troubles are entirely due to my being a slacker and I'm trying to get my GPA up so that studying abroad is a more viable option, but the social issues continue to mystify me. I often feel like I haven't connected with anyone in a meaningful way, and if I have it's hard to say my efforts have been acknowledged.
Every now and then I make an effort to keep regular contact with someone and the favor is rarely returned. I find myself telling classmates to keep me in the loop because I'm especially inept when it comes to staying in touch with others, and they just don't. Do I have to call every time to ask? Is that how it works? Is that only how it works with certain people? Nobody tells me, so how am I supposed to know? I've made the mistake of being overly eager when it comes to getting to know somebody and trying to hang out with them, but nobody told me this was a mistake even when they knew how unbelievably awkward I am. I feel like such a pest sometimes. And then when I give people time to think my requests over, they evidently think me away, since almost nobody calls me back. I have no idea what the middle ground is, since I've never had a "normal" social life, the kind where you just get to know people you see every day and meet up with the people you like. I don't know what that's like.
And it doesn't help my self-esteem either when almost everyone I try to talk to seems like they'd rather be somewhere else. It would actually be refreshing if a would-be acquaintance just told me to fuck off. At least then it wouldn't be a guessing game. I hate to sound so pessimistic, but how else am I supposed to react when so few people ask anything of me? I've heard that people like to talk about themselves and will prefer when someone shows interest in their lives, yet somehow many see fit to answer me in monosyllabic responses and then end the flow of the conversation then and there.
It's not as if I like being alone. Really, I can't stand it. I've had over three years to get used to being disliked and avoided and spending so much time by myself, and it turns out I'm not very durable. I don't bend, I break. I'm not sure I can ever get used to that kind of isolation. I'm just too damn sensitive. Yeah, wearing my heart on my sleeve is a bad move, but I can't let anyone get the idea that I prefer to be this way or that I'm especially impervious to emotional stress.
I don't know. Am I that unappealing? I'm not sure what to change. I've been trying to appear as nice as I genuinely feel towards people. Do I seem disingenuous? I can't really help it. I tried explaining to people that I don't express my heartfelt emotions naturally, and that's it's really an exercise in acting every time, even though the feelings are all real. And you could say my classmates have been nice to me in return, which they have, but I know that people can just be nice out of courtesy. Often I take their word for it and it doesn't necessarily end well.
Another point about the overly-eager problem I have: I've read in a book about love for people with Asperger's Syndrome, and apparently the appeal women often see in men with Asperger's is their apparent independence of socializing or pursuits in a love life ("apparent" being the key word since aspies greatly differ from those with autism in that they desire more social contact and acceptance), like getting a break from men who are too eager to enter into a relationship or get into bed. This just makes it worse for me since in that regard I've blown it. I'm always so eager to find some kind of connection with someone, and with my awkwardness that must kill whatever appeal there ever was in me. It's so rarely an intellectual matter for me, so I don't identify with that aspect of the Syndrome.
It's a painful learning process to say the least. I just have to keep going and try not to repeat my mistakes. Still though, I can't help but feel like I'm just not getting enough in return. Whatever I do, I'm not going to pretend. I might be socially impaired, but I know there should be more to a social life than making your personality a complete fabrication.
It's not all bad though, I guess. I'm going to be talking to people more often now that our campus group for secularists if finally getting off the ground. And that's something I'm going to be working on a lot of the time, so my interests in science and rationality at least have a place in my efforts to connect with others. And it's not as though I'm giving up on the campus job search. I won't accept unemployment as an option this semester, so there's another place I could familiarize myself with other students. I still wish I could get that job in the Dining Hall though. You pretty much see everybody that way.
I'm only 20. I have time.
I've been lagging behind on pretty much everything: socializing, job searching, studying, and writing. I've yet to finish my review of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, which I need to get out of the way sooner or later since that piece of shit really deserves a once-over. With pipes.
Also I haven't really written much that's in a positive light of any kind, and the only personal information I've cared to disclose is probably too sensitive for most peeps my age to touch. At least that's what the comment count suggests. No, I'm not going to dumb down my attitude towards religion and pseudoscience. That's a part of who I am, and goddammit it's interesting to talk about. At the very least it's a critically important topic.
I'll have to do more to advertise my blog, but first I actually need something to work with. So starting today I'm going to be posting daily, just to get anything that's on my mind down into text where it could be more meaningful.
Because seriously, summer alone blows. At least it's almost over.
To start off these daily triads and rants, I guess I could talk a little about the coming semester on campus. I'm really looking forward to seeing everyone again, although sometimes I ask myself why. It's not like I had such promise in the previous year, either socially or academically. The academic troubles are entirely due to my being a slacker and I'm trying to get my GPA up so that studying abroad is a more viable option, but the social issues continue to mystify me. I often feel like I haven't connected with anyone in a meaningful way, and if I have it's hard to say my efforts have been acknowledged.
Every now and then I make an effort to keep regular contact with someone and the favor is rarely returned. I find myself telling classmates to keep me in the loop because I'm especially inept when it comes to staying in touch with others, and they just don't. Do I have to call every time to ask? Is that how it works? Is that only how it works with certain people? Nobody tells me, so how am I supposed to know? I've made the mistake of being overly eager when it comes to getting to know somebody and trying to hang out with them, but nobody told me this was a mistake even when they knew how unbelievably awkward I am. I feel like such a pest sometimes. And then when I give people time to think my requests over, they evidently think me away, since almost nobody calls me back. I have no idea what the middle ground is, since I've never had a "normal" social life, the kind where you just get to know people you see every day and meet up with the people you like. I don't know what that's like.
And it doesn't help my self-esteem either when almost everyone I try to talk to seems like they'd rather be somewhere else. It would actually be refreshing if a would-be acquaintance just told me to fuck off. At least then it wouldn't be a guessing game. I hate to sound so pessimistic, but how else am I supposed to react when so few people ask anything of me? I've heard that people like to talk about themselves and will prefer when someone shows interest in their lives, yet somehow many see fit to answer me in monosyllabic responses and then end the flow of the conversation then and there.
It's not as if I like being alone. Really, I can't stand it. I've had over three years to get used to being disliked and avoided and spending so much time by myself, and it turns out I'm not very durable. I don't bend, I break. I'm not sure I can ever get used to that kind of isolation. I'm just too damn sensitive. Yeah, wearing my heart on my sleeve is a bad move, but I can't let anyone get the idea that I prefer to be this way or that I'm especially impervious to emotional stress.
I don't know. Am I that unappealing? I'm not sure what to change. I've been trying to appear as nice as I genuinely feel towards people. Do I seem disingenuous? I can't really help it. I tried explaining to people that I don't express my heartfelt emotions naturally, and that's it's really an exercise in acting every time, even though the feelings are all real. And you could say my classmates have been nice to me in return, which they have, but I know that people can just be nice out of courtesy. Often I take their word for it and it doesn't necessarily end well.
Another point about the overly-eager problem I have: I've read in a book about love for people with Asperger's Syndrome, and apparently the appeal women often see in men with Asperger's is their apparent independence of socializing or pursuits in a love life ("apparent" being the key word since aspies greatly differ from those with autism in that they desire more social contact and acceptance), like getting a break from men who are too eager to enter into a relationship or get into bed. This just makes it worse for me since in that regard I've blown it. I'm always so eager to find some kind of connection with someone, and with my awkwardness that must kill whatever appeal there ever was in me. It's so rarely an intellectual matter for me, so I don't identify with that aspect of the Syndrome.
It's a painful learning process to say the least. I just have to keep going and try not to repeat my mistakes. Still though, I can't help but feel like I'm just not getting enough in return. Whatever I do, I'm not going to pretend. I might be socially impaired, but I know there should be more to a social life than making your personality a complete fabrication.
It's not all bad though, I guess. I'm going to be talking to people more often now that our campus group for secularists if finally getting off the ground. And that's something I'm going to be working on a lot of the time, so my interests in science and rationality at least have a place in my efforts to connect with others. And it's not as though I'm giving up on the campus job search. I won't accept unemployment as an option this semester, so there's another place I could familiarize myself with other students. I still wish I could get that job in the Dining Hall though. You pretty much see everybody that way.
I'm only 20. I have time.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
