"YOU'RE SUCH AN ANGEL..."

According to Gallup, 72% of people believe in angels. (I believe their poles are answered exclusively by Americans.) We’ve already covered the fact that angelic beings are not made of “spirit,” but here’s another thing you might want to consider. I know most people don’t think about it, because I’ve heard them refer to a child or a pet as an angel, and they’re actually saying a bad thing. The reason a bunch of angels broke away from God’s family rather than bow to man was because they were jealous of man. What’s to be jealous about, for heaven’s sake? Apparently the fact that we were given the ability to know good from evil (the power of choice), and they didn’t get that. Don’t you see where this leaves us? Angels have NO CONSCIENCE. They don't know good from evil (having missed out on that first picnic). They’re true sociopaths. When they’re acting as messengers from God, presumably they will obey Him because they have no choice. But how would you and I know the difference between an angel sent by God, and ONE OF THE OTHERS? They’d be as beautiful as the others, I think, contrary to Hollywood’s imagination. Just something to think about next time you’re tempted to call someone an angel…calling someone a sociopath is not a compliment.

While we’re on the subject of good and evil, one should probably note that missionaries think they’re doing the very rightest –possible thing. It’s one of my pet peeves. Gosh, I hope you don’t mind hearing from George Carlin again ..

“Religion is like a lift in your shoe. If it helps you stand up straighter and walk a little better, good for you! But don't you go and try to put your lifts in my shoes, and for crying out loud, let's stop sending missionaries to Africa to nail the lifts to the natives' bare feet!”

THE RATIONAL THINKER'S UNDERSTANDABLE IMPATIENCE

Why would God endow human beings with a marvelous instrument like the Mind, yet prohibit its use? He wouldn’t and He doesn’t. There’s nothing in the Bible or any other holy book that says it’s a sin to try to figure out how things work. The idea that: 1) There is no proof; you have to take it on faith, 2) It was a miracle, 3) Because God says so, 4) Some passages of the Bible are to be taken “literally,” others “metaphorically,” others must be “interpreted” (and only a cleric can tell which is which), 5) The Bible is full of contradictions of itself, and 6) The Word of God is often one man’s interpretation of a ‘vision’ he had, are some of the reasons science has lost all patience with religion. Who can judge which visions are “holy” and which insanity? Two people looking at clouds may see two entirely different shapes there. How much do you trust someone else’s interpretation over your own? It might be fun to try to see what they see, but it shouldn't obliterate your own perceptions!

Christianity contradicts itself with such force and regularity that any reasoning person must be alarmed. According to Luke 10:25-28, salvation requires "right living." But John 3:17-18 says it only requires "belief." But then a little later John 5:28-29 says it's "right living" again. Not only can they not agree on their story, they can't even agree with themselves.

Christians would have us believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and evidence to the contrary is put here to test our faith. Come on, doesn't faith get enough testing in your own life without planting a lot of unnecessary dinosaur fossils all over the planet?

Science takes more of a show-me stance, preferring to figure out how things work rather than waiting for or relying on Divine revealment. They reasonably wonder how the religious can base their beliefs on what someone (whom we can’t question) said God told them thousands of years ago (and for whose words there is no eye-witness corroboration). The logical mind may be somewhat puzzled by the fact that such information is used to justify homicide and even genocide. What is the difference between religious war and, say, Hitler's campaign of terror? Hitler believed that he'd been given a mission by God to wipe out people who were not like him (Hitler was Catholic). His plan to destroy the Jews we all acknowledge to be heinous and evil in the extreme, but how can a non-religious person differentiate between that and the desire of the religious radicals who want to destroy all Muslims or all homosexuals? It seems like Divine revealment doesn't have to make sense. Science does have to make sense.

And again, why give us a mind, then ask us to believe on "faith" things that can't be proven in any way (especially by thinking)? If that's also a test, then there's some completely mad, obsessive-compulsive proctor handing out way too many exams!

Nobody seems to have any comments? I've never had so many of you all agree with me all at the same time before - what a treat!

MORE MODERN QUOTES

And now, in the same spirit, but moving from comedy to science, here are a few highly respected scientists in our own time:

NEIL dEGRASSE TYSON (Unintelligent Design):


RICHARD DAWKINS:


ISAAC ASIMOV:


LEONARD SUSSKIND, Physicist:



Are we having fun yet?

MODERN QUOTES

If some of this has been a little too out of date for you, here are comments from a few modern speakers. The first one is a movie trailer - not by accident - I recommend it, especially if you're in the mood for a comedy. I laughed so hard little tears squirted out of my eyes.







And now a serious money-making opportunity: Ca$h in on the Rapture: http://www.jesuspets.com/Home/6/Make.hard.CA.H.from.home.while.the.world.is.in.flames.aspx

SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT

Today, I'd like to write my message in music. The musical group is "Dead Can Dance," and I'm borrowing these videos from YouTube (though without permission, because no link to the videographer is given).





If you are not touched by this experience I'd be very surprised. And IF THERE WERE SUCH A THING AS A GOD OR AN ANGEL, ABLE TO LOOK UPON ALL THE BEAUTY AND MAJESTY OF THE UNIVERSE, AND THEY LOOKED DOWN UPON US, WOULD THEIR HEARTS NOT BREAK? WOULD THEY NOT BE MOVED TO MIRACULOUS LOVE? IF NOT, I WANT NO PART OF THEM.

AN EXTREMELY SHORT HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN AS FEW WORDS AS POSSIBLE (AND ASSUMING YOU KNOW SOMETHING OF THE STORY ALREADY)

During the Bronze Age, there was an ancient group of tribes in the Middle East who were chosen by God to be his special project. God made deals with them, spoke with them, lead them, sometimes argued with them, and gave them special wisdom. The stories of these tribes were written on sacred scrolls starting around 3,000 years ago. One of the things in these books were predictions that a Messiah would come to help them, rule them, and bring peace to the world.

There was a guy, Yeshua, who lived around the time when “BC” turns into “CE.”

After a full life during which he traveled around and did a lot of preaching, he died. After his death, the disciples who’d followed him during his adventures continued to preach what he’d taught them. Given the average life expectancy at the time, it’s unlikely that any of these survived beyond 70 CE. Nevertheless, that’s the oldest written record we know of regarding Yeshua. There are no contemporaneous writings which mention him significantly, nor any which can be proven to have been written by eye-witnesses. (Historian Josephus has been known to be fake for hundreds of years.)

Another guy named “Saul” was converted to Yeshua’s teachings (although he’d never met him) after Yeshua's death, and changed his name to “Paul.” Paul took it upon himself to travel far and wide, preaching to every country he could reach. Much of church law and dogma is based on what Paul said in letters he wrote to people. He called himself an ‘apostle,’ yet he is not listed among the apostles of Yeshua. He received no special teaching from the man whose message he claimed to bring to all peoples, in fact he received no teaching from Yeshua at all. Yet he felt free to preach things that Yeshua never had.

The main problem for the early church was, Yeshua taught and preached things that were against the religion of his people. The disciples, in their mission to continue his teachings, met with a lot of resistance, again because what they were teaching was against the religion of their people. Paul branched out and preached to those outside Yeshua’s native religion, and also met a lot of resistance because the preachings went against everyone else’s religion as well. Many of Yeshua’s followers were killed because people with different beliefs often are. But slowly “Christiantiy” began to catch on.

About 300 years after Yeshua’s death, a Roman Emperor called Constantine converted to Christianity, and after that things got easier. Constantine invited thousands of Christian Bishops to a council meeting and commissioned them to write up a set of holy books for him. The Catholic Church, was the only Christian church at that time. The sacred scrolls of the Jews were translated (somewhat loosely) from the original Hebrew into Latin and became the Old Testament. The New Testament was translated from the original Greek and Amaraic (a type of Hebrew) into Latin. This was the first time these various Hebrew and Christian texts were put into one book. There were a lot more books or chapters then than there are now, over 100 that we know of having since been deemed unsuitable by the church and left out.

The Roman Catholic Church was the only Christian church for about a thousand years, at which time the Eastern Orthodox Church broke off due to disagreements regarding the running of the church. Time rolled on, until in the 1500s, a German named Martin Luther had the courage to pin a list of objections to church policy on his church’s door. Among other things, he believed that instead of being in Latin (which only priests and scholars could read) the Bible should be in German so everyone could read it. Those who agreed with him broke away from the Catholic Church and became known as Protestants.

The only problem was, as the Bible became available to the common people, there started to be more and more disagreements about its interpretation, so that today we have an amazing number of competing protestant churches, some of which broke away from their parent churches because they wanted to emphasize a single word differently. Up until Martin Luther’s break with the church, Catholicism was the only religion one was allowed to have throughout the Western civilized world (they had entirely different religions in the East, and Islam came into being around 600 AD, but if you lived in Western Europe, there was no alternative); if you weren’t Catholic, you were a heretic, and subject to execution or revilement, and Ghettoization. Pretty simple. When people refer to the great faith of their fathers, I believe a great part of that faith was fear.

WHY IS THERE RELIGION?

It’s certainly worth noting that all peoples of all places in all times (with the possible exception of the present) have had a religion. The reason is not understood as yet. One hypothesis is that people who act in a group have a better survival rate than those who act independently. If there is a catastrophe (whether man-made or an act of nature), survival will favor those who help each other simply because they’ve increased the odds of surviving. A group which doesn’t act as a community might be wiped out by the same type of catastrophe. Another theory maintains that if your god is more fierce than your neighbors’ god, you’ll fight harder, be more likely to win, and hence ensure the survival of believers in your god.

But there are other benefits beyond survival. The way the human brain is made makes a sense of community very rewarding. Virtually all people prefer harmonious music over discordant sounds. When we move together synchronously (such as during a dance with agreed-upon steps), or speak or sing together harmoniously, the human brain rewards us with a feeling of well-being. If the words or songs are supportive and uplifting, we get a double dose of pleasure from them. While music and speaking together are part of many religious rites, modern religion has moved away from synchronous movement, and is thus missing one of our reward responses. But ancient religions used this to its fullest.

The need for community is strong. Singing, dancing, or speaking together bind us in a rewarding way. The fact that an appeal to a ‘higher power’ is often part of these rituals is probably no more than hope. Hope that doing the right ritual in the correct way will bring rain, head off enemies, or avert natural catastrophes. Hoping together is rewarding, but not nearly as rewarding as acting together. Instead of (or in addition to) prayer, if one makes a bucket line to the nearest body of water, some of the crop might be saved during a drought. But to get the best out of our efforts requires not religion (and its acceptance of 'judgement' or 'fate') but that we both work and think together, and come up with a way to avert this and all future droughts by (say) building an aqueduct. While praying together is rewarding, accomplishing something as a group is much more so. So why do we huddle in our churches as the land around us dries up and our crops die? Simply because it is easier, and the lesser reward is immediate. And for the vast majority of human history, the price of un-belief was summary execution, usually by the cruelest means believers could come up with.

The need for religion is misleading in some respects; these diverse groups have had very different ideas about their gods and how to propitiate them. In ancient Mongolia, where the sky was believed to be god, and storms signs of his anger, one could be executed for hanging wet clothing outdoors to dry, because this was thought to attract a storm. This isn’t as unreasonable as it might sound at first. We have the same superstition these days; that if we go to the trouble to wash and wax our cars, it’s inevitable that rain will come soon. Friends may even blame the resultant storm on us. Just ratchet this up one notch, to where storms cost lives (as they can on the Mongolian Steppes), and you could be headed for execution, too. It wouldn’t be fair or reasonable or logical, but it would satisfy the suffering community’s need to correct the un-holy behavior, in the hope of staving off future storms, not to mention an outlet for their anger and revenge.

In the end, there’s no solid evidence for why humans feel the need for gods. Like all human subjects, it’s convoluted, twisted through history, mutated, and complex. But the need for a bound community and the reward of singing, speaking and dancing together remain in us. We should be forming communities around something other than a ‘higher power,’ but without the possibility for ultimate reward or punishment, we seem unwilling to do so.

Remember that until Martin Luther brilliantly translated the Bible into a language people outside the priesthood could read in the 1500s, people’s only knowledge of what was actually in it was what was presented by its best salesmen. Christianity is astonishingly self-protecting; the Bible is Holy Writ, and not to be questioned, and anyone who dares to question it is an agent of Satan, automatically evil, plus damned. Add the useful and comforting thought that ‘we’ have always held to this religion, and it seems self-evident that one should just shut up and participate. This makes it impossible to tell how many people have actually believed in their religions.

REPLY TO COMMENT

Tony, I appreciate your patience, but I want to word my reply as carefully as possible. First, thank you for sharing your views. I’ve been trying here not to show evidence against the existence of God so much as to show that by the preponderance of logic, the Bible cannot be right. Your faith is sweet, and I don’t wish to be unkind. That said, please allow me to answer a few of your remarks.

Atheists and Evolutionists do NOT (necessarily) believe that if you put a chimp in a room with a typewriter it will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. I believe you’re referring to the “Infinite Monkey Theorem,” which states that an INFINITE number of chimpanzees typing for an infinite amount of time would produce a work of Shakespeare by chance. A vast difference from one monkey and “eventually.” And the whole metaphor is an attempt to illustrate just how infinite infinity is, and demonstrate probabilities and statistical mechanics. If you are referring to Thomas Huxley’s supposed use of this metaphor in a debate on evolution, please note that the typewriter had not been invented at the time of the debate in 1860, and that story is therefore insupportable. This example is often used by outraged Christians, who (due to their faith) never seem inclined to actually track down the facts.

You say “It couldn't have created itself since that is against the laws of physics,” and I’m having a hard time figuring out what you’re trying to say there. But if you’re willing to concede that a thing cannot create itself, then by your own logic I must ask, who, then, created God?

The problem with your circumstantial evidence is that (from Wikipedia): “… the [circumstantial] evidence only supports indirectly the truth of the assertion. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any intervening inference.” (Inference meaning interpretation.) In any major city one may, for a fee, see for themselves the remains of astonishing dinosaurs which, for some reason are never given the slightest mention in the Bible. To accuse scientists of being “blinkered” to circumstantial evidence only serves to throw into sharp relief the fact that Christians are “blinkered” to DIRECT EVIDENCE.

You’ve got me on the Napoleonic quote; I’m relying there on something someone heard long ago and isn’t alive at the moment to question. JUST LIKE THE ENTIRE BIBLE. I don’t find it at all surprising that he may have converted on his deathbed. This graphically illustrates the old saying “I swear there ain’t no heaven, and I pray there ain’t no hell.” It’s just human nature facing the unknown.

I grant you that, as Arthur C. Clark said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I just don’t see the bearing on this subject. I can only see that it can be used against your argument that intelligent scientists are “blinkered.” If scientists weren’t able to change their theories in the light of direct evidence, we would still believe a human would die if they traveled at over 35 miles per hour.

I agree with your assessment of how the world looks to fish. Imagine the fish in my aquarium trying to figure out the feeding schedule, or why a giant brush descends occasionally to scrape the algae away. It doesn’t mean they’ve done anything right to earn food or anything wrong to be punished by the appearance of the scary brush. For them to try to figure it out is a worthy thing, I think. But to credit or blame themselves for either is foolish and megalomaniacal.

I ‘explain’ the miracles of Jesus as related in the New Testament by noting that not a single one was original or unique. Read this blog under the heading “VIRGIN BIRTH, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, SACRIFICIAL DEATH/RESURRECTION.“ Or do some of your own studying. I suggest “The Golden Bough” by Sir James George Frazer, “The Unauthorized Version; Truth and Fiction in the Bible” by Robin Lane Fox, and perhaps “Who Wrote the Bible” by Richard E. Friedman. Unless you are “blinkered,” there are at least a hundred books by respected authors of these subjects. For you I especially recommend “The Virus of Faith” by Richard Dawkins. My particular favorite is by Barbara Thiering’s video: “Jesus & the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls” I think you’ll find that it is you who is being selective about historical evidence. I don’t necessarily believe all the things these authors have written; I’ve always been more concerned with whether the Bible can stand against itself. And I think it can’t. Just the fact (right at the beginning of the whole saga) that Cain’s forehead was marked so that other men would not kill him strains credibility beyond belief; surely his parents Adam and Eve would know him on sight, as would his brothers and sisters. So WHO WERE THESE “OTHER MEN”?

I would, indeed, be willing to be eaten by lions for a cause I believed in. And the cause I believe in is logic, reason, rationality, and clear thinking. I grant you that it’s very rewarding to sit down with a bunch of people, say things in unison, sing in unison, dance in unison (if you’re lucky) and so forth. But the fact that we’re saying things in unison (and that people have been doing so for centuries) does NOT make them true.

Thank you for commenting, Tony, please feel free to comment again, and meanwhile, may your faith be rewarding.

SOME ENLIGHTENING QUOTES

(Especially enlightening are those of America's founding fathers; this should put to rest any idea that they intended to found a "Christian" nation). Many of these quotes come from: “Atheist Empire” http://atheistempire.com/greatminds/greatest.php

THOMAS JEFFERSON:
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies.” “Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.” "So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake... Religion is all bunk."

THOMAS PAINE:
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

GEORGE WASHINGTON
“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society.” There is nothing to show that he was ever a member of the church; "I have never been a communicant.”

BEN FRANKLIN
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absented myself from Christian assemblies."

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."

CARL SAGAN
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

BLAISE PASCAL
"Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions."

EPICURUS
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

MARK TWAIN
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true." "It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."

FERDINAND MAGELLAN
"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church."

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

BERTRAND RUSSELL
"And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence."

VOLTAIRE
"Of all religions the Christian is without doubt the one which should inspire tolerance most, although up to now the Christians have been the most intolerant of all men."

DENIS DIDEROT
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"

ABU ALA AL-MA’ARRI
"The world holds two classes of men - intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence."

FRANK ZAPPA
God knows what he's doin' He wrote this book here And the book says: 'He made us all to be just like Him', So... If we're dumb... Then God is dumb... (And maybe even a little ugly on the side)."

And just a few final quotes:

SADDAM HUSSEIN
"God is on our side, and Satan is on the side of the United States.[September 11 was] God's punishment."

ADOLF HITLER
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. Who says I am not under the special protection of God?”

Spooky...

THE GOD OF LOVE?

The Judeo-Christian God isn't very nice. He commits genocide on not only entire peoples, but also their children, their farm animals, and even their pets, just so some people He likes better can have the neighborhood.* And the people He didn’t like so much weren’t even warned – weren’t given a chance to leave on their own. My own moral imperative tells me this is wrong. If He knows everything, He should know of a neighborhood which is empty.

If He knows everything, He must have known we were bound to occasionally break His commandments. So why weren’t the commandments immediately followed by news of heaven and hell? Just as in the Garden of Eden, the punishment seems to have been decreed long after the commission of the crime. Any parent can tell you this doesn’t work as well as telling the miscreant ahead of time. So is He not very smart or not very nice?

Just read this passage (a small sample) from Hosea: Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. (Hosea 13:16) Anyone advocating such behavior today would be considered completely insane (just ask Charles Manson). There’s more; “Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.” (Ex 34:7) No just system can punish four generations of a man’s children for what he has done – it would be ridiculous if it weren’t street-bat insane.

WHY THE LONG SILENCE?
Humans are easily-manipulated creatures. We can make each other see things that aren’t there (photographs or holograms, for example), hear things that aren’t there (music without the presence of musicians), smell things that aren’t there (perfume). If God wants us to believe in Him, why won’t he just settle the question by appearing to us all as a vision, a voice, or even a smell? Some people experience these things, but their evidence is unprovable and comes to us only through the testimony of people we don’t know. Why should He insist that we believe without proof, unless proof is impossible, even for Him?

Nomads living in about 1440 BCE claimed to have seen God. He traveled with them as a pillar of smoke by day and as a pillar of fire by night (Exodus 13-14). Perhaps the reason “faith” wasn’t mentioned in the ten commandments is because it wasn’t seen as being an issue – these people had SEEN their God, HEARD His voice. The last time God spoke to man was in the Book of Job. There are many opinions about exactly when Job lived, but it was a really long time ago – probably about 3,500 years ago. All eyewitnesses have been dead for centuries. He hasn’t ‘spoken’ to more than an “elite” special few since, and (completely unlike the Israelites) we only have their word for that.

* Yet in the story of the Good Samaratan, the lesson is that even in a group of people considered “bad,” there are good individuals. This has an echo in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, but in that case the “good” people were warned to flee.

MORAL IMPERATIVES DO NOT HAVE TO COME FROM OUTSIDE (AND MAN AS A “SPECIAL” BEING)

It was once thought that what differentiated man from animals was his ability to make tools. It turns out that many animals, from monkeys to seagulls, make tools. But we’re the only ones with language, right? Not really, animals also have their own languages. But only humans work together cooperatively, right? Again, no. With apologies to the author of Genesis, even knowing of right from wrong is not exclusive to mankind. Even animals know it. The shark and the cleaner wrasse make peace; the shark gets cleaned, the wrasse gets fed, and the wrasse doesn’t get eaten, even when he’s in the mouth of the shark, even when his service is over. One assumes there is not a shark commandment in the shark bible which insists upon this; it’s simply in the interest of both parties to cooperate. Very moving footage was once taken which showed an entire herd of elephants coming to the assistance of a baby elephant stuck in the mud. I would hope our sense of right and wrong is at least as good as an elephant’s. There are more examples:

Bats regularly regurgitate blood and donate it to other members of their group who have failed to feed that night, ensuring they do not starve. Monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked. Cooperatives help protect the young of prairie dogs, hyenas, elephants and giraffes, ants and bees, and the list goes on.

I try to believe that Man is capable of being at least as good at heart as a bat, without having to rely on the word of someone else about their interpretation of a ‘vision’ to know what's right.

We’re the only bipeds, though, right? Monkeys, chimpanzees and lemurs are all able to walk upright, but seem to prefer not to do so. Proponents of this argument often seem to forget that birds are bipedal. Our ability to change our environment isn’t unique either, and probably didn’t start with humans. Check out the bower bird or weaver birds.

All told, the more we know about animals the less "special" we ourselves appear, and the less likely it seems that knowing right from wrong is in any way "human."

There are millions of people on Earth who don’t believe in heaven as a place of reward or hell as a place of punishment, and who don’t believe in karma or dharma, yet they behave well anyway. This is because we KNOW right from wrong without the intervention of an outside agency. If the best guidance you can offer a child for doing what’s right is based on the fact that hellacious punishment will follow if they don’t, you need to try harder. Certain things are bad for you. Certain things are bad for your community. Certain things are bad for the human race. It may not seem like these things are bad at the time, which is why we must think these things through together. And we do so, in the form of purely secular law.

I find it alarming that some people want to be called “God-fearing.” If God is just, then surely only the evil need fear him, right? If your only reason for obedience to your God is fear, then you are very unfortunate, indeed, and should probably mend your ways. If God is good, then surely he wants us to love and praise Him, not fear Him. A good child may fear punishment, but a truly good child deserves reward. The one only knows what he should NOT do, the other knows what he SHOULD do. Which child would you rather claim as your own?

THINGS I CAN'T ANSWER

God said, “You shall call him Emanuel.” But no one did?

Why did Yeshua have to die?
Believe it or not, the reason was probably partly financial. Priests made a very fine living being paid to pray for blessings and healings, to eat the best meat off the sacrifices, and be respected by their communities. They were a bit put off by a man who broke the commandments, but the fact that he said no one comes to the Father but through him was going way too far. If people listened to him, not only would the priests lose their jobs, but their children (priesthood being passed from father to son) would lose their inheritance, too. He flouted their Laws. They didn’t believe him to be the Messiah, and to be fair, they did give him a chance to defend himself. In their view, he was a heretic, and execution was a quite common penalty for that. And by the way, the Romans had no problem with that idea, and they were the ones who did the actual killing.

Why was Cain’s offering of food plants not good enough? Is it really so different to kill a sheep as a sacrifice than to kill edible plants? One reason for praise, the other for scorn? We’re omnivores – if there’s that big a difference, shouldn’t someone explain the reasoning to us, that we not err?

When Cain was marked so that “no man” would kill him, who were these people who wouldn’t know him? Adam and Eve (his mother and father) and his brothers and sisters didn’t need a mark to identify him, and that’s all there were, right? Cain went off and married and built a city. Who did he marry, and was the ‘city’ just their kids? There were no other people, right? (Wrong. Remember, Yahweh was only God of the Jews. Other people just weren’t worth mentioning.)

The warning that if Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge they would surely die must have been meaningless, because not having a share of the fruit of the Tree of Immortality, they were going to die anyway. There was no warning that they’d be cast out of the garden, toil and pain and all that…And if God knows everything, was the whole thing a trap? Why didn’t He step up and say, “Eve, don’t listen to the snake!” Any parent would know better than to leave a chocolate cake in a room full of two-year-olds indefinitely and hope they wouldn’t touch it because you told them not to. In fact, God lies in this story, because he tells them if they eat of this tree, they shall surely die. But they don’t.

If you ask your father for bread, will he give you a stone? Yes, and beatings and sexual assault and intolerable cruelty and sometimes death.

If I can knock and it will be opened to me, why can’t I get back into the Garden? If I ask and it will be given, why can’t I get back into the Garden? Yeshua’s sacrifice absolved me of sin, right? At least after baptism and communion and other ritual forgiveness? So I should be clear to go in now, right? Has anyone gotten back in? Call me if you have.

If the three Magi were so wise, why didn’t they report back to their own people that they’d visited the new king of the Jews, and he was laid in a trough? It seems like it would be worth remarking.

If incest is forbidden after the time of Moses, but it was okay before that, weren’t there a lot of malformed, mutated, and retarded births before then? Perhaps we didn’t so much “evolve” as “mutate horribly?” Could this explain the “Giants” mentioned in Genesis?

If Lot was too drunk to know his own daughters (or to realize they were the only females within miles)(for two nights running), wasn’t he too drunk to ‘perform?’ And in spite of impregnating his two daughters, he was considered ‘a good man,’ good enough to save out of Sodom and Gomorrah. But his wife, having turned to look back at the destruction of her home, was turned into a pillar of salt. This does not seem just.

Why was Abraham rewarded, when his chosen career was con-man? He lied, stole, and encouraged his wife to commit or at least mime adultery. He blackmailed her victims – isn’t that covetousness? Yet from him descend all the tribes of Israel. God did punish Abraham’s victims, though. Later on, when arguing about Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asks God, “Is not the author of Justice Just?” And this strategy won. But he didn’t mention that disparity when it was his own victims who were being punished unjustly.

In the book of Exodus, God deliberately 'hardens' Pharoh's heart, then torments him and his people with plagues for being hard-hearted. Fair?

If Astrologers and Soothsayers/witches should be put to death, why do some of the wisest of Biblical men go to consult them?

"If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, “move from here to there” and it will move." (Matthew 17:20) No one’s known to have ever achieved this, and even Yeshua himself didn’t give a demonstration. Mohammad noticed this, and said that if the mountain wouldn’t come to him, he’d come to the mountain. Does that mean his faith was less than a mustard seed?

I'm just saying...

POSTSCRIPT TO 10 COMMANDMENTS SAY WHAT?

Matthew 15:8 - 9 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SAY WHAT?

First of all, the ten commandments we’re most familiar were not the first commandments. Noah set forth seven commandments. When Moses threw down the original tablets containing the commandments, they were replaced by slightly different ones. Still, I’ll stick to the generally-accepted ones. And Moses is not the only famous ancient law-giver. There were also Manou, Minos, and Mises; all law-givers, all given their truths on a mountaintop. It’s also worth noting that roughly the same commandments appear in the Egyptian Book of The Dead (the Declarations of Maat) (believed to have been written roughly 1500 years before the ten commandments).

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; do not have any other gods before me.

The first commandment is that we place no other gods before God. Whether we believe in God or not is not mentioned – only that we not put other gods before him. This is so easy anyone can do it. But Christians DO put another god between us and God; Jesus. If this were meant to be so, why didn’t God stipulate it in the first commandment? “No other gods, except my son.” Seems easy enough. The penalty for breaking this commandment is DEATH. (Deut 17:2-7)

2. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
The second commandment is against making idols (statues) and bowing down to them or worshipping them. Have you ever been in a Catholic church? Idols are prayed to there on a regular basis. The Catholic Church also keeps alive some of the practices of witchcraft (ritual lighting of candles and ‘warding’ the altar with a censer), though they are directly responsible for the torture and aggravated murder of thousands of people simply because it was suspected they might be witches. The penalty for bowing to idols is DEATH.

Punishing the children for the sins of their parents doesn’t seem fair. But the reward for 1,000 generations (at 20 years per generation, that’s 20,000 years!) seems great. But who has achieved it? Write me.

3. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

The third commandment is not to make wrongful use of the name of the Lord. However, He isn’t very clear on what His name IS. His original name was apparently “El.” Later, He says it is “I Am That I Am,” and JHVH (which no one is sure exactly how to pronounce). Since we’re not exactly sure what His name is, we might use it wrongfully by accident. This is another silly oversight. It would have been good if the commandments began, “I am the Lord your God, and my name is _____.” Or at least, “You can call me _____.” What if it turns out His name is actually Jehosaphat? That could mean trouble, because the penalty for breaking this commandment is DEATH (Lev 24:16).

4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. For six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

Which day is that, again? Jews and Seventh Day Adventists believe it’s on Saturday (Friday evening to Saturday evening). Catholics and Protestants believe it’s Sunday. Couldn’t we even get this one thing right? After all, the penalty is – can you guess – DEATH! (Ex 31:15)

5. Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

Honor your father and mother. Penalty for disobedience; DEATH (Lev 20:9). In fact, should a teenager rebel, he or she shall also be put to death (Lev 20:10).

6. You shall not murder.

Yet wars are not only supported by, but at times are STARTED by the church. Not just in ancient times, but NOW. You can see it in the ongoing violence between Israel and Islam. Check the news, it still happens all the time, all around you.

7. You shall not commit adultery.

Penalty: DEATH (Lev 20:10)

8. You shall not steal.

Penalty: DEATH

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Penalty: DEATH

10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Penalty: Come on, you can guess. Just for thinking that you wish you had a house like your neighbors', DEATH

It’s interesting to note how many things were NOT included; abortion, transgenderization, prostitution, slavery, homosexuality, child abuse, drug use, or whether it’s okay to look into how the universe works, are just not there. It seems a silly oversight in view of human nature. If it were worth mentioning, surely it would be in there? The only place you’ll find social issues addressed is in Judaic Law. Not commandments from God, but principles ancient Jewish law-makers thought were reasonable. These are the same guys who, when they heard “keep the Sabbath holy” decided that it would be a punishable offense to push a button or take too many steps on a Saturday.

There’s a bit among the lesser-known commandments, where we’re told not to come before God empty-handed, which must mean that if you’re so poor that you have nothing, you’re not welcome to come to church. Homosexuality is among these other commandments as well, but the penalty against homosexuality is no more severe than that against seeing a family member naked (of course, both are DEATH).

In fact, if everyone who ever broke a commandment was put to death, we wouldn't be having nearly the overpopulation issues we're having right now!

A FEW CHRISTIAN MISPERCEPTIONS

The Rapture
Out of all who were ever born, only 144,000 will be ‘raptured.’ And they’ll be chosen from the Tribes of Israel. On any given day over 2,000 people go missing in the U.S. alone. Sometimes no one notices for weeks. There are approximately 7 billion people alive today; 144,000 would be about 2%. But that doesn’t even take into acccount all the people who have ever lived (estimated to be approximately 110 billion - of which 144,000 would be 1.3%). So much for the world being left ‘empty.’ And if you’re not a Jew, you needn’t bother applying at all. These lucky ones will have never ‘known’ women, so I think we can take it that there aren’t any women in their number. To that guy who has a bumper sticker saying “Caution: Driver Will Be Raptured,” I guess you’re a virgin male Jew. Good to know. It’s entirely possible that the ‘rapture’ has already occurred, and we just missed the whole thing. Who would miss a few virgins?

The Pentacost (Speaking in Tongues)
There are three aspects of The Pentacost that Christian Fundamentalists seem to have overlooked:
1) A flame appeared above the head of each person who spoke in tongues
2) Those who spoke in tongues spoke in other languages, such that everyone who heard them could understand, even if they were from another country. Anyone can talk in gibberish, and the brain seems to like this vacation from having to make sense, for it gives us a reward feeling not unlike those of childhood. Why would God bless you with the ability to be understood by NO ONE?
3) Falling down in a fit was no part of early Christianity. It never happened while Yeshua was around. Even when he brought someone back from the dead, they didn’t swoon or seize.

The Church Is Not Only Not "Holy," It's Not Even Moral.
In fact, you could once (and in some places still can) PURCHASE forgiveness from the church for whatever sin you have committed, are thinking of committing, or are thinking of continuing to commit. This allows the rich to sin without penalty, while those who can’t afford it cannot. This type of bought forgiveness was once called an Indulgence, and is now known as a ‘Papal Blessing.' Either one will reduce the time you must spend in purgatory for your sins. The church taught, “As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the troubled soul from Purgatory springs!” Pope Leo the Tenth is quoted as saying, “The fable of Christ has been quite profitable to us!”

When the church collects “tithes,” with which to do the ‘work of God,’ how do they end up owning such valuable pieces of property as the “Mona Lisa?” In what way does this help the suffering?

Although doctors legally providing abortions are often murdered by the religious, no religious people have been murdered by abortion doctors. And by the way, how many unwanted/accidental children have the religious taken into their homes to raise as their own (the answer needs to be; all of them)?

The Catholic church also took upon itself to invent the cruelest tortures ever devised, including tying someone to a stake and burning them alive.

Sex scandals involving the church are not a new phenomenon, they’ve been going on for CENTURIES. The church kept slaves (right up until the turn of this century; see Magdalene Houses) and in the Middle Ages even ran brothels on ‘holy’ ground.

Next time: What the Ten Commandments really say.

WHERE RATIONALITY HITS THE BRICK WALL

Let’s postulate that there is a God who created all that’s in the earth and all that’s in the heavens. Let’s endow Him with love, nobility, and goodness of a higher order than any man can achieve or even imagine. When He looks down upon this world, and sees that wars are being fought in His name, do you think he finds this good? If you imagine He will, then your God is not noble and good. It is shameful to take pleasure in causing smaller creatures to kill, torture and maim each other. Here in America, it’s against the law.

When war, crime, disease, unemployment or high prices are besetting you, if you are hated for the color of your skin or level of education or the size of your income, remember these evils are visited upon you not by God, but by Man. It is Man who sends the tanks to your town, not God. Why should He specially bless someone because he was killed while driving the tank? What about the fellow on the other side, who also believes himself to be a martyr? What if they run into each other in that special “martyr’s heaven?’ Conversation could be awkward. If you imagine God will reward people for blowing other people up, then it follows logically your God is not noble and good, even by the standards of secular law. If blowing people to pieces is really rewarded, do you really want to have anything to do with such a god?

If an all-powerful God made laws for his puny, finite creatures to follow, would he not make them unbreakable? Or at least consistent? Gravity, speed of light, attraction, repulsion, electromagnetism, these are more like laws of God. When we study the laws of nature, it’s as though we are tracing the outline of his hand. This is a worthy and awe-filled pursuit.

I cannot reconcile the belief in a good God with “visions” supported by a single person, when He who invented light, sound, and even visions, could surely allow us all to see it. And if He wanted our belief, he should. I cannot verify the sincerity or even the sanity of another person’s mind. I would not kill on the basis of someone else’s vision. Why does anyone?

You don’t have to be a scientist to see the flaws in this world’s religions. All you have to do is logic through it in your own way, at your own speed. Sometimes this may seem as impossible as following a scientist’s reasoning, hence this blog; to clarify. My own true charm (if I do say so myself) lies in the fact that I don't buy in to "truth by faith." And as you'll notice from previous posts, I believe science relies on truth by faith almost as much as religion does. So today's question is, why believe either one, and how do we decide WHAT to believe if not religion or science?

Due to a paucity of comments, I'm guessing everyone agrees totally with me!

MISUNDERSTANDING THE OLD TESTAMENT

The people of ancient Israel were nomadic shepherds. Their language, their way of life, their view of the world and their culture was very different from ours.* They were secretive about their faith, because they didn’t believe it was meant for anyone else; it was none of our business. Everything in the Old Testament is written by, and for, their own people. We were never meant to know what was in their sacred scrolls. The Israelites didn’t try to convert people, didn’t send out missionaries. They were isolationists – it was not allowed to mate or marry outside the faith.

One difference is very important to an understanding of the Old Testament; they don’t believe there’s a contradiction in there being a commandment not to kill and a god who tells them to go forth and commit genocide. There’s no contradiction, because it was understood that “Thou shall not kill” was followed by a silent “Jews.” And every reference to “your neighbor” was obviously “your Jewish neighbor.” They didn’t need to write that in because it was just understood. So why do we allow their laws to inform our way of life, structure our morals on it, and use it to judge ourselves and others at this late date? Why, in the name of all decency, do we still fight wars over it? None of their prophets foresaw the iPod, the automobile, or even electricity. They failed to foresee that we would multiply and spread over the planet to such an extent that we’ve all but destroyed the delicate ecosystem that makes life possible here. They were very smart shepherds, but the time has come to stop being led by ancient shepherds who never asked us to follow them in the first place. The Israelites are the Chosen people. If you’re not Jewish, this does not include you. You’ve stolen someone else’s God. As if that were not enough, you invoke this God against Jews.

But this isn’t true only in the Old Testament. The teachings of Jesus were never meant for outsiders, either. “Jesus sent out the twelve apostles with these instructions: “Don’t go to the Gentiles or the Samaritans, but only to the people of Israel—God’s lost sheep.” (Matthew 10:5-6) and in support of this, “I tell you the truth, the Son of Man will return before you have reached all the towns of Israel.” (Matthew 10:23) To address anti-semitism briefly, do you think the death of Jesus was unexpected? Or was it in the plan? Either way, Jesus forgave his killers; you have no right to persecute them in his name, especially if you’re going to claim to be obedient to His teachings.

* For example, in the early American West, it was a “hanging” offense to steal a man’s horse. This was because if left him without transportation in a virtual wilderness, without the food, water and tools that the horse carried. Horse-thievery could kill someone. Nowadays, someone who steals a horse has merely taken an item of our general property. The culture has changed, as all cultures do.

In some cultures it’s considered an insult to place your feet in such a way that the sole of your shoe will be seen. In ancient Mongolia, it was an executable offense to touch the doorjamb of someone’s home. The context of culture is an important one.

RATIONALITY, SCIENCE, REALITY

I wish I could say that science has done much better, and in many ways it has, but it has its problems, too. We were all going merrily along, sitting through endless classes on physics, chemistry and other sciences in good faith, when all of a sudden, science finds that OOPS, 96% of the Universe is MISSING! Other (unprovable) dimensions, alternate (unprovable) universes, (unprovable) wormholes, bizarre (unprovable) branes, vibrating strings, even the unbreakability of the speed of light; being asked to believe that these things exist on the basis of math I can’t follow is exactly – in truth - asking for my FAITH. And there are some pretty basic (but important) things science DOESN’T know:
What is time? (Why does it seem to move in only one direction?)
What is mind? (We know a lot about the brain, but not much about mind/consciousness.)
Why do we (all animals) sleep? Why do we dream?
What is gravity? (Particle? Wave? Desire?)
What causes the Earth’s magnetic field to reverse/flip?
What made the Big Bang bang?
What is life?
These are some pretty important issues, which can affect how we see ourselves in the context of the universe, and when scientists come up with answers, I have a feeling that however ‘elegantly simple’ they may claim the answers to be, I won’t be able to understand them.

For many decades, science led us to believe that human beings came to the Americas 13,000 years ago. Now, they tell us it was probably much, much sooner. Both theories are presented as ‘fact,’ and both have physical evidence to support them. But the most interesting fact is, the scientists seem to be unable to agree.

Science (unlike religion, it seems) is at least willing to change its facts when evidence that doesn’t fit their facts emerge. But whatever science tells us that we can’t prove (or disprove) for ourselves (except in the ‘exalted’ language of math) we’re expected to accept as ‘fact,’ on faith. Perhaps scientists don’t realize how much they resemble the priesthood in this respect. But this means science isn't immune to changing its mind, leaving the person who believed them the first time swinging in the breeze, or at best, grasping at concepts we just aren't educated enough to get a grip on.

Scientists are just now coming around to thinking that the minds of animals’ may be very much like our own (there being, in fact, no difference to speak of), and are even discovering that they may have emotions. Well, duh! Pet owners and animal lovers always knew this, and it made the scientists who believed the opposite seem, really, too stupid to bother arguing with.

The scientific community is not always fair, either. Just as radicals like Jesus threatened the existing order, so do new scientific theories. Breakthroughs are often made in the complete absence of funding or the support of peers. Like Jesus, sometimes scientists die without ever seeing how their teachings ultimately change the world.

To get back to the theme for a moment, one of the reasons science has lost all patience with religion is because it's based on the interpretation of the visions of a few people thousands of years ago. I know of one Catholic man who believed he’d been given a mission by God to wipe out all unbelievers and had quite a large following, too. He went by the name of Adolf Hitler. If we’re going to believe in people’s visions, in what way does his differ from any other? Therefore, rationally, we can’t believe in something just because someone says they have a vision or mission, even if they themselves clearly believe it. For a small fee, any sidewalk psychic can report a vision or prophecy that'll make it worth the price and entice you to come back for more. It doesn't mean what they say is true.

So, that's my rant for today. What's yours?

VIRGIN BIRTH, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, SACRIFICIAL DEATH/RESURRECTION –ALL ARE ANCIENT TRADITIONS FROM OTHER CULTURES: NOT A NEW STORY

I know this part is going to cause heated feelings, but that's why they call me demented!

Long, long, long ago, in a country far away, there was a god who lived among men, who ‘died to save the many’ and rose from the dead after three days, who used ‘sacred water’ for anointing, who is honored in feasting on bread and alcoholic drink. His son was sent as a savior for his people, and his wife is often depicted holding their infant son on her lap. Since the father was dead at the time of his conception, his birth would qualify as ‘miraculous.’ He was believed to be in charge of the Afterlife. He was the Egyptian god Osiris, and worship of him goes back to 3,300 BCE.

Around 1,300 BCE an Egyptian pharaoh called Akhenaten was the first man I know of to proclaim that there is only one god (which he believed to be personified by the sun), which shown down equally on all and was called Aten. This astonishing idea of one god was not welcomed by the priests of the other gods (who were now out of work), and eventually all that Akhenaten had accomplished was erased. There is some speculation (but no proof) that Moses, being raised in the court of the pharaohs, may have gotten the idea of one god from learning about him. This may not be true, as all records of Akhenaten’s reign have been vandalized, but on the other hand, there’s no proof Moses didn’t know of him.

Long, long ago, in a country far away, a man was born through a miracle. He was born in humble surroundings, attended by angels and shepherds. There was a prophecy about his birth that made a nearby king nervous, so the king had a massive number of male infants killed in an attempt to ward off the prophecy. The baby was saved, however, because the father was warned to flee. When the child grew up, he preached to his people, and asked his disciples to forsake all and follow him. Every year the date of his birth is celebrated, and pilgrims still visit his holy sites to obtain special blessings. He preached a message of love, and was believed to be a manifestation of the Divine sent to combat Evil. Does this story sound familiar? In one of the dialects of his people, he was called Krishta. We know him today by the name Krishna, and his story took place around 800 BCE.

Long ago, in a country far away, another man was born miraculously. There was a prophecy that he would be a great leader, and wise men came to visit from all over in his honor. He challenged the religious order of his people, and preached a message of love. He was about 30 years old when he began preaching, and he, too, had disciples. He was tempted by the devil but resisted. Bathing in “sacred waters” became part of the religion he started. He performed miracles such as walking on water and feeding 500 people with basically nothing. After his death, his followers went out into the world as missionaries to share his message of how to live. Is this one any better? This is the story of Siddhārtha Gautama. We known him better by the title of Buddha, and his story took place around 500 BCE.

Around 100 CE, we find the god Mithras in Rome. Very little is known about his devotees, but he had a miraculous birth, offered life after death, was resurrected after death, was honored with ritual feasts where they served chicken, bread and wine, and his birthday was celebrated on December 25th.

There are other correlations too detailed and numerous to go into (and not everyone agrees on the details), but here are a few worth studying:
The Great Flood: see the Hindu Puranic story of Manu, the Greek Deucalion, or the Epic of Gilgamesh’s Utnapishtim (even to the release of a dove).
The Tree of Immortality: from the Epic of Gilgamesh
The Tree of Knowledge: see Norse Mythology for the tree Yggdrasil

And as for that virgin birth...Yeshua himself said that Joseph was his father, by the way(Acts 2:29-30, Acts 13:23, Romans 1:3, Rev. 22:16).

Among those who had miraculous births, died and were resurrected: Horus, Attis, Dionysus, Mithra, Krishna. All were raised from the dead on the third day. It would be unreasonable to suppose that these similarities are just coincidences. The fact is, Christianity appears to be a re-hash of ancient tales in which good triumphs over evil, light over darkness, and where physical laws are temporarily over-written. One school of thought is that the whole mythos is based on astronomy (not astrology), and this actually seems to be more likely than that such mythos have come together from nothing, yet held together over many millennia (and across so many cultures).

PRECOCIOUS AND PISSED OFF

I know I'm not the only one out here that's getting very tired of religious questions being answered by one of the standbys: "It's a miracle," "You have to have faith," and "It's a mystery." I find it even more annoying when a question, rather than being answered at all, is said to be "metaphor," or "open to interpretation." Whether you agree or not, this is the place to present your views. I'll start it off with mine.
I find it extremely annoying that over half of professed Christians don't know the following:

1. JESUS WAS A JEW

His mother was a Jew (yes, the Virgin Mary was Jewish, too, as were all of the disciples), he lived in a Jewish community, and we know he was a practicing Jew, since he was allowed into the Temple in Jerusalem, and because the rabbis at the Temple took the time to argue with him (at what may have been his ‘bar-mitzvah’). To read from the sacred scrolls, he must have been able to read and write (yet he never wrote anything we know of). He spoke Aramaic, not English.

2. HIS NAME WASN’T JESUS

There are many arguments about what his real name was, but Yeshua (yaySHOOa`) is agreed at least to be contemporaneous and Hebrew. Could this be why (according to Revelations) he says to those who did works “in his name,” “I do not know you”? “Jesus” is a Grecian version of Yeshua which was adopted when the teachings went outside Israel.

NOTE: Anything purporting to be from Jesus’ time and belonging to him which has ‘Jesus’ written on it should be examined very critically.

3. HE DID NOT FULFILL THE PROPHECIES REGARDING THE MESSIAH
He did not:
Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease.

He did not descend from King David’s line (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1), if Joseph was not his father.

The Messiah was supposed to be a prophet (he did not meet the Jewish requirements for prophethood: Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of the Jews in the world) who would lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all the promises between man and God will remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4) Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah (Old Testament) and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. But according to Isaiah (40:8), "The word of the Lord stands forever."

Elijah was supposed to be raised from the dead specifically to identify the messiah. This did not happen. If you’re thinking “John the Baptist,” forget it – he denies being Elijah (and surely he would know) and doesn’t know if Yeshua is the messiah, in fact sends a messenger to ask Yeshua whether or not he is. John himself doesn’t appear to have thought he was ‘preparing the way’ for Yeshua.

4. HE WAS NOT WITHOUT SIN
He broke the commandments:

Do not have any other gods before me – “Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) This directly contradicts God’s own words: “Yet I am the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no savior beside me.” (Hosea 13:4) In addition: If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. (Deut 21:22-23)

Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy - “Then Jesus went over to their synagogue, where he noticed a man with a deformed hand. The Pharisees asked Jesus, “Does the law permit a person to work by healing on the Sabbath?” (They were hoping he would say yes, so they could bring charges against him.) And he answered, “If you had a sheep that fell into a well on the Sabbath, wouldn’t you work to pull it out? Of course you would. And how much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Yes, the law permits a person to do good on the Sabbath.” (Matthew 12:9-12) At this time, he seems to be agreeing with the law, yet breaking it. But there are no exclusions of circumstance in the commandment, and to repeat Isaiah (40:8), “The word of the Lord stands forever.”

Honor your father and mother - “As Jesus was speaking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. Someone told Jesus, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, and they want to speak to you.” Jesus asked, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” Then he pointed to his disciples and said, “Look, these are my mother and brothers.” (Matthew 12:46-49) This does not show honor to his actual mother. Again, on the day Jesus turned water into wine, he says to his mother, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” (John 2:4)

The problem with the Bible is, it is inconsistent, it contradicts itself with astonishing frequency, and yet ordinary (probably) well-intentioned people keep trying to get me to believe it. I'm extremely curious as to how many people agree with me. I'm not that curious about those who don't, because I can hear them preaching everywhere in America any day of the week, often without leaving home. Still, I’m willing to hear your thoughts either way.