You're Just Wrong. Get Over It.

Please explain?

There are simple things in the bible that anyone with a rational mind might question. I am thinking about the wholesale slaughter of anyone who does not believe in the one true god, for example. This is a loving and just god? Or verses that institute and support slavery, the subjugation of women and the treating of women as property and prostitutes. Or the really stupid versus that demand punishment for weaving with two different kinds of thread or touching the skin of a dead pig (does the NFL know this?). And my all time grand-daddy favorite, the verses that advise us that god has created us all for a specific purpose, some for eternal life and some for eternal damnation. Yes, that’s right, god created some of you to spend eternity in hell, just to prove he is right.

The list is long and mind you, none of these really fun things has ever been rescinded, apologized for, or explained. I am sorry, but “god works in mysterious ways”, or “only a fool questions god”, just does not cut it.

These are simple versus for one might reasonably ask, how in the name of all sanity can you believe that nonsense? By the way, that is the question that allowed me to drag myself out of religion.

But there are some real doctrinal issues I have with Christians that they just simply refuse to address. For example:

In Deuteronomy, the god of the Old Testament calls human sacrifice “detestable” and demands that all engaged in the practice be killed. But yet the god of John 3:16 offers god’s son as a human sacrifice for our sin. Did god just change his mind and is the “detestable” now okay? ? Explain this please?

In Deuteronomy, the god of the Old Testament says, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.” Yet again, the god of John 3:16 offers god’s son as a human sacrifice for all our sins. That's a complete reversal of doctrine mind you. Explain this please

In three of the four books of the New Testament, Jesus was asked how to attain eternal life. The fourth book does not record the conversation. Jesus advised the supplicant to obey the laws of Moses. Was Jesus lying? Explain please.

Jesus himself is quoted as saying, “I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but through me.” But Paul is quoted in Corinthians as saying that “those without the law are a law unto themselves, and will be judged according to their own hearts.” Was Paul or Jesus wrong here, because Paul says heaven is open to all of a pure heart.

Again the list is long and I am not even touching on the historical textual inaccuracies. But the doctrines of faith are simply riddled with contradiction. By the way, Christianity is not the exception by any means.

When you take it all into consideration, and add to that the fact there is not one single shred of evidence or history to support the doctrines of faith contained in Christianity, one can reasonably ask how can you believe any of this? I mean its just plain silly and inconceivable.

More importantly, since the answer almost always falls back on “it’s a matter of faith”, thereby admittedly not on fact, how can you force feed this nonsense to your children, to the public, or the world? How can you in good conscience stand in the way of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with a belief system that is no better than belief in Peter Pan or Santa Clause (for whom there is some historical consistency)?

I mean really, your just wrong and its time to either make some reasonable factual answer or get out humanity's way. Because so far, your religion has just completely screwed things up.

Demacracy & The Court of Public Opinion

I once had an interesting conversation with a religious person, zealot actually.

For clarification, this was a person that I was employed by and who made it his mission to try and force feed me his Christianity every chance he got. This guy would deride my lack of Christianity out loud and in front of anyone standing by. This was a guy who's policy towards employees was, pay them as little as possible, work them to death, and then find another body. This was a guy who had his pastor acting as "Corporate Chaplin" and paid him under the table so his wife would not know. And finally, this was a guy on whose computer I found hundreds of cookies linked to gay sites. Go figure.

I was his operations manager and we had an employee in the security guard division who was thought to be gay. Never said anything or hit on anyone, but was a walking, talking, stereotypical gay. Well, this of course came to the attention of the employer who immediately wanted to fire this person. Mind you he was a good employee, he was just gay. So the employer decided to fire this person because his shirt was not tucked in properly and he presented a bad appearance.

You know me, even then I could not keep my mouth shut - and so to the point of this post.

We had quite the discussion / argument over this. My point being that firing some one for their sexual preference was just plain wrong, especially since that person did a good job and was not a problem. His point was that homosexuality was evil and against god's law. The conversation ultimately turned to constitutional protections, which for homosexuals do not exist.

My point on the constitution, was that the courts should protect the rights of everyone, just as they did for women, for blacks, and in many other situations, despite the personal prejudices of the people. His point was that homosexuals would never acquire constitutional protections because, "Christians held the majority opinion against such protections".

I've thought allot about that comment for many years - that the laws of our land, the rights of human beings, are not protected by rational decision or objective fact, but by the ever shifting whims of the public. That scares the shit out of me.

Lets take the rights of black people for example. It was a scientific fact many years before equal rights became the law of the land, that there are no differences between the races. Its was common sense even longer before that. yet we had to go through decades of building public opinion before equality was the law. The same was true of course for womens rights.

Consider the current effort to revamp health care. The conversation evolves around hyperbole and not around actual facts. The facts are there, we could talk about them and make an objective decision. But instead of facts we talk about death panels and screwing old people out of their Medicare. Again, fighting this out in the courts of public opinion.

Consider the plight of homosexuals. Every scientific fact there is supports their rights to equality. Do they have it? No. They are fighting for their rights in the court of public opinion.

We are way past the point in our evolution where we as human beings should be able to set aside public opinion & bigotry, to make objective, logical decisions for the public good. Instead of courting the opinions of the religious, the corporation, or the elite, we should be using our minds and resources to shape laws based on the benefit of the human race and long term goals. In the current state of affairs, America's conversation about homosexuals, health care, and public policy, is only one notch above that of Iraq, Afghanistan, and public beheading. Considering the insanity I see on the news, it might be less than a step.

Is democracy really only about public opinion? About who has the majority vote? Are we really only a vote away from Christian head scarves, incorporateing the bible into the consitution, and burning witches at the stake again? Are we that stupid?

Is it not possible to elect a government by the people and for the people, and make logical decisions for the people?