In highschool, I was the model christian. I didn't drink, smoke (anything), have sex....nothing! All I did was go to school, participate in 5 different sports, and spend a ton of time at my church. I was the leader in my youth group....I was a true Christ-follower.
After I got out of highschool, I went to college and that's the most prevalent thing in my life currently. This move has been one of the things that opened my mind. I immediately became interested in philosophy and took several classes. The thing that overwhelmed me the most in these classes was that the majority of the people that wrote these very important papers in the philosophical world totally dismissed, not just christianity, but religion as a whole. This is what got my mental juices flowing and focused on religion. The more I read and the more I thought about it, the more it started to make sense. My mission ever since I was old enough to think for myself rather than regurgitating what someone else told me to think has been to look at every situation as objectively as possible. This, I've found, has allowed me to see the world in a much more realistic light instead of looking at it through the screen of bias.
This change in myself is what lead to these two blogs. It got to where I was listening to all these atheists talk about all the "holes" in the bible and why they reject it but there are very few times that they would actually cite those holes. It was too ambiguous for me. So I decided to start reading the bible and do this as objectively as I can. This way, I'll find the holes and I'll find the positive things, but in the end I will have made my own judgement on what to think.
The fact that I'm high is just to open up the creative part of my brain and see the text a little more abstractly. I think it adds a nice change up from the same old readings. I want all of my readers to realize that I'm in no way trying to bash the bible or christianity. I just want to read it as an important text and make my own judgement.
I hope a lot of people choose to take this journey with me and read this text for what it is. My ultimate goal is to go all the way through the bible and write a book or two about this experience. Let's do this together!!!
You guys rock!
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
Genesis 3
I think the fact that Eve and then Adam ate from the tree when they were told is a good point to highlight. I like to think that if the creator of the universe were talking to me face-to-face and he told me explicitly not to do something, then i would listen. I mean apparently he gave them everything they needed. He even gave the man a companion to love and with whom to have sex. The only thing that he didn't want them to do was eat from this one tree. That's it...was that too much to ask? I don't think so. If I was in Adam's position, I would have slapped Eve's ass when she just willingly ate from the tree when some snake told her. Kill the snake, stop the lady from eating....problems solved! You really dropped the ball on this one Adam.
I hate to think that God created the first two humans with reasoning skills as poor as the ones that they have on display in chapter three of Genesis. He shouldn't have been surprised when they ate from the tree. He should have seen it coming all the way, of course, according to Christians, he totally saw it coming. So if he saw it coming in the first place, take whatever part of the brain flawed their reasoning so badly out of the brain so we could live the life that we were "intended".
The aside could potentially be the most interesting part of the blog. The notion that the fruit on the tree of knowledge of good and evil could actually hold that particular knowledge is very intriguing. The reason for this is because without knowledge of good and evil morals do not exist. There is no right and no wrong. So this means that before the two first humans ate from the tree, there was no moral code. So it looks like ignorance really is bliss. The knowledge of right and wrong did exist but the only person (being) who had this knowledge was God. So it seems like the two humans could run around and do whatever the hell they wanted and there would be no repercussions.
It says that after they eat the fruit they realized they were naked. I wonder what body parts shocked them the most. Different cultures hold different parts of the body to be bad, so the fact that the bible leaves that out is very convenient. This helps the text adapt to any culture. Whatever body part the reader of the text thinks is bad is what their Adam and Eve cover up. Very clever author of genesis.....very clever indeed.
The deprivation of knowledge question leads directly to the whole ignorance is bliss idea. The ability to think freely is going to lead to questions of this type eventually.
The last two points in the original post are good points but there is no need to elaborate on them further. The last idea on the page about the punishments being outdated is very interesting so be sure you check out the other blog and read it. Thanks for the time!
I hate to think that God created the first two humans with reasoning skills as poor as the ones that they have on display in chapter three of Genesis. He shouldn't have been surprised when they ate from the tree. He should have seen it coming all the way, of course, according to Christians, he totally saw it coming. So if he saw it coming in the first place, take whatever part of the brain flawed their reasoning so badly out of the brain so we could live the life that we were "intended".
The aside could potentially be the most interesting part of the blog. The notion that the fruit on the tree of knowledge of good and evil could actually hold that particular knowledge is very intriguing. The reason for this is because without knowledge of good and evil morals do not exist. There is no right and no wrong. So this means that before the two first humans ate from the tree, there was no moral code. So it looks like ignorance really is bliss. The knowledge of right and wrong did exist but the only person (being) who had this knowledge was God. So it seems like the two humans could run around and do whatever the hell they wanted and there would be no repercussions.
It says that after they eat the fruit they realized they were naked. I wonder what body parts shocked them the most. Different cultures hold different parts of the body to be bad, so the fact that the bible leaves that out is very convenient. This helps the text adapt to any culture. Whatever body part the reader of the text thinks is bad is what their Adam and Eve cover up. Very clever author of genesis.....very clever indeed.
The deprivation of knowledge question leads directly to the whole ignorance is bliss idea. The ability to think freely is going to lead to questions of this type eventually.
The last two points in the original post are good points but there is no need to elaborate on them further. The last idea on the page about the punishments being outdated is very interesting so be sure you check out the other blog and read it. Thanks for the time!
Translation/Definition Issues
I don't think there is too much elaboration I can do on this particular subject, however, I do think this is a problem. Christians try and adapt the words in the bible to their lives so they try to interpret the words that they see in the english translation and twist a verse to fit whatever situation. A lot of times, they take it wildly out of context to make the words work. This is crazy in itself, but when you pull back and try to look at the whole picture, you realize how crazy it is that people are doing this to a translation. In those old languages, words act differently. If you are educated a little bit on language, you know that words act in certain ways particular to the circumstances. I'll use an example of a double meaning of a word that me and my friend were talking about yesterday. She said, "I like your spunk". She meant I like your enthusiasm, but I joked with her and told her that spunk can also mean semen. This is true in slang terminology. People have to realize that language is only what humans make it. It's not something that is set in stone. If enough people start using a word, that's not technically a word in the english language, then it will eventually become one and be added to the dictionary. That happened with "bootylicious" a few years back when that term was popular. So the odds of one of those hebrew, aramaic, or greek sentences being sentences like the one above that could have a double meaning is likely. The odds of the person doing the translating the text, doing so wrong and choosing the wrong meaning for the word is also high. This isn't the only problem with translation, but it is the one that I'm going to highlight today.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Genesis 2
The term "helper" being used to refer to women is pretty interesting. This book that has shaped so much of our culture still carries with it the notion of women's subordination to men. That notion is clearly looked upon negatively in our society today, yet it is accepted in this holy book? That doesn't make sense. How could we make these moral exceptions just because this book is supposed to be holy? Doesn't it make more sense to read it and evaluate whether you agree with everything being said, than to just assume that everything it says is correct? It seems that way to me.
Genesis 1:9-31
This term "formless" keeps coming back up, but that is hard for me to wrap my head around. It doesn't really even make sense as a word. I mean everything has some kind of form. It might be geometrically formless but nevertheless, it must have a form. So the notion that the earth was formless seems a little much for me to handle.
The way this first chapter is written, it makes me thing that the writers of the this book of the bible were under the impression that the earth was the center of the universe. This, as we know now, is extremely incorrect. So I wonder if this makes the bible a little "dated", for a lack of better word.
God setting time into place is very interesting to me. I assume that before the earth was "created", that time did not exist. My reasoning for this is because a being that is eternal, no beginning, no end, would have no need for time.
It is clear that the stars aren't in the sky just to give us light. That is nonsense. Those stars don't give a shit about humans or earth, most of them are bigger than our own star, the sun. Yet the sun is the most important thing in the universe to us.
The way this first chapter is written, it makes me thing that the writers of the this book of the bible were under the impression that the earth was the center of the universe. This, as we know now, is extremely incorrect. So I wonder if this makes the bible a little "dated", for a lack of better word.
God setting time into place is very interesting to me. I assume that before the earth was "created", that time did not exist. My reasoning for this is because a being that is eternal, no beginning, no end, would have no need for time.
It is clear that the stars aren't in the sky just to give us light. That is nonsense. Those stars don't give a shit about humans or earth, most of them are bigger than our own star, the sun. Yet the sun is the most important thing in the universe to us.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Genesis 1:1-8
The first part of the last blog was just a series of questions that were meant to be thought starters for me on this blog.
1.)Through all the scientific research that was been done through astronomy and whatnot, we (the human race) has figured out how extremely insignificant Earth is in the universe. It is just a tiny planet that in a tiny solar system that is inside of a small galaxy (the Milky Way). So why was emphasis placed on god having created the heavens AND the earth? Maybe the answer is because earth is the only life sustaining planet. I don't personally subscribe to this way of thinking. I think it's totally realistic for aliens to exist somewhere in the universe. It is not too farfetched when you think about how vast and gigantic the known universe is. Now, notice I used the word "known". That means that astronomers are discovering new parts of the universe everyday. This tells me that the "known universe" is also expanding every day. So the prospects of the perfect scenario for life to happen could totally randomly happen again in another galaxy. That's not too much of a stretch for me to believe
2.) Maybe god knew that humans would be reading the bible so he got the writers to throw in the part about the earth for the benefit of the readers. This seems a little far fetched though
3.) I like the idea of the metaphor being used where the heavens represent the spiritual heaven that most christians look forward to and the earth represents the physical world/universe. But if this is the case, it means that heaven and all the angels that god created where created at the same time as the world. This seems weird, because I always thought of the angels and the spiritual world existing a long time before the physical world.
4.) The idea that the spirit world is all around us, but we just don't have the senses to experience them is very interesting to me. I've heard sermons before where the premise is that heaven is actually on earth, but we just can't experience until we die. Maybe that is exactly what is going on here, in this idea. Upon death, we forfeit our 5 senses that we have now and we gain a whole new set of senses. This means that we would no longer be able to experience the physical world as we know it now, but we can experience the spirit world that is all around us now. It is interesting to think about the boundaries of our (humans) senses. If we could not smell, then farts wouldn't be a problem. We could be sitting in the middle of someone's ass gas we would be totally oblivious. If we couldn't hear, we wouldn't be able to experience music at all. This means that we wouldn't be able to take advantage of the mood changing effects of a good song or the therapeutic lyrics of that one song that describes the way that you feel perfectly. When I think about this, I imagine how many other things there are to be experienced in this world that we just are not able to witness because we don't have the sensational equipment to do so.
The last part of the blog just points out some inconsistencies and things that don't make sense to me. It blows my mind that I only have to read through the eighth verse to start thinking of and pointing out inconsistencies. This shouldn't happen in the holy, perfect word of god.
1.)Through all the scientific research that was been done through astronomy and whatnot, we (the human race) has figured out how extremely insignificant Earth is in the universe. It is just a tiny planet that in a tiny solar system that is inside of a small galaxy (the Milky Way). So why was emphasis placed on god having created the heavens AND the earth? Maybe the answer is because earth is the only life sustaining planet. I don't personally subscribe to this way of thinking. I think it's totally realistic for aliens to exist somewhere in the universe. It is not too farfetched when you think about how vast and gigantic the known universe is. Now, notice I used the word "known". That means that astronomers are discovering new parts of the universe everyday. This tells me that the "known universe" is also expanding every day. So the prospects of the perfect scenario for life to happen could totally randomly happen again in another galaxy. That's not too much of a stretch for me to believe
2.) Maybe god knew that humans would be reading the bible so he got the writers to throw in the part about the earth for the benefit of the readers. This seems a little far fetched though
3.) I like the idea of the metaphor being used where the heavens represent the spiritual heaven that most christians look forward to and the earth represents the physical world/universe. But if this is the case, it means that heaven and all the angels that god created where created at the same time as the world. This seems weird, because I always thought of the angels and the spiritual world existing a long time before the physical world.
4.) The idea that the spirit world is all around us, but we just don't have the senses to experience them is very interesting to me. I've heard sermons before where the premise is that heaven is actually on earth, but we just can't experience until we die. Maybe that is exactly what is going on here, in this idea. Upon death, we forfeit our 5 senses that we have now and we gain a whole new set of senses. This means that we would no longer be able to experience the physical world as we know it now, but we can experience the spirit world that is all around us now. It is interesting to think about the boundaries of our (humans) senses. If we could not smell, then farts wouldn't be a problem. We could be sitting in the middle of someone's ass gas we would be totally oblivious. If we couldn't hear, we wouldn't be able to experience music at all. This means that we wouldn't be able to take advantage of the mood changing effects of a good song or the therapeutic lyrics of that one song that describes the way that you feel perfectly. When I think about this, I imagine how many other things there are to be experienced in this world that we just are not able to witness because we don't have the sensational equipment to do so.
The last part of the blog just points out some inconsistencies and things that don't make sense to me. It blows my mind that I only have to read through the eighth verse to start thinking of and pointing out inconsistencies. This shouldn't happen in the holy, perfect word of god.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)