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.

I'm mad as hell

And why shouldn't I be? Do you read the New York Post, or at least look at their headlines? Do you listen to talk radio constantly, or watch Fox News, or EWTN? Do you even know what EWTN is? Do your parents scoff at terms like "heterosexism" or such ludicrous left-leaning media outlets as... The New York Times? Does your whole extended family find nothing wrong with fundamentalists brainwashing little children into thinking their bodies are immoral vessels worthy only of contempt, except as baby-making apparatuses over which they have no right to control? Is your whole rational worldview persistently under siege by pestering about imperfections in the scientific method? Do you know what it feels like to be religiously proselytized by your own mother? Have you ever had your mind under constant siege from all of this bullshit at the same time for as long as a month or more?

Is it any wonder that I'm the psychological mess that I am today?

Goddamn, everything in this house seems like an insult both to my intelligence and to humanity at large. Think about what right-wing media does for a sec, and don't bother listing examples of left-wing bias either because all they ever do is highlight the icing on this shit sundae that is the religious right, and any way you put it they don't even stack up to what "Fox and Friends" do alone. Right-wing media is essentially telling America that half of Americans are irredeemable assholes who know nothing about anything and want to destroy America. Half. Anyone with a progressive or non-conservative idea in their head is presented as some kind of hippie/socialist/satanist. And that probably includes you, if you're reading this. How does it feel to have yourself collectively condemned with half of the nation for not being religious or nationalistic enough?

Do you realize what this means? It means that these media asshats are antagonizing conservative Americans into hating half of the nation's population, disregarding everything that half says and needs, and enforcing some loose form of authoritarian corporate theocracy. You may think that's an extreme take on the situation, but what the hell do you think the people who support this kind of garbage want? They want some idyllic perfection of the American dream, like some ultra-orthodox status quo middle class 1950's suburbia with not a tolerant or deviant thought in anyone's head. And since that Dream is impossible since half of Americans don't fit the standards to make that happen, the Right's failures will be continuously blamed on liberals until the right people are elected into office to implement enough of the right kind of control over people's lives so that the right people will be happy and the wrong people - people who, say, might think the idea of global warming might have some merit - are nicely marginalized into socioeconomic oblivion.

You don't fit the ideal? Into the loony bin you go. Because if you even think for a second that maybe gay people should be allowed to marry the person of their choice and adopt some kids, you're automatically lumped into the same category as pedophiles and incestuous devil-worshippers. (And where the hell are these secret enemies-of-the-state, these supposed gay atheist cultists who do nothing but devour fetuses and rape children so that they instantly become homosexuals? Do fundamentalists still believe that Dungeons & Dragons groups actually engage in witchcraft? And I have to wonder, where do these witches and sorcerers get their magical powers? From Satan? I didn't even know God let him give human beings any kind of powers, but that's theology for you.)

And I have to say here that the Right is very much concerned with controlling your life in particular ways. You can't get or provide an abortion, you can't get contraceptives, you can't be taught evolution without being told it has as much merit as 4000-year-old fair tales, you can't have any reasonable control over what substances go into your body, you can't trust scientists, you can't demand things of your government, you can't depend on anyone for food and shelter since that would perpetuate a "welfare state", you can't have dependable access to healthcare, you can't bring any charges against white-collar criminal pricks, you can't get married to the person of your choice, you can't adopt a child without the church's say-so, you can't demand better standards of living, and you can't care for the rest of the planet in any way whatsoever. But you can enlist in the army and fight wars nobody but a select group of people have interests in. You can mercilessly beat your children and force them to think the way you want them to think. And you can choose between a select range of expensive healthcare plans, low-income housing developments, and unhealthy fast food diets which a few big names in business and industry will be happy to oblige. And you're perfectly free to have no resources or choices or expression or freedoms of your own, as so many of our 3.5 million homeless do now.

But what can you do if the people closest to you since childhood (literally close in this case) actually believe this kind of bile that spews forth from the radio every minute of every day? What are you supposed to do? You can't very well get a new family, and you can't make a stand if you have to live under the same roof. But that's my situation, and it becomes more difficult to ignore all the time.

You know, it's not so much the ideological conflict that gets to me as it is the sheer offensiveness of the things being said. I can't help it if there's no reason to believe in God, so why am I condemned as if I'm some kind of anarchistic terrorist? I'm just a college student who's trying to find his own way in life, I can't be crammed into this picturesque world of religious devotion and political fervor. Hell, I don't ask the same thing of anyone else. I don't tell religious people to stay at home and not let me know what they believe, and I don't expect people to join the Communist Party or anything. I don't even expect anyone to like gay people. I just want to be left the hell alone, without having my ideas put into a forbidden category. I want people to coexist without fighting over the survival of their ideologies, as if their lives and their prospects at happiness depend on it. I'd rather people would learn how to manage their lives better and look at things a little more rationally and have more compassion for people who are just different and do no real harm.

I mean, seriously, it's the ideas that are corrosive and stupid. Not everyone who clings to them is stupid or intends evil on anybody. But I just get so fucking pissed off when someone says something so hateful and harmful, something that flies in the face of all established forms of logic, and so many people nod their heads and acknowledge their willingness to act on this kind of idiocy. Are you out of your fucking minds?

The New Jersey senate just said no to gay marriage. Why? Why? Why? What reason is there for denying people of the same gender to marry one another? Do they present any special threat to each other by nature of their relationship? No. Do they present any special threat to any children they intent to adopt? No. Do they present any special threat to the justice system or society at large? NO. Just NO. Okay? There is no social anarchy or "sexual madness" about homosexuality. How would allowing gay marriage lead to the breakdown of American society? Because Timmy will have two mommies?? No kind of marriage between two willing persons of different families could lead inherently to any level of social unrest. EVER. But who are we kidding here? It has nothing to do with what legalizing gay marriage will do to American law or the relationship between church and state (since churches can't be required to give anybody a marriage, and frankly I wouldn't want a religious wedding anyway.) It's just that certain people don't like homosexuals. Don't bullshit me with "It's not what they are, it's what they do". That's like saying "It's not that I hate you personally, I just hate the fact that you exist."

Okay, let's get more explicit about what we're talking about here. A man and a woman may hold, kiss, and have sexual relations with each other as they see fit. Well, okay, maybe they don't have that much freedom since some would say that the only kind of sexual contact allowed is conventional heterosexual intercourse within the context of marriage without the use of contraceptives. Ignoring for a minute the... utter strangeness of that level of authoritarian orthodoxy (don't pull any cultural relativist bullshit on me, it has nothing to do with what people should be allowed to do in reality), take a look at what is considered appropriate. A man can put his penis into a woman's vagina, and rub it anywhere around that general area, and in many contexts is allowed to put it (along with his fingers, tongue, etc) anywhere else on the woman as he pleases, and the woman is likewise allowed to fondle the man in any way that seems suitable to her.

Now, what isn't appropriate is for two men to put their penises anywhere on each other for the purposes of sexual stimulation, ever. They're not even allowed to use their hands, tongues, etc, for these purposes with one another. For some reason the act of placing the penis within another man's anus is seen as abhorrent, and I have to doubt it's for sanitary issues. And women are likewise expected to not couple with one another and stimulate each other's clitorises or vaginae for these same purposes. Even kissing and caressing man-to-man or woman-to-woman for the general purposes of romantic stimulation and expression is too much for some minds to bear. Why? There's nothing in biology that says you can't do that, since it's obviously possible to do it regardless of other people's discomfort at the idea. Religious texts hold no water on this issue since they elsewhere have no moral bearing on anything (unless you want to know how long a person may be kept as a slave), and saying "God says so" likewise has nothing to do with whether or not doing something to somebody is nice. Do conservatives simply not like thinking about homosexual intercourse? THEN DON'T THINK ABOUT IT! Nobody's holding you down and forcing you to watch people have sex, even if done in public! What does it say about social conservativism in general if the main driving argument is that homosexuality is icky? "Eww" should be the paraphrasing for any argument anyone makes against same-sex marriage.

What the hell am I still doing in Jersey? I don't want to be here, I want to be back at school learning shit and spending my time with people I care about. Dammit, don't you just get so fucking pissed off, just so fucking pissed off, that you can't even think straight anymore? Any semblance of daily life become impossible around this level of bullshit. Every day I'm wandering around going "It would be nice if this semester- FUCK, THAT'S STUPID!" God... you'd think that with all the time and energy that it takes to write something down and get it revised and get it produced and get it prepared to be put on the air, that a person would think to themselves "Wow... What I'm saying is really fucking stupid!" Somebody has to know! Somebody has to realize what's been happening with all this mass pandering to stereotypes and misconceptions and myths, all over the country. It's got nothing to do with people anymore, people are just treated as vessels for ideals, harbingers of American values, effigies of unpatriotic evil. And when people are acknowledged, the world is suddenly full of saints and demons, and it's okay to sling mud at one another like we're in a fucking zoo exhibit. Why don't we just pass out white hats and black hats and sort out who has to wear which hat so we know who's on which side? "Me? Oh, I'm against the death penalty, so I'll be over here with the abortionists, Wiccans, and necrophiles, thanks."

Doesn't anybody get that I'm not on anybody's "side"? There are no "sides", if there were there'd be 7 billion different sides right now, since nobody knows anything about what they stand for anymore. I'm either on everybody's side or I'm on my own side. I like to think I'm on my own side, and my side stands for helping everybody all at once. I don't care what they think about my methods, I'm just trying to accommodate everybody's needs and dreams. It makes no sense, since it's an impossible task, but none of this makes a lick of goddamn sense in the first place. Everything's screwed up, but some things work out, and that makes it worth trying.

Somehow that's part of the definition of doodlemastery. But that's just something that exploded into existence in my head one day.

I miss you <3

The most meaningless term in the world

Okay, maybe next to "doodlemastery".

But "faith" is the most empty and uninspiring concept I've ever had to confront.

When I was younger, this word meant everything to me ("faith", not "doodlemastery" you twit, keep your head in the game). Of course, remaining a Catholic would have been an unwise career decision for the 17-year-old I was when I finally came to the age of reason. So now the word has even less meaning for me than "tacorific".

That's a great word, by the way, I wish I had more use for it.

Every time the word is used it means something different, because everybody uses it in a personal way that reflects their beliefs. And everybody's beliefs are different by at least a small amount, even in a supposedly monolithic religion. Take God as an example. Some people think he's an invisible sky man, or woman. Or three people. Or several more. Some believe that he's the universe, or completely outside of it, or both (the hell does that mean?). Others will tell you that God is a sort of abstract concept encompassing the core nature of existence or morality. And others will try to snag you with the idea that God is anything that a person holds in their heart as being greater than themselves. One person on Penn&Teller's Bullshit! tried to imply that for an atheist, "God" could be a rock. So what, would an atheist be someone who believes that the rock doesn't exist?

Arockist. There's a new meaningless term for you. But still more substantive than faith.

So what does one mean by "faith"? Let's just say for the sake of argument that in a casual conversation mentioning the scientific theory of the expanding universe, your devout mother inappropriately posits that you need to accept that kind of belief based on faith.

Let's just say.

Well clearly in this case faith would be defined as something related specifically to belief itself. But it can't possibly be the same as belief, can it? I doubt that every little thing you accept to be true or probable would be considered by a religious individual to be an "act of faith". Although when you get in a prolonged conversation with just the right kind of rationally desperate mind, you'll find yourself confronted with the assertion that you believe the earth is round in the exact same way that they believe an invisible person sends hurricanes to collectively punish residents for housing those who wear feather boas and use nipple clamps.

So let us distinguish just what we mean when we say we believe things to be true. Yes, we are all the same in that belief means any one thing any one of us acknowledges as part of their personal worldview, something we really think of as part of reality. No, we do not believe in science and sandwiches in the same way as others believe in gods and ghost phalli, precisely because of the reasons we believe them. I'd wager that most of us believe most of the things we do for reasons in of themselves. Explanations, elaborations, facts, tidbits, data, hints, clues, signals, signs, patterns, consistencies, conclusions, necessities, and logic. This isn't just cold scientific shit either. I believe my girlfriend exists and cares for me since I can see and hear and feel her, and all my past experiences and all of the consistencies and logical conclusions in life would lead me to believe she's a person who cares for me. And she can use the same facts about me to realize that I'm a person who cares for her too. If I began to discount my senses (not question or doubt them, I do those all the time and I still get quite good results, thank you) then as far as I know I could be spinning ass-over-teakettle in a vat of tar, with no girlfriend and no sense of direction or reason.

Do people believe in the supernatural for reasons too? Well... yes... kinda... a lot of the time, I would hope. Although the reasons for religious and spiritual belief tend to be murky and vague at best and often using mixed data, if not precisely contrary to all available data. The belief in a creator God could be attributed to the rational conclusion that everything requires a beginning and an end, but this leads to the logical problem of where God came from and when he intends to end his existence. Where exactly do you leave a divine suicide note? Ah, but this problem was solved long ago, since we all know that God is beyond our rational laws of logic and so he can have no beginning or end. Then how can we conclude that anything else must have a beginning or an end? Why then does the universe need a beginning, and even if it had a beginning couldn't it also forgo the logic of requiring a creator?

How? Why? Because God says so, that's how and why. And who says God says so? Lots of people say God says so, including God, purportedly. And we all know how reliable the clergy and religiously orthodox are.

I'm not a big fan of the "just because" explanations, myself. I much prefer an individual to say "I don't know". I do it all the time. Does it mean I'm wrong, that I give up my beliefs? No, it means I'm not asserting anything for anyone else to believe and therefore am not the one who has to account for himself, so shut the fuck up, would you kindly.

So clearly faith is not synonymous with all belief. What is it then? Some beliefs? What is it about the belief in an expanding universe (a scientific fact) and the belief in a Jewish demigod (a not-so-scientific fact) that could lump both of them in the same category as beliefs taken on faith? Perhaps our purely hypothetical mother was implying that we don't personally know very much about either of these belief systems and therefore assume them both to be true for convenience's sake.

Before we get into just how belittling it is for religious people to be told their heartfelt beliefs about God are just an assumption, let's compare religious and secular assumptions, shall we? Of course we will, because it's my blog and my rules.


A layman can have a reasonable amount of confidence in scientific theories because science is a very rigorous process of eliminating erroneous notions in light of new data. Bullshit ideas are not highly publicized in scientific journals, and when they are they're quite open to review and revision. The same process of observation, controlled interpretation, experimentation, and calculation that tells you the universe is most likely expanding at an accelerating rate is the same one that's given you little things like medicine, atomic energy, modern engineering, information technology, fuel-efficient cars (well maybe not in America...), and ice cream. (Ice cream! Yay!)Science has an impressive track record and can only be improved with better science. You can't very well go about disproving scientific notions with half-baked ideas, random-ass guesswork, or "revealed knowledge". I have not yet seen a hypothesis being supported by the scientific method, then be disproved by some paranormal sort of gnosis. You'd think that someone could tap into the source of that knowledge and set everything straight, but apparently the money isn't good enough to convince "real" psychics and prophets to see daylight.

Religious belief, on the other hand, is assumed because of the overall weakness of the believer's original worldview. Do you honestly think it's a sign of strength for theism if it's just a convenient assumption? I'm sure that most religious believers would rather be certain that they have reasons for thinking there is a God. You know, like any other sane person. But if you just assume there is a God and then base your worldview on that, you've made your entire worldview completely fucking arbitrary. There's nothing to argue about or test with religious belief if that belief is already formed from an arbitrary baseless assumption. In science you can get things wrong, you can be disproved, unless you decide to forgo logic in favor of "faith". Isn't it beginning to sound like a vapid, insulting word already? Faith. "I don't need reasons, I have faith." Nobody wants to admit that they're stupid, but that statement comes close.

Maybe I'm being too harsh here and there's some other meaning to faith other than belief itself or assumed belief. Something more personal and heartfelt, like trust. Could that be what it means to have faith in something, to have trust in it? Possibly, sounds like a good match doesn't it? Aren't we faithful to our loved ones, and have faith in each other? We often mean it in the same way that we mean trust, personal trust. Which makes more sense, I suppose. After all, the devout are more likely to identify with a religion where you feel like you can trust whoever is on the other side of reality. Okay, so there's quite a bit that's still assumed in this relationship, like that the people on the other side (not to mention the other side itself) actually exist. But still, at least we have a definition that unites religious and secular worldviews, right?

There's only one problem. It doesn't work beyond that personal level of trust. Remember that in this case we're talking about the theory of the expanding universe, and by that connection the scientific method itself. Science has no personal identity, not even the scientists. What, is it implied that we have personal trust in the scientists collectively? I guess, but science isn't about authority, it's about facts and logic. If an idea has no reflection or base in reality, all of the scientific authority in the world couldn't make any more sense out of it. That's why science is so open to revision, so that nobody gets to declare a monopoly on truth, and bad ideas can be exposed and deconstructed and taunted, sometimes with pointed fingers and laughter. Creationists are still new to this sort of thing, so they think they're under selective treatment. But they're not, they're selectively intruding on science with no idea how it works, and accordingly they're surprised when they're ridiculed and their ideas are discounted as nonsensical nonsense.

Besides, there's one definition of faith that our not-at-all-real-life mother has neglected to consider, and this one's going to be a dandy when trying to apply it to "faith" in the expanding universe. When I was in high school, I was told by my Christian Ethics teacher that faith was a personal relationship that one had with God. Specifically this is referring to love. Thus it was explained to me the difference between knowing about somebody, and knowing somebody, biblically (Eww). Look, the universe and I have been through a lot together, we're virtually inseparable (what with me being made of matter and all), and it will continue to mean literally everything to me, but... I'm just not up for that kind of commitment on a cosmic level. And... there's someone else, a human girl I've been seeing for a few months. She means so much to me, and it may not seem fair, but I'm just not really into infinitely vast stretches of time and space. I'm really more interested in cute peeps, at a personal level at least. So this isn't goodbye to the universe, but I think that it would be best if the universe and I were just good friends.

And thanks, Bible, for making even the word "know" an inneundo.

"I knew it... three times."

The problem I always had with this definition of faith is that it's not exactly healthy to love someone you don't even know. Marriage arrangements on internet chat rooms are not encouraged, so why should anyone be expected to give unconditional love to some hyped-up ancient celebrity, a battered, bearded, tripped-out zombie man with an intellect from before the Dark Ages who no sane person has ever even met before? Unless you count rituals where celibate men in robes say some magic words over breakfast cereal and claim it's become the flesh of said zombie celebrity. Damn, this is some weird kind of kink. I'm not sure how eating one's flesh is an expression of love, but it's pretty sick, divine or not. You'd think that if a god wanted his "substance" - and I don't even want to know what the hell that is - to be put into a human being he would just will it, and not have to bother with this disturbing imagery. But then, that would make too much sense, and we've got a lot of irrational bullshit to accommodate. And the first time I heard this illogical definition of faith as love, I told my teacher "But I can only know a person if I at least know that they exist."

I never got a good reply to that. If I was manic enough, I'm sure I could think of something.

There's only one other definition of faith I can think of, and it's the one thing a religious mind would be holding onto at this point: hope. Faith defined as hope for something you cannot see. And it's at this point that the self-degrading of faith as a concept gets to truly pitiful levels. It's essentially admitting that there's no reason to believe in anything you claim to have faith in, so one can only hope that maybe everything will turn out alright in the end. This is stupid because if you have no rough guesses of the chances or the odds in your head, then you have no hope, it's all just completely random. If you have some idea of what your chances are, then you have that much hope to go on. None of this of course has anything to do with whether things will turn out the way you want them. This isn't Oprah, people. Hoping things will become so will not under any circumstances make it more likely to become a reality. You have to act if you want things to happen, and if everything in your mind tells you it's impossible, then you're just being stupid. I've heard of people acting with good reason while everyone else thinks they're crazy, but believing something you don't think you have good reason for? That's wishful thinking in a nutshell, and there is no genie in that nutshell. You get zero wishes. Divide those wishes by the chances that you're right and you get FUCK.

If a person is left without real chances of success, if they have nowhere to go, and things aren't likely to work out, then that's just sad. Can we accept that? Terminally ill patients, people under oppression, and people with very serious life-altering ailments are under unfortunate, often terrible circumstances, and that sucks. It's awful that bad things happen to good people, so can we just acknowledge that little fact? It's probably one of the more important things you'll ever learn, so don't pray for people, don't hope that Jesus will descend from the clouds and make everything picture perfect, DO SOMETHING. The only morally reasonable options are a) do something to give people hope b) if you have no hope, either try to fight all the way anyway or come to terms with it or c) cope. Being in a circumstance where you have no hope and can't do anything about it and can't even come to terms with it is probably the saddest thing conceivable, and you can only do what you can to get by until your suffering can be alleviated. But that is not how people who can act for the better ought to be thinking. Don't try to cope with the fact that there's no justice, no peace, no loving God in sight. Accept reality for what it is and work for the better.

So no, clearly-not-my-actual-mother, I don't have faith in the expanding universe, or anything else for that matter. I don't assume, trust, or hope that it is so. I'm what I call "reasonably certain with some degree of falsifiability". I'm also reasonably certain that regardless of the baseless, broad, insulting, stupid, offensive, demented, illogical, arrogant, authoritarian, high-minded, pseudo-philosophical, self-proclaimed to be "humble" bullshit claims that you have, that you're also reasonably certain about most things in life too.

I therefore have no use for the word faith, except to define that meaningless quality in certain religious contexts in which so many are still so intellectually preoccupied and so overly emotionally-invested. Belief, assumption, trust, love, and hope are all fine concepts all on their own. Faith has nothing to do with any of them.

Fuck faith.

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

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?

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."