A Reluctant Atheist
July 8, 2021
G.D.O'Bradovich III
I'm not proud. I was wrong and the truth is hard to take.
Level 42
Level 42
1
We are skeptical of claims that are subjective and bewildered by conclusions drawn from these assertions. Let us be clear: We are skeptical of claims by modern Christians regarding the cosmos and the Bible. These theists make claims about the far past and their professions remain unverified and always subject to possible revisions. In their zeal for finding the eternal and unchanging, modern Christians have created instability which, no doubt, is due to their questionable reasoning skills and their childish need to accept whatever pleasant sounding stories that are presented, even when these pleasantries contradict one another. Their fantastic conclusions drawn from the natural world vis-à-vis the sacred scriptures are not worthy of rebuttal.
The foremost issue with modern Christians is that they know there is a God, yet no viable evidence is forthcoming and after the passage of five centuries, there is little likelihood of evidence to be discovered. It cannot be honestly said that modern Christians know that God exists, as the existence of God is a “fact” a priori, that is, the existence of God is accepted and nothing more is required. Therefore, modern Christians transform a claim, or a need, for God’s existence into the “fact” that God exists. For one to claim knowledge where there can only be ignorance or doubt is disingenuous.
Likewise, similar difficulties are present with atheists, since they claim there is no God. In previous discussions, we have taken the middle course between the knowledge of God and the denial of God: being agnostic. As Mark Twain wrote, “I was happy to answer quickly and I did. I said I didn’t know.”
Since atheism is repeatedly touched upon in our essays, this fact suggests that we are not intellectually satisfied with our agnostic position.
We would not be reluctant to ruefully disparage strongly held religious beliefs in fairies, pixies, or leprechauns, so we have been inconsistent in our thoughts and reasoning concerning modern Christianity. All the evidence for the “little people” is found in books, not including “alleged sightings”. It is not rational to accept ancient alien involvement in human affairs or current extraterrestrial participation in our civilization when all advances are within the power of man, nor should anyone lend credence to Atlantis. The Gentle Reader should recall that the only source for story of Atlantis is found in Plato. Without Plato, no one would conclude that an island empire spanning several continents satisfactory explains the artifacts at our disposal. Of course, the discovery of exotic animals suggests cryptozoology will remain viable for the foreseeable future. Finally, Astrology, unlike leprechauns and ancient aliens, is evidence based, as the planets are located in the signs of the zodiac and while any conclusions remains vague. For example, Mars is observed in Sagittarius and this fact can be independently verified, but there is no agreement on the exact meaning of Mars in the first decan of Sagittarius. Therefore, Astrology is an objective science, but all conclusions are subjective.
We must conclude that we have expressed a deference for the existence of God, for theism. We assign some of our reticence on the topic of atheism to the meaning of “God”. Unlike the well documented characteristics of leprechauns, there is no agreed meaning either on the nature of God or his attributes found in scripture; the only agreement among the Abrahamic religions is monotheism. The conflicting characteristics of the God of the Bible should be the first indication that we are not dealing with objective reality, but works of human reason and of human imagination, that is, the opinions of what God should be or should not be vary among the authors of the Biblical canon. The God of the Old Testament is aptly described as schizophrenic by his resolute critics, for, at times, his attributes include the tenderness of a mother, the amorality of a narcissist [telling Abraham to kill his only son], the blood lust of a hardened warrior, and the mundane wisdom of a sage.
The foremost issue with modern Christians is that they know there is a God, yet no viable evidence is forthcoming and after the passage of five centuries, there is little likelihood of evidence to be discovered. It cannot be honestly said that modern Christians know that God exists, as the existence of God is a “fact” a priori, that is, the existence of God is accepted and nothing more is required. Therefore, modern Christians transform a claim, or a need, for God’s existence into the “fact” that God exists. For one to claim knowledge where there can only be ignorance or doubt is disingenuous.
Likewise, similar difficulties are present with atheists, since they claim there is no God. In previous discussions, we have taken the middle course between the knowledge of God and the denial of God: being agnostic. As Mark Twain wrote, “I was happy to answer quickly and I did. I said I didn’t know.”
Since atheism is repeatedly touched upon in our essays, this fact suggests that we are not intellectually satisfied with our agnostic position.
We would not be reluctant to ruefully disparage strongly held religious beliefs in fairies, pixies, or leprechauns, so we have been inconsistent in our thoughts and reasoning concerning modern Christianity. All the evidence for the “little people” is found in books, not including “alleged sightings”. It is not rational to accept ancient alien involvement in human affairs or current extraterrestrial participation in our civilization when all advances are within the power of man, nor should anyone lend credence to Atlantis. The Gentle Reader should recall that the only source for story of Atlantis is found in Plato. Without Plato, no one would conclude that an island empire spanning several continents satisfactory explains the artifacts at our disposal. Of course, the discovery of exotic animals suggests cryptozoology will remain viable for the foreseeable future. Finally, Astrology, unlike leprechauns and ancient aliens, is evidence based, as the planets are located in the signs of the zodiac and while any conclusions remains vague. For example, Mars is observed in Sagittarius and this fact can be independently verified, but there is no agreement on the exact meaning of Mars in the first decan of Sagittarius. Therefore, Astrology is an objective science, but all conclusions are subjective.
We must conclude that we have expressed a deference for the existence of God, for theism. We assign some of our reticence on the topic of atheism to the meaning of “God”. Unlike the well documented characteristics of leprechauns, there is no agreed meaning either on the nature of God or his attributes found in scripture; the only agreement among the Abrahamic religions is monotheism. The conflicting characteristics of the God of the Bible should be the first indication that we are not dealing with objective reality, but works of human reason and of human imagination, that is, the opinions of what God should be or should not be vary among the authors of the Biblical canon. The God of the Old Testament is aptly described as schizophrenic by his resolute critics, for, at times, his attributes include the tenderness of a mother, the amorality of a narcissist [telling Abraham to kill his only son], the blood lust of a hardened warrior, and the mundane wisdom of a sage.
I'm only human … born to make mistakes.
The Human League
The Human League
2
When confronted with the term “God”, the Gentle Researcher would do well to determine, if possible, what is meant by the term. Should the answer involve some confluence of the Old Testament Jehovah and the New Testament Jesus, then one would do well to answer that one does not share this view, as contradictions are always indicative of poor reasoning and one should check one’s premises to determine which supposition is incorrect. Jesus states that he and his father works on the Sabbath [John 5:17], thus, Jesus’ father works on the Sabbath and, presumably, every day. However, Jehovah rests on the Sabbath [Exodus 20:11]. Therefore, it logically follows Jesus’ father cannot be Jehovah.
Spinoza wrote that the Bible clearly teaches obedience and, of course, to question the Biblical text is a form of disobedience. At times, the Old Testament touches upon the nature of God [Deuteronomy 6:4], but this should not convince the Gentle Reader that the purpose of the Old Testament is instructions about God, his will, and his nature. Additionally, the New Testament should not be understood as instructions on the topic of “how to get to heaven” [οὐρανός G3772, 284 times], or how to avoid Hell [γέεννα G1067, 12 times; ταρταρόω G5020, once], judging by the limited number of occurrences of “heaven” used theologically, the abode of the blessed, as distinguished from occurrences used in a natural sense, the sky.
The merging of the Old Testament with the New Testament into one book is a development of the western churches. As the Orthodox Church has no dogma on the Bible, the conclusion is that the Bible must be a modern innovation of the 16th century Reformation, not an ancient relic of the third century. Hence, we are skeptical of authority of the Bible when it is presented to us as a vital, nay indispensable, aspect of either Christian history or Christian doctrine. The view that the Bible is ancient must overcome history. The main shortcoming of the Bible is that the text is open to interpretation and the reader is uncertain if a given text should be taken literally or allegorically, otherwise said, ambiguity abounds.
Spinoza wrote that the Bible clearly teaches obedience and, of course, to question the Biblical text is a form of disobedience. At times, the Old Testament touches upon the nature of God [Deuteronomy 6:4], but this should not convince the Gentle Reader that the purpose of the Old Testament is instructions about God, his will, and his nature. Additionally, the New Testament should not be understood as instructions on the topic of “how to get to heaven” [οὐρανός G3772, 284 times], or how to avoid Hell [γέεννα G1067, 12 times; ταρταρόω G5020, once], judging by the limited number of occurrences of “heaven” used theologically, the abode of the blessed, as distinguished from occurrences used in a natural sense, the sky.
The merging of the Old Testament with the New Testament into one book is a development of the western churches. As the Orthodox Church has no dogma on the Bible, the conclusion is that the Bible must be a modern innovation of the 16th century Reformation, not an ancient relic of the third century. Hence, we are skeptical of authority of the Bible when it is presented to us as a vital, nay indispensable, aspect of either Christian history or Christian doctrine. The view that the Bible is ancient must overcome history. The main shortcoming of the Bible is that the text is open to interpretation and the reader is uncertain if a given text should be taken literally or allegorically, otherwise said, ambiguity abounds.
For there must be also heresies among you,
that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
1 Corinthians 11:19
that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
1 Corinthians 11:19
3
Is Saint Paul to be interpreted as asserting that heretics are approved automatically because they have a difference of private opinions or because their opinions are made known to others publicly?
Additionally, it is not certain if Saint Paul is speaking as an Apostle of the Master promulgating eternal truths or offering his personal opinions as a private individual [1 Corinthians 7:12]. Thus, we cannot honestly agree with any Biblical statement until we review all texts related to the subject under discussion and, even then, we may not be able to reach an understanding. Therefore, if we cannot agree on the interpretation and application of a single passage of the Bible, it follows that cannot agree with the complete Bible. When confronted with the various claims and suppositions of the Bible, the safest course is to quickly respond, “I don’t know.”
Additionally, it is not certain if Saint Paul is speaking as an Apostle of the Master promulgating eternal truths or offering his personal opinions as a private individual [1 Corinthians 7:12]. Thus, we cannot honestly agree with any Biblical statement until we review all texts related to the subject under discussion and, even then, we may not be able to reach an understanding. Therefore, if we cannot agree on the interpretation and application of a single passage of the Bible, it follows that cannot agree with the complete Bible. When confronted with the various claims and suppositions of the Bible, the safest course is to quickly respond, “I don’t know.”
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child,
I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
1 Corinthians 13:11
I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
1 Corinthians 13:11
4
For reasons which remain obscure, American protestants place undue importance on the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, if only judged by the frequently of their citations and allusions to these two works. The Pentateuch constitutes the five books of divine revelation to Moses by Jehovah and these books consistently demonstrate the superiority of Jehovah over the other national Gods of the gentiles. The ten plagues of Egypt illustrate the power of Jehovah over the local gods. There is no claim in the Old Testament that Jehovah is the only God, since the Biblical recognition of the Gods of the gentile nations refutes this pious belief. The Pentateuch is for the sole benefit of the nation of Israel as Jehovah’s chosen people and the book of Leviticus constitutes instructions for the priest class of Israel, the Levites. Therefore, it is for these reasons that we do not accept these teachings of Jehovah as applying to ourselves, since we are neither an Israelite nor a Levite.
Saint Paul states that the law “was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.” [Gal 3:19-20]. Saint Paul teaches that God is one, which is consistent with a single passage in the Old Testament [cf. Deuteronomy 6:4]. Yet, Saint Paul clearly writes that the law “was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” which suggests that Saint Paul, as a Pharisee, does not believe that Jehovah furnished the Law to Israel, rather unnamed angles presented the Law.
In “The Guide for the Perplexed”, Maimonides repeatedly states that any actions by Jehovah that indicate corporeality, such as resting on the seventh day of Creation, walking in the garden of Eden, or providing prohibitions to Adam must treated as the “common way of speaking” and such words and phrases are not to be understood literally. To understand God as having a body should be understood as the initial step of primitive human reasoning attempting to explain the world by assigning to God attributes that are similar to themselves; such a God is more powerful, but is not all knowing [Gen 3:9 and Gen 11:5]. The lack of omniscience is consistent with our proposition, as power or strength would be the most important attribute for survival in a hostile world.
Nimrod was "a mighty hunter before the Lord", that is, he killed dangerous animals and extra-biblical traditions associate him with the Tower of Babel, where Babel is understood as the first city, another development for man’s survival. In later developments of human thought, the incorporeal God becomes the standard view, with few exceptions [cf. The Mormon concept of God who was once a man]. One should recall that Olympian Gods are correctly understood as physical beings who involve themselves in human affairs and nowadays these meddlesome Gods are now only considered as myths that should be understood allegorically, not as historical truths.
Saint Paul states that the law “was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.” [Gal 3:19-20]. Saint Paul teaches that God is one, which is consistent with a single passage in the Old Testament [cf. Deuteronomy 6:4]. Yet, Saint Paul clearly writes that the law “was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” which suggests that Saint Paul, as a Pharisee, does not believe that Jehovah furnished the Law to Israel, rather unnamed angles presented the Law.
In “The Guide for the Perplexed”, Maimonides repeatedly states that any actions by Jehovah that indicate corporeality, such as resting on the seventh day of Creation, walking in the garden of Eden, or providing prohibitions to Adam must treated as the “common way of speaking” and such words and phrases are not to be understood literally. To understand God as having a body should be understood as the initial step of primitive human reasoning attempting to explain the world by assigning to God attributes that are similar to themselves; such a God is more powerful, but is not all knowing [Gen 3:9 and Gen 11:5]. The lack of omniscience is consistent with our proposition, as power or strength would be the most important attribute for survival in a hostile world.
Nimrod was "a mighty hunter before the Lord", that is, he killed dangerous animals and extra-biblical traditions associate him with the Tower of Babel, where Babel is understood as the first city, another development for man’s survival. In later developments of human thought, the incorporeal God becomes the standard view, with few exceptions [cf. The Mormon concept of God who was once a man]. One should recall that Olympian Gods are correctly understood as physical beings who involve themselves in human affairs and nowadays these meddlesome Gods are now only considered as myths that should be understood allegorically, not as historical truths.
We don't need no modern Jesus ...
Portugal. The Man
Portugal. The Man
5
Jesus offers no insights on the proper method of interpreting the Old Testament. In fact, Jesus offers no interpretation of Psalm 82:6, as he understands it literally: “Ye are gods.” Jesus adds that “scripture cannot be broken...” [John 10:34-35]. The literal meaning of a Biblical text cannot always be the correct understanding, as the sun is created on the fourth day, but “days” are determined by the rising and setting of the sun [Genesis 1:16-19]. Therefore, there must be another method of correctly interpreting the events of creation and this oral tradition would be unknown to all but a few readers.
Saint Paul recognizes allegory as a tool to understand the Old Testament, but he offers no guidelines regarding when passages should or should not be interpreted in this manner [Gal 4:24]. The reliance upon allegory may suggest that Biblical texts, generally, and the Pauline Epistles, specifically, are not to be understood literally.
The inability of the average reader to appreciate explicit contradictions in writing is the reason why there are so many adherents to the written scripture. The Old Testament is clear: “For thou art an holy people unto the Lord [יְהֹוָה Jehovah] thy God, and the Lord [יְהֹוָה Jehovah] hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.” [Deuteronomy 14:2] The correct interpretation of the text is that the Jehovah is the God of Israel and this view is not contradicted by Saint Paul who writes that God is not a respecter of persons [Romans 2:11]. For anyone who confuses Jehovah with God there is a glaring contradiction between the statements in Deuteronomy and in Saint Paul, therefore, God and Jehovah must be treated as distinct entities.
With unintentional irony the Bible is called the “Good Book” wherein the Lord himself declares that he is the creator of evil [Isaiah 45:7]. Satan [H7854] is a proper noun derived from the verb [H7853] and means “accuser” and “satan” can either mean a mundane “adversary” [either personal or national] or a supernatural adversary, “Satan”. It can be said that individuals who oppose Jehovah and his tribal teachings are satanists.
All divine revelations of Scripture, whether the Pentateuch, the New Testament, or the Koran, have unknown origins. Many ancient secular books also have questionable provenances and, unlike Scripture, the scribal errors of the texts are mentally corrected by the reader and any improper conclusions that conflict with reason can be dismissed as human oversight.
The challenge of the pious idea of infallible texts is that the originals do not exist and the copies in our possession are have many variant readings. No single Bible can be presented today as the true Bible, for no one can be convinced that the correct text was chosen from the thousands of variants found in sixty six books.
The lacunae and grammatical mistakes found in the Torah are preserved by copyists today. There are no variants in the Koran which suggest either supernatural preservation or that the text was not disseminated until after the advent of printing.
In conclusion to this part, the issue with the Torah, the New Testament, and the Koran is that these texts are divinely inspired, yet they explicitly contradict one another. Therefore, when confronted with contradictions, only human reasoning can resolve the issue, that is, there is an incorrect premise. The partial resolution is that two of the three are not divinely inspired, however, based on reason alone, the true divine scripture cannot be identified. The human mind cannot determine if unreasonable statements are the product of unreasonable writers or originate in supernatural intelligence. Therefore, when pressed on the issue of divine scripture respond quickly: “I don’t know.”
The existence of the cosmos is often used as the prime evidence for God. The irrational number Phi is the basis for anatomical ratios found in animals and plants, along with the numbers 5, 13, 21, 34, 55, and 89. Humans, bats, and whales have five phalanges. Since we do not encounter animals with four or six or ten phalanges, this fact could suggest a common origin for the three species, that is, the theory of evolution is consistent with observations. As always with scientific theories, there is the likelihood that the theory is open to further revisions or possible outright rejection.
We cannot know if the origins of the Phi ratio was intentional [the theory of Creation] or accidental [the theory of evolution]. As the Phi angle [137.508… degrees] is observed in the heavens, it is not unreasonable to favor Creation over random and accidental evolution. Although the likelihood of a Creator is a concession, we cannot know much about this Creator, other than his usage of Phi and its numbers are akin to a universal constant.
Phi is the square root of 5, multiplied by (.5), and the addition of (.5).
Saint Paul recognizes allegory as a tool to understand the Old Testament, but he offers no guidelines regarding when passages should or should not be interpreted in this manner [Gal 4:24]. The reliance upon allegory may suggest that Biblical texts, generally, and the Pauline Epistles, specifically, are not to be understood literally.
The inability of the average reader to appreciate explicit contradictions in writing is the reason why there are so many adherents to the written scripture. The Old Testament is clear: “For thou art an holy people unto the Lord [יְהֹוָה Jehovah] thy God, and the Lord [יְהֹוָה Jehovah] hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.” [Deuteronomy 14:2] The correct interpretation of the text is that the Jehovah is the God of Israel and this view is not contradicted by Saint Paul who writes that God is not a respecter of persons [Romans 2:11]. For anyone who confuses Jehovah with God there is a glaring contradiction between the statements in Deuteronomy and in Saint Paul, therefore, God and Jehovah must be treated as distinct entities.
With unintentional irony the Bible is called the “Good Book” wherein the Lord himself declares that he is the creator of evil [Isaiah 45:7]. Satan [H7854] is a proper noun derived from the verb [H7853] and means “accuser” and “satan” can either mean a mundane “adversary” [either personal or national] or a supernatural adversary, “Satan”. It can be said that individuals who oppose Jehovah and his tribal teachings are satanists.
All divine revelations of Scripture, whether the Pentateuch, the New Testament, or the Koran, have unknown origins. Many ancient secular books also have questionable provenances and, unlike Scripture, the scribal errors of the texts are mentally corrected by the reader and any improper conclusions that conflict with reason can be dismissed as human oversight.
The challenge of the pious idea of infallible texts is that the originals do not exist and the copies in our possession are have many variant readings. No single Bible can be presented today as the true Bible, for no one can be convinced that the correct text was chosen from the thousands of variants found in sixty six books.
The lacunae and grammatical mistakes found in the Torah are preserved by copyists today. There are no variants in the Koran which suggest either supernatural preservation or that the text was not disseminated until after the advent of printing.
In conclusion to this part, the issue with the Torah, the New Testament, and the Koran is that these texts are divinely inspired, yet they explicitly contradict one another. Therefore, when confronted with contradictions, only human reasoning can resolve the issue, that is, there is an incorrect premise. The partial resolution is that two of the three are not divinely inspired, however, based on reason alone, the true divine scripture cannot be identified. The human mind cannot determine if unreasonable statements are the product of unreasonable writers or originate in supernatural intelligence. Therefore, when pressed on the issue of divine scripture respond quickly: “I don’t know.”
The existence of the cosmos is often used as the prime evidence for God. The irrational number Phi is the basis for anatomical ratios found in animals and plants, along with the numbers 5, 13, 21, 34, 55, and 89. Humans, bats, and whales have five phalanges. Since we do not encounter animals with four or six or ten phalanges, this fact could suggest a common origin for the three species, that is, the theory of evolution is consistent with observations. As always with scientific theories, there is the likelihood that the theory is open to further revisions or possible outright rejection.
We cannot know if the origins of the Phi ratio was intentional [the theory of Creation] or accidental [the theory of evolution]. As the Phi angle [137.508… degrees] is observed in the heavens, it is not unreasonable to favor Creation over random and accidental evolution. Although the likelihood of a Creator is a concession, we cannot know much about this Creator, other than his usage of Phi and its numbers are akin to a universal constant.
Phi is the square root of 5, multiplied by (.5), and the addition of (.5).
√5=2.2360679775...
2.2360679775… ×.5=1.11803398875…
1.11803398875...+.5=1.61803398875…
Phi is 1.61803398875…
2.2360679775… ×.5=1.11803398875…
1.11803398875...+.5=1.61803398875…
Phi is 1.61803398875…
Judging by carnivores and omnivores, killing is natural, otherwise all animals would be herbivores.
When considering the size of the world, is right to conclude that the Creator is powerful,
The natural world can be understood by the human mind. Natural laws are not capricious, they do not change daily and are consistent through the last five centuries of scientific discovery. Therefore, the physical world seems to be an enduring construct.
The Creator does not regularly manifest himself to humanity, so his existence is from conjecture only. Until humanity reaches a certain development where scientific inquiry can thrive and the laws governing the universe can be discovered and disseminated, there would be no evidence for a rational inquiry into a Creator. The Creator would need to present himself regularly and at various locations worldwide, otherwise peoples not privileged to the revelation and future generations would doubt the oral tradition of a Creator as an old wives’ tales. Since there are no regularly manifestations by the Creator, we cannot be certain if he is indifferent to us or if he is unaware of us. His absence could be explained by his demise. Since he has not communicated with humanity in a clear and unambiguous manner, we must question the alleged manifestations of the Creator to various desert tribes as unreliable, as their testimony conflicts.
We have viewed [or listened] to the eight videos [to date] of Harrison Cother which document his struggle with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, his leaving the organization in 2020, and his reasoning for atheism. The challenge to seek and accept the truth is real, as the truth is ugly, so the seeker is not drawn to it, but repulsed by it.
It is our since pleasure to acknowledge Cother’s efforts towards the truth, as he is well spoken, deliberate, and his points demonstrate clear thinking. Cother states:
When considering the size of the world, is right to conclude that the Creator is powerful,
The natural world can be understood by the human mind. Natural laws are not capricious, they do not change daily and are consistent through the last five centuries of scientific discovery. Therefore, the physical world seems to be an enduring construct.
The Creator does not regularly manifest himself to humanity, so his existence is from conjecture only. Until humanity reaches a certain development where scientific inquiry can thrive and the laws governing the universe can be discovered and disseminated, there would be no evidence for a rational inquiry into a Creator. The Creator would need to present himself regularly and at various locations worldwide, otherwise peoples not privileged to the revelation and future generations would doubt the oral tradition of a Creator as an old wives’ tales. Since there are no regularly manifestations by the Creator, we cannot be certain if he is indifferent to us or if he is unaware of us. His absence could be explained by his demise. Since he has not communicated with humanity in a clear and unambiguous manner, we must question the alleged manifestations of the Creator to various desert tribes as unreliable, as their testimony conflicts.
We have viewed [or listened] to the eight videos [to date] of Harrison Cother which document his struggle with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, his leaving the organization in 2020, and his reasoning for atheism. The challenge to seek and accept the truth is real, as the truth is ugly, so the seeker is not drawn to it, but repulsed by it.
It is our since pleasure to acknowledge Cother’s efforts towards the truth, as he is well spoken, deliberate, and his points demonstrate clear thinking. Cother states:
The objective of this channel is to encourage ones [sic] to build a belief system based on evidence rather than emotion; to analyze different perspectives while attempting to be as unbiased and intellectually honest as possible.
6
As always, modern Christians have attained the truth with little or no effort, no personal discomfort, and no need to “analyze different perspectives”. Their truth feels good, virtuous, and right and so it is correct. Modern Christians always “show prejudice for or against something” and are never “free of deceit and untruthfulness”, as they do not seek the truth and “the ends” of their efforts to proselytize “justify the means”. Hearing the theological arguments and justifications for a given Biblical view are always dissatisfying and this is due almost entirely to the low threshold of rationalization. The intended audience for this nonsense must have the barest elementary education for these exegeses and explanations to be accepted.
For science to attain to the truth of nature, it must be honest. An aspect of being “intellectually honest” is to accept that one has made a mistake, such as an error in the methods utilized or in the conclusions from the evidence. One must fearlessly acknowledge one’s mistakes. To deny that a mistake exists is identical to denying reality and no one can hope to attain to truth through contesting what is plain for all to see. A truth of science has value, although rarely monetary value. Science has no goal or purpose other than finding aspects of the truth.
Oftentimes, new discoveries question previous conclusions and so the edifice of science is fluid and rarely settled. The modern Bible has been static since the issue of the validity of the Apocrypha was resolved in the late 19th century. One should not expect this Biblical stability to last indefinitely. For example, the Roman Church issued a new version, the third revision since the 16th century, of the Latin Bible in the late 20th century. Corrections and revisions are acceptable in the real world, the secular world, but, inexplicably, corrections and revisions are not permissible in the world of talking snakes and talking asses. The manner that modern Christians latch onto the modern Bible is beyond comprehension precisely because desperation is an irrational act.
The efforts of modern Christians to justify their beliefs is similar to historians who discover books on shelves and, from the meager dates found therein, attempt to create a complete chronology. In both cases, there is not enough evidence or data points to convince anyone that they are approaching the truth either of the cosmos or of history.
Promoters of the revealed Bible inevitably declare that it is the source of morality, however, the reader must have a sense of morality before reading the text, that is, the reader must know the conventional morality of good and evil. Otherwise, one would discover that it acceptable and profitable to lie and find one of the few Christian requirements is hating one’s father, mother, wife, children, and siblings [Genesis 20:1-16; Luke 14:26]. Modern Christians have ignored the Master’s clear statement and hate those who are not like themselves.
The individual without a sense of conventional morality would reasonably conclude that a woman’s lovers who are well endowed and have greater than normal seminal emissions is both enjoyable and beneficial [Ezekiel 23:20]. If there were only these three examples in the Bible, the opinion that it teaches morality would be questioned. However, as there are hundreds, if not thousands, of questionable actions in the Bible from the standpoint of morality, not to mention ethics, the Gentle Reader would do well to conclude that the Bible does not encourage neither reason nor proper morality, but obedience.
“God is in control” is a reassuring thought for irresponsible modern Christians, however, according to the Bible, God is not control [Ephesians 2:2; 2 Corinthians 4:4]. They “that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." - 2 Peter 3:16
Modern Christians invariably use fear and guilt as motivating factors to keep their congregants and to attract non believers. The “fear” of living and the “guilt” of being human are unknown to individuals who choose to live rationally. Reasonable people are immune to the fear of Hellfire and the guilt of sin. They are labeled as “lost”, because they are not motivated by emotion,
For science to attain to the truth of nature, it must be honest. An aspect of being “intellectually honest” is to accept that one has made a mistake, such as an error in the methods utilized or in the conclusions from the evidence. One must fearlessly acknowledge one’s mistakes. To deny that a mistake exists is identical to denying reality and no one can hope to attain to truth through contesting what is plain for all to see. A truth of science has value, although rarely monetary value. Science has no goal or purpose other than finding aspects of the truth.
Oftentimes, new discoveries question previous conclusions and so the edifice of science is fluid and rarely settled. The modern Bible has been static since the issue of the validity of the Apocrypha was resolved in the late 19th century. One should not expect this Biblical stability to last indefinitely. For example, the Roman Church issued a new version, the third revision since the 16th century, of the Latin Bible in the late 20th century. Corrections and revisions are acceptable in the real world, the secular world, but, inexplicably, corrections and revisions are not permissible in the world of talking snakes and talking asses. The manner that modern Christians latch onto the modern Bible is beyond comprehension precisely because desperation is an irrational act.
The efforts of modern Christians to justify their beliefs is similar to historians who discover books on shelves and, from the meager dates found therein, attempt to create a complete chronology. In both cases, there is not enough evidence or data points to convince anyone that they are approaching the truth either of the cosmos or of history.
Promoters of the revealed Bible inevitably declare that it is the source of morality, however, the reader must have a sense of morality before reading the text, that is, the reader must know the conventional morality of good and evil. Otherwise, one would discover that it acceptable and profitable to lie and find one of the few Christian requirements is hating one’s father, mother, wife, children, and siblings [Genesis 20:1-16; Luke 14:26]. Modern Christians have ignored the Master’s clear statement and hate those who are not like themselves.
The individual without a sense of conventional morality would reasonably conclude that a woman’s lovers who are well endowed and have greater than normal seminal emissions is both enjoyable and beneficial [Ezekiel 23:20]. If there were only these three examples in the Bible, the opinion that it teaches morality would be questioned. However, as there are hundreds, if not thousands, of questionable actions in the Bible from the standpoint of morality, not to mention ethics, the Gentle Reader would do well to conclude that the Bible does not encourage neither reason nor proper morality, but obedience.
“God is in control” is a reassuring thought for irresponsible modern Christians, however, according to the Bible, God is not control [Ephesians 2:2; 2 Corinthians 4:4]. They “that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." - 2 Peter 3:16
Modern Christians invariably use fear and guilt as motivating factors to keep their congregants and to attract non believers. The “fear” of living and the “guilt” of being human are unknown to individuals who choose to live rationally. Reasonable people are immune to the fear of Hellfire and the guilt of sin. They are labeled as “lost”, because they are not motivated by emotion,
Is it so wrong to be human after all?
Level 42
Level 42
7
Man has the right to exist under Natural Law and he does well to treat his fellow man as rational creatures. Although Natural Law is easier to practice than the hundreds edicts of divine texts, the existence of Natural Law was unknown until discovered by through human effort. Natural Law is based on the fact that man exists and from his existence emerge certain fundamental rights. The Gentle Researcher would do well to compare the rights of man as man under Natural Law and the lack of regard for the lives of men, woman, and children in the Old Testament.
Adherents of Biblical Christianity state that God is just and fair. Yet, once the open minded reader reaches the third chapter of Genesis, the proposition of a just God of the Bible is shown to be false. Eve is punished by God for eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the sham reason for this punishment is her disobedience to the prohibition to not eat. However, it is the man, not the woman, who was prohibited from eating of the tree found in the middle of the garden [Genesis 2:16-17]. The creation of the woman was after God forbade Adam, so she did not have personal knowledge of the prohibition; she only had second hand statements from the man concerning the forbidden fruit [Genesis 2:21-22]. From the text, it cannot be determined if Adam told Eve not to touch the fruit or if she added this guideline when talking with the serpent [Genesis 3:3]. Regardless of what Adam said to Eve, she had no knowledge of God and only had second hand information about God from Adam.
To be clear: Eve could not honestly say that she knows anything about God. In truth, she could only say that Adam said that God exists and that Adam said that God said that they are forbidden to eat the fruit. The subtle serpent asks “Yea, hath God said…” and Eve does not immediately answer the question, as she does not what God has said or not said. Eventually she says “God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”
From the account in Genesis, it is seems proper for God to punish Adam for his disobedience to the commandment, since Adam had personal knowledge of the prohibition. However, the punishment does not remove Adam’s acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil. In jurisprudence, there is the concept that the punishment must fit the crime. If the sin of Adam extends to his descendants today as held by certain Christian groups, then it can be said that Adam’s punishment was unjust [cf. Exodus 34:7]. Whereas the punishment of Eve for her actions is questionable, since her “knowledge” of the prohibition is known from tradition only and, as always, the Bible does not teach reason or causality, but obedience, generally, and obedience to tradition, specifically.
Therefore, the Bible teaches that it is acceptable to punish those who do not have first hand knowledge, provided they are given an oral account that cannot be verified and, as always, the oral account may be true of false.
Finally, the Serpent truthfully told Eve that she would not die, her eyes would be opened, she would be like God, and she would know good and evil [Genesis 3:4-5]. The honesty of the Serpent is confirmed: their [Adam and Eve] eyes were opened [Genesis 3:7] and they became like God, knowing good and evil [Genesis 3:22].
For various reasons, modern Bible believers also show deference to the twelve tribes of Israel, of which three tribes are known to exist today: Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. A just God, or a God “based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair”, is an impartial God, one who does not admire “abilities, qualities, or achievements” [Romans 2:11]. Orthodox Christianity teaches that the new covenant of Jesus replaced the old covenant of Israel, in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. This teaching was the historical position of the Roman Church, until the second Vatican council. Of course, Islam, unlike Judaism, recognizes Jesus as a prophet and teaches that Islam is the third and final divine revelation to man.
The main reason modern Bible believers place emphasis on the Judaism, generally, and the state of Israel, specifically, is the predictions found in the Bible concerning the “end times”. The reason that the Old Testament is full of predictions is that Hebrew is not a tense language and the honest translator must determine if the action is past, present, or future from the context. The Old Testament prophets can reasonably be translated in the past tense, however, this would nullify the centuries old protestant pastime of “Identify the Antichrist”. The Revelation of Jesus Christ is in the Greek language, so one there is no freedom in translating the tense. Of course, the text of this book that has come down to us is written with such a poor understanding of the Greek language that one can doubt that is it inspired, let alone infallible.
There is no inherent worth in man according to modern Christianity and this fact explains why people fare better when interacting with atheists than with Christians. When man is placed under the microscope of modern Christianity, only sin is seen. Atheists presume their audience are human and have dignity, whereas modern Christians know their audience are sinners. Sin is a flexible word and “means just what” the speaker chooses “it to mean — neither more nor less.”
Adherents of Biblical Christianity state that God is just and fair. Yet, once the open minded reader reaches the third chapter of Genesis, the proposition of a just God of the Bible is shown to be false. Eve is punished by God for eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the sham reason for this punishment is her disobedience to the prohibition to not eat. However, it is the man, not the woman, who was prohibited from eating of the tree found in the middle of the garden [Genesis 2:16-17]. The creation of the woman was after God forbade Adam, so she did not have personal knowledge of the prohibition; she only had second hand statements from the man concerning the forbidden fruit [Genesis 2:21-22]. From the text, it cannot be determined if Adam told Eve not to touch the fruit or if she added this guideline when talking with the serpent [Genesis 3:3]. Regardless of what Adam said to Eve, she had no knowledge of God and only had second hand information about God from Adam.
To be clear: Eve could not honestly say that she knows anything about God. In truth, she could only say that Adam said that God exists and that Adam said that God said that they are forbidden to eat the fruit. The subtle serpent asks “Yea, hath God said…” and Eve does not immediately answer the question, as she does not what God has said or not said. Eventually she says “God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”
From the account in Genesis, it is seems proper for God to punish Adam for his disobedience to the commandment, since Adam had personal knowledge of the prohibition. However, the punishment does not remove Adam’s acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil. In jurisprudence, there is the concept that the punishment must fit the crime. If the sin of Adam extends to his descendants today as held by certain Christian groups, then it can be said that Adam’s punishment was unjust [cf. Exodus 34:7]. Whereas the punishment of Eve for her actions is questionable, since her “knowledge” of the prohibition is known from tradition only and, as always, the Bible does not teach reason or causality, but obedience, generally, and obedience to tradition, specifically.
Therefore, the Bible teaches that it is acceptable to punish those who do not have first hand knowledge, provided they are given an oral account that cannot be verified and, as always, the oral account may be true of false.
Finally, the Serpent truthfully told Eve that she would not die, her eyes would be opened, she would be like God, and she would know good and evil [Genesis 3:4-5]. The honesty of the Serpent is confirmed: their [Adam and Eve] eyes were opened [Genesis 3:7] and they became like God, knowing good and evil [Genesis 3:22].
For various reasons, modern Bible believers also show deference to the twelve tribes of Israel, of which three tribes are known to exist today: Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. A just God, or a God “based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair”, is an impartial God, one who does not admire “abilities, qualities, or achievements” [Romans 2:11]. Orthodox Christianity teaches that the new covenant of Jesus replaced the old covenant of Israel, in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. This teaching was the historical position of the Roman Church, until the second Vatican council. Of course, Islam, unlike Judaism, recognizes Jesus as a prophet and teaches that Islam is the third and final divine revelation to man.
The main reason modern Bible believers place emphasis on the Judaism, generally, and the state of Israel, specifically, is the predictions found in the Bible concerning the “end times”. The reason that the Old Testament is full of predictions is that Hebrew is not a tense language and the honest translator must determine if the action is past, present, or future from the context. The Old Testament prophets can reasonably be translated in the past tense, however, this would nullify the centuries old protestant pastime of “Identify the Antichrist”. The Revelation of Jesus Christ is in the Greek language, so one there is no freedom in translating the tense. Of course, the text of this book that has come down to us is written with such a poor understanding of the Greek language that one can doubt that is it inspired, let alone infallible.
There is no inherent worth in man according to modern Christianity and this fact explains why people fare better when interacting with atheists than with Christians. When man is placed under the microscope of modern Christianity, only sin is seen. Atheists presume their audience are human and have dignity, whereas modern Christians know their audience are sinners. Sin is a flexible word and “means just what” the speaker chooses “it to mean — neither more nor less.”
You know that we are living in a material world.
Madonna
Madonna
8
The Roman Catholic dogma of the immortal soul dates from the early 16th century and this belief is shared by most protestant groups [Lateran V, held from 1512-17]. The possible reason for long delay in promulgating the dogma of an immortal soul is that the Old Testament explicitly denies this possibility [Ezekiel 18:20]. The logical issue concerning the immortal soul is that an immortal soul cannot be corrupted or damaged by itself or an external force, otherwise, the soul would not be immortal. Since the immortal soul cannot be harmed, the modern Christian obsession with avoiding sin is inexplicable.
Modern Christians are heard to say that departed Christians have “gone home” or have “returned to God.” These phrases sound pleasant and reassuring, however, these statements must be wrong, as the person has never been to Heaven and so it cannot be called a home, nor has the person has never been with God, so he cannot return to God.
If the deceased person is not meant, but the soul, then this is a heretical statement fraught with difficulties. If the soul was in Heaven before birth, then it would be proper to say the soul of the deceased is returning to God, however returning to God is not a Christian concept, but a Gnostic belief [cf. Hinduism]. If souls are pre existent and not created at conception, then one wonders the uproar by modern Christians concerning induced abortions, as the immortal soul will leave the fetus and will return to God. Of course, the preexistence of souls is an underlying belief of reincarnation. At the death of the body, the immortal soul can return to God or remain in the world in another body.
Modern Christians are heard to say that departed Christians have “gone home” or have “returned to God.” These phrases sound pleasant and reassuring, however, these statements must be wrong, as the person has never been to Heaven and so it cannot be called a home, nor has the person has never been with God, so he cannot return to God.
If the deceased person is not meant, but the soul, then this is a heretical statement fraught with difficulties. If the soul was in Heaven before birth, then it would be proper to say the soul of the deceased is returning to God, however returning to God is not a Christian concept, but a Gnostic belief [cf. Hinduism]. If souls are pre existent and not created at conception, then one wonders the uproar by modern Christians concerning induced abortions, as the immortal soul will leave the fetus and will return to God. Of course, the preexistence of souls is an underlying belief of reincarnation. At the death of the body, the immortal soul can return to God or remain in the world in another body.
We are spirits in the material world.
The Police
The Police
9
Leo Strauss teaches that western civilization is held together by the majority opinion of believing both in God and in the Bible. With their declining importance, the west finds itself in a crisis of meaning and of purpose. “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.” is understood that the belief in God is no longer the motivation behind the actions and accomplishments of western civilization. The phrase “we have killed him” is ambiguous and could be interpreted as “we” philosophers, “we” Germans, or “we” Europeans.
While the western nations are in a crisis of meaning, there is no doubt that the atheists in those countries have found meaning in their individual lives. However, personal meaning cannot be transformed into a national purpose and so the crisis of the west will continue until there a defined goal that unites western countries. World destroying asteroids or an extraterrestrial invasion are two examples that would unify the west.
There are no apologetics for fairies, pixies, or leprechauns, firstly, because there are no fanatical believers in the little people and, secondly, there is no eager audience for pro pixie propaganda that can be financially exploited. From these two facts, the Gentle Researcher can envision a time when the promoters of modern Christianity are so scarce that one can go for years without encountering them.
Christianity has apologetics or “defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse” which suggests that the doctrines are contradictory and not self evident. Of course, defending religious doctrines is not synonymous with seeking the truth. The believe in a transcendent God, or a God whose existence is “beyond the normal or physical level”, is one thing, but the idea that this transcendent God can become a physical man is something else. The non physical God who becomes man can no longer be describe as transcendental and this contradiction cannot be explained or justified. In fine, Christian explanations of their beliefs and feelings are “always so daring that it is enough to make a philologian run up a wall.”
The number of people who have left their respective Churches due to either emotional or physical abuse and will never return to be dominated by petty priests and malicious ministers is significant. These individuals find organized religion repugnant and will not raise their children in the church and so the there will be increasing numbers of people with no interest in becoming regular church attendees under self appointed tyrants who claim to have a “calling” from God.
Since man is a rational creature and is almost infinitely malleable, then the possibility exists that future generations will value reason over emotional beliefs. Of course, over the last five hundred years there is no evidence that the mankind as a whole is becoming more rational. If humanity’s fate is written in the stars, then the mind will triumph in the age of Aquarius.
While the western nations are in a crisis of meaning, there is no doubt that the atheists in those countries have found meaning in their individual lives. However, personal meaning cannot be transformed into a national purpose and so the crisis of the west will continue until there a defined goal that unites western countries. World destroying asteroids or an extraterrestrial invasion are two examples that would unify the west.
There are no apologetics for fairies, pixies, or leprechauns, firstly, because there are no fanatical believers in the little people and, secondly, there is no eager audience for pro pixie propaganda that can be financially exploited. From these two facts, the Gentle Researcher can envision a time when the promoters of modern Christianity are so scarce that one can go for years without encountering them.
Christianity has apologetics or “defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse” which suggests that the doctrines are contradictory and not self evident. Of course, defending religious doctrines is not synonymous with seeking the truth. The believe in a transcendent God, or a God whose existence is “beyond the normal or physical level”, is one thing, but the idea that this transcendent God can become a physical man is something else. The non physical God who becomes man can no longer be describe as transcendental and this contradiction cannot be explained or justified. In fine, Christian explanations of their beliefs and feelings are “always so daring that it is enough to make a philologian run up a wall.”
The number of people who have left their respective Churches due to either emotional or physical abuse and will never return to be dominated by petty priests and malicious ministers is significant. These individuals find organized religion repugnant and will not raise their children in the church and so the there will be increasing numbers of people with no interest in becoming regular church attendees under self appointed tyrants who claim to have a “calling” from God.
Since man is a rational creature and is almost infinitely malleable, then the possibility exists that future generations will value reason over emotional beliefs. Of course, over the last five hundred years there is no evidence that the mankind as a whole is becoming more rational. If humanity’s fate is written in the stars, then the mind will triumph in the age of Aquarius.
If we lose the time before us, the future will ignore us.
Level 42
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
James 1:8
Level 42
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
James 1:8