mp.1

1) Holy books are meaningless because they are factually incorrect. (The Bible is not a textbook)

In this section I will be referring almost exclusively to Christianity, simply because I have not read the holy book of any other religion. 

For some, the Bible is absolutely literal. For those people I can say but little. The Earth was not created 6000 years ago. This is as much a historical fact as any other. To uphold such a belief is to be on par with those who say the Earth is flat, or the center of the universe. 

For those who interpret the Bible metaphorically, it almost cannot be invalidated factually. (Obviously if it were proven Jesus never lived, this would cause Christianity some inconvenience.) Many have learned to allow passages that simply illustrate a lack of understanding to be taken in that context. Obviously the writers of the Bible did not know everything about the universe; otherwise the Bible could indeed be used as a textbook. What is most interesting, though, are the contradictions of the Bible, and it is these contradictions that can invalidate it without any striking claims against the facts of the Bible.

An example of this comes in the story of Jesus' birth. Matthew and Luke claim that Jesus was born of a virgin, while Mark, John, and Paul seem to be unaware of this miracle. Matthew incorrectly quotes Isaiah 7:14 as "The virgin will be with child..." In fact, the Hebrew word which is often mistranslated as "virgin" means only "young woman." It almost seems as though, in an effort to validate Jesus as the Messiah, the two gospel writers mistranslated a passage in Isaiah, and hurriedly changed Jesus' story to fit prophecy rather than facts. Yet it is the Bible itself that points out this inconsistency, not any direct study of Mary's sexual history. 

The most obvious example, though, is the irony of the nature of God in the Old Testament. By human standards, he is wrathful, jealous, genocidal, infanticidal, vengeful, pestilential; in other words, were the God of the Old Testament to come in human form, he would be, by human standards, an awful, nasty person. In fact, all the more ironically, it seems he would be in almost every way Jesus' opposite. Christians use "What would Jesus do," in lieu of "What would the God of the Old Testament do" for a reason; an eye for an eye would be the best you could hope for. Unfortunately, the Old Testament is largely ignored by most Christians, save for a few tips in Proverbs and Psalms. This failing usually causes Christians to see their God as peaceful, identical in nature to Jesus, when it is difficult to find scripture that shows a side of the Christian God that resembles Jesus at all. 

I look forward to the day that, rather than following, word for word, books that are millennia old, we subject our spiritual ideas to reality. There is no reason that spirituality cannot take its place as a field of knowledge, rather than a blatant ignorance of knowledge. Through strict adherence to holy books, religion sets up a context in which we can never learn anything new about spirituality; it is this cage that we must escape if we are ever to leave the dark ages in terms of spiritual knowledge. 

the inherent flaw

from my introduction.

"To set the context of this discussion, when I speak of religion, I speak of any divinely inspired faith, which involves a spiritual connection, an interest in the betterment of mankind, and the pursuit of enlightenment in whatever form. I make the assumption, in which I may not agree with the majority, that all religions stem from the same central spiritual centrality of the world and the universe. I do not limit this to any list of religions."

The problem with this is that when I said, "I may not agree with the majority," it was an incredibly gross understatement. No religion leaves room for the truth of any other religion; all are by nature mutually exclusive. While I did not believe this late in my Christian years, it is undeniably true. Every religion believes it has the monopoly on the truth and that every other religion is basically intolerably false. This assertion of our holy books is largely ignored in today's culture in favor of pragmatism, but it's there in full force for anyone who cares to look. A Muslim who believes he can live at peace with his Christian neighbors is in direct opposition with the Koran. 

"Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. ...[I]f they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evildoers." (2:190-93)

Christianity is only slightly less violent because, thanks to the new testament, the wrathful, jealous God of the old testament is largely ignored, or assumed to have changed his ways. Nonetheless, all Christians must very clearly believe that anyone who does not accept Christ, and Christ alone, will burn in hell for eternity. If they are right, the majority of everyone who has lived since Christ's death will suffer forever from unimaginable torment. 

Thus by grouping all religions together in defense from the attacks of atheists and agnostics, I made a crucial flaw. Religions are by no means capable of cooperation, so long as their followers are true to their cause. If I had written the discussion in defense of Christianity alone, it would have been much more secure, but as it stands, it crumbles under the truth of the divisiveness of religion. 

the masterpiece

The following discussion, as I called it, I considered to be my master argument against atheists and agnostics who attacked Christianity. It was posted on September 9, 2007; a time when I had probably already walked off the cliff and philosophically left Christianity, but still clung to it nominally. As the comments of an astute friend pointed out, if I really believed everything in this discussion, I could not be a Christian, but I still hoped at the time that he was wrong. 

I plan to debunk each of my arguments in individual posts, hopefully without drawing out this process. As I have already said, my arguments in this discussion were fundamentally flawed. This effort may thus be somewhat unnecessary, but it will only serve as a beginning.

"in defense of religion."

This discussion, if you will, is my effort to explain to agnostics and atheists why, after your logical and illogical arguments, your acclaimed knowledge and practical understanding of the world, religion is STILL HERE. It is not a matter of stubbornness, it is not a matter of ignorance. It is a matter of faith, and of the truth and beauty we still see in ancient wisdom. For truth is not something that changes with time. 

There are several arguments that disappoint me every time I hear them used, for they only illustrate a misunderstanding of religion in my eyes. The only valid arguments I see against religion are due to the fact that religions must inherently be made up of imperfect people, and while that is disappointing, it is the reason we have religion in the first place; to try to become more enlightened and aware of the world around us, and our impact on it. In our foolishness, at the least, we have the initiative to admit in our sin we are not perfect, and by our faith we do not know all the answers. 

These are the arguments against religion I will try to dispute.
1) Holy books are are meaningless because they are factually incorrect.
2) Religion is sexually repressive.
3) Religion supports fanaticism and extremism. 
4) Religion causes wars.
5) Religion is about heaven and hell.
6) Religion implies submission.
7) Faith implies ignorance. 

To set the context of this discussion, when I speak of religion, I speak of any divinely inspired faith, which involves a spiritual connection, an interest in the betterment of mankind, and the pursuit of enlightenment in whatever form. I make the assumption, in which I may not agree with the majority, that all religions stem from the same central spiritual centrality of the world and the universe. I do not limit this to any list of religions. 

1) Holy books are meaningless because they are factually incorrect.

This first argument fails to recognize the purpose of religious literature altogether. I have heard it all too often that one can either believe in the Bible (or their respective holy book), or in evolution, one or the other. I continue to fail to understand where the Bible rules out evolution as a manner of creation. You see, in reading a holy book, there is a key that people forget again and again; context is EVERYTHING. If any holy book was written in the first century with a Darwinian description of sea creatures becoming land creatures becoming apes becoming humans, it would have been thrown out! It would have been burned! It would have been useless and completely forgotten in days, and we would not know a thing about it in this century. 
We were made into curious creatures, not to be told everything about how the world works in our youth as a species. We are meant to discover. Holy books were never meant as a factual references to the way the world works; they are spiritual guides. To call a holy book meaningless due to factual inaccuracy is to call "Romeo and Juliet" meaningless simply because it is fictional, and to call "Starry Night" worthless because it does not assist in supporting the wall on which it hangs. 

The Bible is not a textbook.

2) Religion is sexually repressive.

First, to anyone who would make this argument, I say read Song of Solomon in the Bible. An entire book of the Bible is devoted to describing the intimate exploration of love and sexuality of a couple. Having read this book, it is hard to understand the sexual repression the church has enforced in the past. The problem the church has faced is that sex is always a dangerous topic; it can be the source of great beauty or great pain. In the past, the response of religion has been restrictions, rules, limitations, to protect its people. Unfortunately, the misinterpretation of these guidelines have ironically caused much pain, and only of late are we beginning to understand this and become more tolerant. 
What we forgot in creating these rules was that whatever spiritual being created or guided the creation of the world, created sex. It depressed me greatly to once hear a fellow Christian simply say "sex is sinful." To me, it is no sin, it is a gift to us; it is a glimpse of the joy He had in creating us. To create life is sacred; the purpose of religious guidelines is to preserve the holiness of sex. Sexual repression is only a misguided attempt to protect the sanctity of intercourse, and does not represent the true interest of religion. 

He who created the world, created sex. 

3) Religion supports fanaticism and extremism.

This is another case in which the views of the few do not represent the views of the many. There are those persons who need a strict set of rules to live by, and cling to religion as the answer to exactly what is wrong and exactly what is right. These persons bend religion to justify their own beliefs and opinions, and often do their best to force these opinions onto others' in God's name. 
I cannot stress the word opinion enough. Fanatics have strayed far away from the spiritual connection and pursuit of enlightenment of which I have spoken, and stepped into the realm of playing God and telling others how they should live, even harming or killing others in the name of God. Religion does its best to guide our lives, to lead us to enlightenment, and to make us lights unto the world. It is nothing but unfortunate that these guidelines can be made into rules and regulations on what is good and what is evil. 

Religious fanatics have forgotten mercy, compassion, and forgiveness.

4) Religion causes wars.

Religion has been used by many for purposes that are not in the interest of the religious. As far as I know, no divinely inspired religion condones war; in fact, the majority, if not all, speak specifically against killing. Religious wars occur when a person believes that their God wishes to destroy those of another faith. If it is the case, though, that all divinely inspired religions stem from the same spiritual centrality, then this is simply nonsense. 
Religious wars therefore come from the belief that one religion is better or more right than another. This is a commonly held perception; that one's religion is correct and all others are incorrect; but it simply cannot be the case. If only one religion is correct, then there would be no spiritual connection, no meaning, no fulfilment in any others. And yet, any religion which lacks this meaning dies out. To kill in the name of one's religion is to give up on humanity. If one is truly faithful to one's religion, they have faith that their spiritual guide will speak to members of other religions and guide them on the path to enlightenment, through whatever journey He deems appropriate. 

To kill in the name of religion is to lack faith in one's religion and the wisdom of one's spiritual guide.

5) Religion is about heaven and hell.

Many see the primary goal of religion as simply to make into heaven, or whatever equivalent. Even more sadly, others see the goal of religion as to avoid going to hell. Fortunately, religion is more complicated than that. Many simplify religion into something along the lines of "do this, this, and don't do this and this, and you're safely in heaven." What they fail to realize is that God understands us; He created us, and for Christians, He even became human. He knows there is more to life than black and white, good and evil. He created us with minds of our own, so that we could learn from life and come to truly understand what good and evil mean.
The ultimate goal of religion is not to get into heaven or avoid going to hell. It is, as I have said more than once now, enlightenment, the betterment of humanity, and spirituality. Heaven should not be the focus of life, any more than the focus of a journey should be its end. A journey creates a destination, not vice versa, and the focus of religion is on how we live, not how we die. Heaven is a reward, but we should not focus all our actions on just trying to make it there. 

Religion is about life. 

6) Religion implies submission.

The church is to many an authoritarian regime, deciding what is wrong and what is right, deciding how we should live, deciding our lives for us. This assumption forgets that, when humanity was created, we were given freedom of choice and freedom of thought. Alongside the assumption that religion is all about getting into heaven, many believe that it is about following rules that limit our freedom and choice. Religion is not a limitation of choice, though, but a celebration of it! If we were created to follow rules, we would never have been given free minds. The very fact that we are able to think for ourselves shows us that we are meant to discover our own truths. 
In many cases governments have misused religion to repress and control the people, but this is not the true purpose of religion. It is another corruption that has led many to lose faith, but religion in its true form does not demand submission. In its true form, religion gives us choice, and when we choose poorly, gives us forgiveness and love. It is about understanding the infinite love we are offered, and reflecting that love to those around us. And so, those who seek to oppress the people through religion are not divinely inspred at all.

Religion implies freedom.

7) Faith implies ignorance.

Perhaps the greatest misunderstanding of religion is that of "blind faith." Humanity does not like the idea of being blind. Perhaps it is the result of too many religious persons responding to questions regarding their religion with the simple response "I have faith," but it seems to have come to represent ignorance. There are those who, when questioned, avoid thinking for fear that they will be proven wrong, but thesepeople do not represent the faithful; this only proves they lack faith in the truth of their religion. The truly faithful are quick to question their religion, with great confidence that it will be proven true.
Faith does not say that, what we don't know, we don't care about. Faith says that we as humans DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING. We do not have all the answers. In our search for knowledge, we seem to see the pattern that, the more we know, the more we realize we know nothing at all. Quantum physics has completely blown our world apart. In this way, the more we learn about the world, the more faith we need. We need faith that, somehow, something is holding everything together. Faith is not about ignoring science or contemporary knowledge, it is the belief that there is always something more. 

Faith is our admittance that we do not know everything.

The Last Poem.

Black pines will quiver in the winter wind,
With limbs empty as oaks. They whisper "see,"
And few receive their fervent, voiceless friend,
Evolved and freed from heavy forms. The key,
The path through fallow fiery wrath is this,
That branches thrust with air will thrive as ash.
The number of the trusted friends, still stunned,
But strung together under love will be
Surprised to see the snow so soon to sooth;
To ease as into ice, to loosen truth.
Approach cold ocean's shores, approaching bliss;
A torch for hope and joy e'er shone so brash.
A cough will cause the rocks to fall on throngs; All
caught, all calm, all scarred, the Earth all wrong.

To have a home would always be an earthly bond.

intro to - The Last Poem.

This is the only poem I will ever post on this blog.

If I post another one, shhhhh. No one else will notice. It'll be our little secret.

I know it will have to be part of this blog for two reasons. First, the name of this blog comes out of the poem, and thus it gives a very simple explanation. Second, this is a very peculiar poem in that it is the only project I started as a Christian and finished as an Animist. While it would not be inaccurate to call me an Agnostic, I believe Animist is slightly more accurate, for reasons I will discuss later. If you're curious, that shift happened between lines 6 and 7, although I hope it isn't discernable. 

I will post the poem on its own, and reference it as need be. 

quotations.

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." 
--Thomas Jefferson
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruit? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." 
--James Madison
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." 
--John Adams
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." 
--George Washington, in a treaty with Tripoli signed by John Adams.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world as far as science can reveal it." 
--Albert Einstein
"Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis." 
--Pierre-Simon Laplace, when Napoleon wondered how the famous mathematician had managed to write his book without mentioning God. 
"The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next." 
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

casting off

It has been years since I have used blogspot. I am new.

In the past, I have often used blogs to explain to atheists and agnostics why their arguments against Christianity and religion as a whole have failed to convince the majority of the religious. I have defended Christianity for as long as I can remember. Over time, though, my arguments came from a source further and further from the root of religion, and into the realm of pure spirituality. I followed this path for some time before, like Wiley Coyote, I looked down to find I had already walked off the cliff. 

Now, having left religion, I feel drawn to argue against my former self; to theoretically defeat my own arguments. No doubt this will prove a strange endeavour. I feel it is part of moving outward, though; a sort of pushing off shore, to no longer be bound by a holy book. As this blog progresses, I hope that it follows outward, lightening in debates over religion and focusing on spirituality. The debates should thus be only a foundation, a casting off and setting sail to follow the whispers of the wind.