More Bible Thoughts

Continuing my review of the bible - I am still in Exodus.

God is a major jerk. He sent Moses to plea for the release of the Jews from Pharaoh but then "hardened Pharaoh's heart" preventing him from releasing the Jews. What this means is that God deliberately forced the hands of Pharaoh for the sole reason of reigning terror, plague, and vengeance down upon the Egyptians. Had God simply let Pharaoh decide on his own the Jews might have been released without the various plagues raining upon the land.

God is unforgiving and cruel for anyone does pretty much anything wrong shall be stoned to death
God is also a misogynist for women may be stoned to death based on the accusation of a single person; Men require at least two people to accuse. This means that the bible assumes that women's value is so low that the opposing word of a single person is all that is needed to put them to death; but, that a conspiracy of at least two people is needed to execute a man.

God outlines that it is ok to have slaves. This is a form of evil. It is also not only accepted, but expected, for people to view those of another land or race as inferior to their own. This, too, is evil.

[Note - the above was written shortly after consuming the passages.... the below was written from the notes several months later. There are bound to be misrecollections represented]

For some reason I took the note that "Aaron married another Levite" which means it must be a contradiction to something somewhere else.... but I cannot recall what or where.

The book has a tremendous volume of the number seven. Why?

The book has a prohibition against shaving one's head; which appears to have evolved in interpretation into the modern Hasidic Jew hairstyle requirements.

Accusers must be willing to throw the first stone in a stoning which, to me, seems a reasonable requirement. If someone if making false claims then the murder of the other party is entirely their doing.

Financial requirements are outlined in this book:
One must forgive debts to anyone of one's own race After seven years

The King shall not acquire too much wealth nor shall he acquire too large of an army.

Take care of the poor and widows

All three of these should be brought forth to anyone who is rich and in a position of authority that claims to live by the word of the bible.

The Lord has strong opinions on how to treat the lands and towns of those who are evil:
Towns or states that do evil in the eyes of the Lord must be eradicated and never rebuilt.

Plunder from evil towns is to be burnt in the center of town and never taken home

Yet the Lord preaches genocide against all Nonbelievers if they are in the land that the Lord's people want; which, to me, is pretty evil. Perhaps that is why the promised land was promised to be overflowing crops and yet that is not the reality of Israel. It is also stated that aliens are less important than people Of the Lord; meaning that foreigners have, literally, less value. These concepts are also pretty intrinsically evil.

Additionally it is outlined that the Lord gives the words to the prophets. If what they say does not come true then they are not his words. Those claiming to have the words from me falsely are to be put to death; those stating the word of other gods are to be put to death.
Couple that with the directive of "do not deviate from instructions" and there is a situation in which every clergy member who ever made a false prediction of anything must be killed as a false prophet.

The book outlines an extensive health code for food:
No pork. No shellfish. No birds of prey. No insects. No carrion.

How often do we see the no pork and no shellfish rules followed with vast protests surrounding anyone who consumes either of these types of food? Why are these explicit rules so easily ignored when others rules, mentioned only as often, are held to so strongly?


There are some serious property restrictions laid forth:
Firstborn is to be sacrificed to the Lord of all livestock.

Some of the people of the Lord are never allowed to own any property Nor are their children or their children's children ever; these are a specific clan.

Yet, with all of the capital punishment outlined it is explicitly stated that there shall be no human sacrifice. 

Thou shall never return to Egypt seems to be a good recommendation based on how the chosen people were treated... and given how that country is today it still seems a wise idea. 

An odd note, that fits no where else, is that sculptures are not allowed. This is interpreted to mean cast idols but it really seems to explicitly mean ALL sculptures are not allowed. It seems such an arbitrary prohibition.

You will one day forget what God did for your ancestors do not then become wicked

Reset - fiction

The plague appeared in several locations all at once; meaning it was almost certainly deliberately created and introduced.

The Message - rewritten - fiction

Mankind had conquered the distances between stars generations ago.

Rebellion, Redemption, Release, and Forgiveness - fiction

The rebellion was quick.

Symbiosis - fiction

Yahweh built the worlds well.

Rapture - fiction

The world is filled with a lot of the Faithful.

Genesis - fiction

Adam knew, when he woke, that things were different.

Temple Trouble by H. Beam Piper - Review

Piper generated several linked story sets, one of which is the "paratime" set. Paratime is, essentially, a multiverse and there is a prime civilization that has figured out how to slide between realities and governs all of the rights to mine, etc all of the various realities in a variety of ways.

Temple Trouble deals with an isolated incident in which a troublesome world is only marginally controllable by religion and the paratime people from the prime world who are trying to exploit the world for resources that the world is not using and probably never will due to the divergences in its sociological development.

This is one of several stories I have encountered in which religion is portrayed solely as a means to control the population. It does pose some interesting questions, one of which it does very overtly toward the end.

This story, while familiar in a lot of ways and somewhat predictable (but it might not have been when it was written and published) is still a worthwhile read and I was most entertained as I "read" it in the car.

Religion and the Love/Hate Emotion

A college friend of mine pointed out once that love and hate are not opposites. She pointed out that they are the same and that apathy is their opposite.

My experience since then has found this to have been, and to still be, profoundly true.

Both love and hate can drive a person insane. Both can induce irrationality in a person otherwise completely rational. Both can alter the courses of lives. Both can be powerful motivators.

Love and hate are the opposite faces of the same coin. The coin of passion.
The coin of passion is much like The Force in Star Wars. It has a light side and a dark side. 
The light side is used construct, build and help while the dark side is used to destroy and aggregate power and for revenge.

Obviously the difference is the direction of the passion and not the passion itself.

Love is much like the Jedi path while hate is the path of the Sith.

The Star Wars analogy, of course, is not a new one for any fans of the series (nor people who have even heard of it) and I am not claiming any originality in making it.

What interests me more than the Star Wars analogy to love/hate is the realization that religion is just an application of this emotional coin. Religious fervor is much like the irrational motivations people have when they are deeply in love or when they are deeply motivated by hatred.
Those affected by such devotion to a religion have the same level of responses to their faith and the doctrines of it that people have toward the object of their love/hate.

When people let this emotion warp and twist their lives they turn into hate machines that are willing to apply that hate toward everything and anything that opposes their faith. They will kill. They will torture. They will maim. They will steal. They will do all of the evil and bad things that people do when they hate something.
When people have a religious indoctrination based on the emotionally less-mature path that is easier to manage through destruction they are a detriment to ALL of mankind. They become examples of why humanity shouldn't be allowed to survive and become examples of why religion is bad. They make me glad that I lack any and all faith in anything because I never want to experience the level of darkness that their faith brings into their heart. There are far too many people like this in the news because they can do such a disproportionate amount of damage to others and that is scary to everyone else.
Conversely, though, are the people who find religion enhances their lives in positive ways.
I have many friends of faith. Many friends whose faith enriches their lives. Many friends whose faith brings them peace and comfort. Many friends whose faith is absolute and drives them to love their fellow man with the same heart-wrenching level of compassion as they have for the people they know in person. Many people who make me want to be a better person. Many people whose faith in their deity makes me angry that the gift of faith was never bestowed on me. These people are some of the best people I know and their love and tolerance makes the world a better place. There people, when they make the news, generate heart-warming stories that restore a small portion of my humanity. Unfortunately we do not have enough examples and stories of people helping others. We don;t have these stories because they are boring. Fear sells because it is actionable. Happiness does not sell because it is not.

Religious faith, therefore, must be the same emotion.
I find this revelation interesting that religion is just an extension of the love/hate emotion.

Which leads me to wonder if people who lack emotion or have trouble parsing love or hate or whose love/hate baseline is set at a different "neutral" position have vastly different (this is a relative term) brain structures or chemistries in a certain structure of their brains.

Just another idle ponderance that infected my mind and would not leave until I wrote it down. Feel free to comment, discuss, add links to relevant scientific articles, etc.

Second Half of Numbers

I have now listened to the remainder of Numbers.

I have found that it contains more of the same from the first half of the book and a few additional items of note:
First - it is important to note that this part of The Bible reinforces the idea that if the chosen people go against the word of their god that they shall be shunned and condemned to hideous methods of death. Their god is a punitive god with no tolerance for anyone to believe in any other way of doing things.
Second - all casting of idols is extremely prohibited.
Third - if god tells you to commit genocide and take the lands of those you kill it is acceptable to do so.
Fourth - taking virgin women as spoils of war and dividing them among the soldiers is not only acceptable, but encouraged. Women of your enemy are property and not people.
Fifth - livestock are spoils of war.
Sixth - Women are counted in the same manner as livestock when counting spoils of war (this warrants being mentioned twice because of the way in which it was covered).
Seventh - If a man brings a woman from another religious group to his bed then it is permissible, or even encouraged, to slay them both while in the act of fornication.
Eighth - The spoils of the conquering of the promised land shall be contained within the tribe to whom they were initially given. This means that anyone holding those lands is not permitted to marry outside their tribe for fear that those lands may transfer from one tribe to another.
Ninth - Incest is permissible to preserve land ownership.
Tenth - There are rules against murder and a means to seek refuge if you commit manslaughter.
Eleventh - there is a dictated structure for how to divide the spoils of conquering and how to configure cities and the land surrounding them.

Upon completion of the second half of Numbers I am still not seeing anything to change my mind that the god of the old testament is a vindictive god who has created a structure to favor one family and one race of people over all others and whom is teaching that men are the only people who matter - women are property and their worth is less than that of the land that they might inherit and equal to a variety of livestock.
I have yet to encounter anything that seems overtly wise or redeeming in the stories I have listened to. I am still at a loss for how so many people can make this literary work the foundation of their lives and find solace in its contents. I am also at a loss for how so many people can find the rules contained within acceptable when they are such promoters of racism and sexism.

Perhaps the remainder of the books of The Bible and the other religions texts will alter my opinion by the time I have finished but I feel that my thoughts will only be reinforced.

Morality and Religion

I recently read an article examining the "New Atheist" movement and a counter movement that wants to study religion and how it has impacted civilization and whether there is a group evolutionary advantage to being religious versus being secular.

I found the article interesting and it clearly highlights two major arguments in the study of religion.
The first is that religion has caused a great deal of badness in the world and is the constant source of oppression and willful ignorance amongst a great many people.
The second is that there must be a reason we embrace it so boldly when it is the root of so many evils.

The article then proceeds to discuss the champions of each of these points. It refers to those supporting the first point as "New Atheists" and does not provide a specific name for the group supporting the second argument.

What I find interesting about both groups is that they seem to feel, at least based on the article's exemplification of them, that these two points are mutually exclusive and must be in competition with one-another.
This is far from the truth.
If one examines the situation closely one quickly and clearly sees that one is an examination of where we came from to get where we are today with religion and the other is trying to drive a religion-free end point for society. These are not mutually-exclusive, but valid actions to be taken. One informs us of where we've been and the other directs us to where we are going. The best way to get to where you want to go is to understand where you have been and the path you have already traversed. The New Atheists (at least as painted by the article) are attacking the best hope for understanding why religion is a powerful force among humanity. Understanding that force will be the key to defusing it and allowing for a reasonable and logical path in the future.
What this tells me is that the New Atheists have succumbed to is religious fervor. Their dogma is the eliminate all religion from the world and that appears to include the study of how it came to be. They are what I have previously referred to as Atheists whereas those who are simply lacking faith in any god are atheists. The capital letter matters.
I find this incredibly ironic as the force trying to wipe out religion is doing so with a drive that can only be described as equal to that which powered the Crusades and currently drives the concept of Jihad. They are forming a new religion. They are fueling the "science versus religion" concept and they are generating more push against science by their active drive to force people away from their faith. Those people are embracing their faith in higher levels as a defense mechanism to this attack on their religion and belief structure. The greater the attack on religion from this minority the greater the defensive response will be from the religious. The greater the attack the more damage the attackers are doing to their own cause.
Interestingly enough - this also holds true for all other religions. The more ANY religion drives an attack (whether intellectual, political or physical) against the non-believers the more they damage their own cause in the eyes of EVERYONE who is not a fanatic.

I am not religious. I fail to understand the very idea of creating a religion. I fail to understand how someone can have such blind faith. I fail to understand how anyone can have faith at all. I REQUIRE evidence to belief. Sometimes I find myself holding a belief and not knowing what evidence supports it but then, after reflection, I have always found evidence that reinforces the belief. My belief that humanity is generally stupid and easily led while also being generally neutral or good is built on years of being amongst humanity on a daily basis. My belief that my dog will not try to kill me is based on years of him treating me with love and respect. My belief that pizza is going to be delicious is based on a huge rate of success in which even bad pizza is good (although there are certainly exceptions to this one).
I fall into the atheist category rather than the Atheist category because I simply fail to believe. I do believe that religion has caused a lot of harm in this world but I also believe it has caused a lot of good. I have friends who are very religions but fail to proselytize their religious and condemn that don't follow. I respect those friends greatly. I respect their beliefs greatly. I actually envy them for having been given the gift of faith and the peace it brings them.
I also have people who pass through my life regularly who are very religious and do make condemning statements of those who do not believe as they do. People who believe that withholding legal rights from a population of people because it is not as the bible commands it is the right thing to do (I'll limit my comment on how they don't follow ALL of the commands of The Bible to this one sentence). These people I cannot help but condemn and take offense from. There people, invariably, make comments that apply to me and my opinions in a judging manner. This means that they are either judging me silently all the time or that they are hypocrites. Either way; I cannot abide by that stance without taking notice of it.

So far I have covered the topic of religion quite clearly in this post, at least for the purposes intended and you, the reader, are probably wondering how I intend to fit morality into this picture. That answer is quite simple: religious extremists invariably question the morality of people who disbelieve.
In fact, I think if it came down to it all of the religious people would align and ally themselves against the atheists and Atheists on this point. They, quite simply, believe that one needs religion to tell people what is right and wrong.

This is a concept that I find offensive.
I am clearly able to make a determination between right and wrong. I, clearly, do not go out creating havoc and pain and suffering amongst my fellow man. I do this not because any religion tells me to avoid these things. I do not do them because I know they are wrong.

The article I linked above outlines a few studies that show religious people tend to be more generous and forgiving, etc. I can find this concept realistic if one factors in all of the "normal" people who go to religious worship on a weekly basis. If you include my friends like the ones I respect and admire for their beliefs who do not try to force me to believe as they do. If the world is more filled with people like that than people who try to force their beliefs on others I can easily see those studies having merit.
I, however, can also see those studies being insufficient in size to have a valid data set. I can also see the flaws in the studies.
More importantly I can see the logical flaws that exist in the belief that morality comes from religion.
I leave this concept with the following questions:
1 - Who is more moral: one who avoids doing bad things to others out of fear of a supernatural punishment after death or one who simply finds the bad things morally wrong on the basis that they are bad things?
2 - Who is more moral: the person who gives to the poor and needy in an effort to buy their way into an eternal paradise after they die or one who gives because they can and they want to help others for the purpose of helping others?
3 - Who is a better judge or right and wrong: one who needs someone to tell them what is right and what is wrong or someone who can make that determination on their own?
4 - Who is more amoral - one who wants to protect the rights of everyone or one who wants to enforce oppression on people based on their religion?


For me the answers are clear.
While I still wish I knew what it was like to have been granted the gift of faith in a benevolent deity I find that my moral position in the world is solid without having an organized religion tell me what is right and wrong.

Leviticus and the first half of Numbers

It's been awhile since I last posted.
It's been awhile since I listened to portions of "The Bible" in my car.
But, I have now finished the book of Leviticus.

This book can be summarized quite simply: this is a health code.
It outlines what is edible and what is not.
It outlines how to handle health issues.
This book also has a single mention of men not laying with men as with a woman (no mention of homosexuality among women) but it has a SINGULAR mention of it. It mentioned many other things multiple times.
This is also the origin of the prohibition against wearing items made of mixed clothing (the penalty for which is being stoned to death).

The first half of Numbers outlines a basic census of the peoples of Israel.

One thing worth noting in both of these books is that the lord outlines that people must sacrifice regularly to the lord and that a portion of each sacrifice goes to the priesthood. This seems like a huge scam for those who are presenting the word of the lord to do nothing except repeat the word of the lord and get paid for it.

Another thing worth noting in both of these books is the outright sexism. Women are property and barred from many things. Having a female child make a mother ceremonially unclear for twice as long as having a male child. There are other examples, but those are the most significant ones worth noting.

It is also worth noting that, in each of these books, the lord states that shame and unholy acts must pass onto the third and fourth generation of the one that committed it.

This is a terrible thing. It is blatantly stating that children, grandchildren and great grandchildren should be punished for the acts committed by an individual.

Also it is important to note that one must be stoned to death if one works on the sabbath whether it is done intentionally or not and that god will punish you for a year for each day of disobeying his word.


These books outline that the lord is a hideous and evil entity that seeks to control everyone through torture and merciless killing. It forbids any deviation from the codes and free thought.

More on Faith

I, personally, have seen no evidence of any omnipotent being other than an occasional alignment of improbable events in either a favorable or unfavorable way. This, however, does not mean that such a being does not exist. I can accept this and I can live with the realization that I can NEVER know if such a being exists. I am amazed, though, by the people who have an inability to comprehend this notion. Some of them have faith and feel sad for those of us whom have no faith. Others, however, feel a need to push their faith onto us in an effort to make us believe. Those whom have a solid faith of their own are people whom I respect and, honestly, envy. If their faith brings them some form of peace and provides them with a resolution that this world matters and/or brings them a form of happiness I am more happy for them than they could possibly know. The problem with seeing no evidence for such a being means that it is impossible to have raw faith in such a being. It is impossible to have faith that there is meaning in the world and it is impossible to have faith that there is something beyond this world. My lack of faith means I see the world as a raw accumulation of data and evidence. It is this that I believe in; not things which I cannot measure. Recently I have been having conversations with friends on this topic. Each and every person that I consider a friend whom I know their religious stance on falls into two categories. The first is a category of people like myself who lack and serious and solid faith in a supernatural entity. The second are those of faith who NEVER push their faith onto others. I find this extremely interesting as I choose my friends carefully and I choose people whom I consider good people to be my friends. Conversely I choose to avoid people whom I consider to be bad people. Many of the people whom I know and deliberately avoid are people of faith. They are people who push their faith on others and whom choose to use their faith as a shield to be judgmental against those who are different from themselves. The people whom I choose to avoid seem to be people who would push their religion onto others and cry that they are being oppressed when anyone tries to present a different idea to them. They are, in short, hypocrites as their religions all preach tolerance and acceptance. The people who I avoid because I find them intolerable are being whom abuse their fellow man. I have heard it said MANY times that people who lack faith MUST be bad people and have NOTHING to guide their moral compass. My questioning response to that alleged axiom is simple: How is it that I know so many people who have such little faith whom are good people and generous and kind and yet I have met so many people who preach their religion to others who are the opposite of that? If people who lack faith are inherently evil how is it that they are tolerant of people of faith and yet do good for the sole purpose of doing good? If people are doing good for the raw purpose of improving the world how are they WORSE people than those who do good ONLY because their religion tells them they must to be good people? If I can choose between right and wrong without a religion telling me which is which why is that a bad thing?

Rights and Intolerance

I have encountered, on many occasions, a very heated debate on the topic of "gay marriage."

It saddens me greatly when I encounter this topic because, to date, everyone I have encountered who is opposed to "gay marriage" is completely and totally missing the point of the argument.

Those (again, all whom I have encountered) oppose the issue based solely on their intolerance of the idea of two people of the same gender getting "married" because, to them, the term "marriage" MUST mean one man and one woman; most of them also include joined together in the eyes of God in their definition.

Each and every person who had brought the argument against "gay marriage" to me, or whom I have brought the opposing argument to, has failed, utterly and completely to comprehend that this is NOT about marriage. This is NOT about sexual orientation. This issue is NOT about the religious morality that they feel.

This issue is completely and totally about equality. There should be no such thing as "gay marriage" there should only be marriage (at this point I am using this word completely and totally from the legal point of view without any inclusion of the religious aspects of the word). Marriage brings certain legal ramifications to it. One of those ramifications is to, essentially, allow an individual to alter the default heir in the event of their death from their blood relatives to the individual of their choosing. Another is the secure the right to visit an unconscious patient in the hospital to a singular individual who is not related to you by blood AND promote that person's wishes above all others. Marriage also grants a single individual the right to make decisions about your treatment in the event that you are unable to communicate your wishes to the medical staff. Marriage, essentially, lets you appoint the person whom you trust the most to be the guardian of your wishes and care in the event that you cannot guard those things for yourself AND it lets you leave behind everything you work for to the person of your choosing in an, essentially, incontestable fashion. There is no other legal structure that generates all of these default rights. Marriage it the fastest and most recognized path and it is recognized worldwide as a valid legal contract between two, non-blood-related adults.

The way out current legal structure is built these rights are specifically withheld from a group of people. These rights are withheld from anyone whose chosen individual is of the same gender that they are. This is ludicrous and backwards. The law should not discriminate against people because they are choosing a person of a specific gender to be their legal "next of kin" anymore than it should discriminate against people who choose to make their hair blue or pierce their ears. The law should allow for ANY two consenting adults to enter into such a legally binding contract of their own free will. The law currently prohibits the creation and execution of this ONE legal contract based solely on the gender of the participants.

This is NOT about marriage; it is about the ability to enter into a legal contract. No other area of the law is allowed to bar individuals from creating and entering into a contract based on their gender. Once upon a time there were such laws and they have been stricken down in each instance as being unconstitutional and in violation of civil liberties.

Simply put: marriage as a legal contract should not discriminate against any individuals.

There is a certain irony to the intolerance of intolerance. Yet, the only thing that people should be intolerant of is intolerance of things which cause no harm to others.

In nearly every instance where I have discussed the "gay marriage" issue with those who oppose it I have encountered the argument that finding the intolerant viewpoint to be abhorrent means I am being intolerant to the views of the opposing party. I, in each case, have admitted that they are correct. I am, in fact, being intolerant of their intolerance. I am being intolerant of their view that creating a second class of citizen is appropriate. I an being intolerant of their view that it is appropriate to subdue a population of people solely based on which gender they prefer.

In each an every instance of this discussion I have then pointed out that if my intolerance of their ideas were to be enacted as law it would not harm anyone. If my intolerance of their ideas were enacted as law it would not end their ability to marry someone of the opposing gender. Enacting my view point on the law would not destroy their ability to get married in a church. Enacting my viewpoint on the law would not increase or decrease the divorce rate among people marrying someone of the opposing gender. Enacting my view on the law would not violate the rights of anyone who can currently acquire a marriage license to designate their choice of individual as the "next of kin" in the eyes of the law. My viewpoint, in short, would not alter their way of life. I then point out that their viewpoint on the situation suppressed the raw ABILITY of a large population of people from being able to apply the legal rights of marriage to their relationship. Their viewpoint continues to harm others. Their relationship continues to prevent others from naming their designated caregiver and default heir. Their viewpoint stifles the happiness and potential happiness of an entire population group. Their viewpoint prevents people from using corporate benefits in many companies. Their viewpoint, if upheld, will continue to DELIBERATELY suppress the rights of an entire group of people.

I have had it thrown at me that it doesn't matter because it is a small group of people that are affected so no one should care - I have responded by pointing out that we have handicapped parking spaces to cater to a small group of people because we all felt it was appropriate to do so. I have had it pointed out that a small portion of the homosexual community actual want to get married - I have pointed out that there is a large portion of the heterosexual community that doesn't care about getting married, either.
I have had it pointed out that homosexual couples cannot generate offspring - I have pointed out that I know a great many heterosexual couples who have NO interest in generating offspring. I then ask if they should be allowed to get married? I have also pointed out that there is a small amount of people whom are incapable of creating offspring whether they want to or not - should they be barred from getting married? I have pointed out that people who are far beyond the age of generating offspring get married, too - should they be barred from getting married? I have even pointed out that there are people who get married and divorced at an alarming rate - should they have been barred from getting married in the first place?
I have had it pointed out that some homosexual couples will, inevitably, part ways and have to get divorced - I have pointed out that more than half of all marriages now, which preclude any homosexual couple, end in divorce.
I have had it pointed out that homosexual couples have a historically higher promiscuity rate than heterosexual couples - I have pointed out that this is prejudicial and does not have the data to back it up AND that there are MANY extremely promiscuous heterosexuals out there who are allowed to marry if they so choose.
I have had people point out that homosexual individuals have the exact same right to marry a person of the opposing gender as any heterosexual individual has - I have pointed out that this flies in the face of the very concept of marriage; a concept of adding a single individual whom you love into your family as the "next of kin" to live out your days together and care for each other.
I have had people point out that marriage is against their religion - I have pointed out that marriage was originally a BUSINESS transaction. Marriage existed before their religion. Their religion also has NO PLACE in my government.

To date I have been given absolutely NO evidence on why there should be ANY reason that the legal construct of marriage should exclude anyone from marrying the individual person of their choosing.

The more attempts people make to convince me otherwise AND FAIL, the more they strengthen my viewpoint.

On a supplemental note - I actually am opposed to the entire notion of marriage as a legal construct. I believe it is the single most accepted intrusion into the personal lives by the government and/or church. I believe that the word "marriage" should be removed from all legal documentation and replaced with a "civil union" which is a five-year binding contract between any two persons who can consent to the contract. It should auto-renew unless EITHER of the participants choose to terminate the renewal. There should be no alimony provision.
I believe that marriage, more often than not, destroys lives (as is evidenced by the greater than 50% divorce rate and the realization that there are many couples who live in misery rather than get divorced). More importantly than that I believe that if heterosexual individuals have the right to royally screw up their lives by getting married that homosexual individuals should have the identical right.


Am I intolerant of anti-"gay marriage" view? Yes. I am intolerant of that intolerance because it is ignorant and lacks all reason. It serves only to hurt people whereas the opposing view hurts no one.

It's not intolerance when it is seeking equality; it's not intolerant to want to remove intolerance from an intolerantly unfair system.

Genesis, part 2

Today I finished the book of Genesis.
First I would like to note that I find irony in the idea that I am using the hard work someone (whom I assume is a believer in the religion) who recorded the reading of the Old Testament as a tool to learn more about the core of their belief and yet the more I learn the more I am deciding that my opinion of the faith has been correct all along.

My assessment of the latter half of of the Book of Genesis is that it is, essentially more of the same material found in the first half. There are a few additional things that are noteworthy, such as the story of Joseph. Joseph's story can be interpreted two ways: one is that the God of Abraham was following Joseph with interest and making him succeed wherever he went. The other interpretation of this story is that hard work and intelligence, when applied together, can make someone successful despite terrible setbacks and betrayal. I expect that either interpretation could be considered inspirational to a reader/listener.

My assessment of the complete Book of Genesis is that there are a great many inconsistencies in the overall story of the book. I find that there is also a lot of repetition in the phrasing and information in the book and a couple instances where there seem to be contradiction in whom was involved. The writing is really quite bad and I expect that if other narratives that have been wildly successful books where re-formatted to be told the same way that this book is formatted that EVERY publisher would reject them and very few readers would ever read them (this spawns the question of "how many copies of The Bible are actually READ and how many just sit around gathering dust?").
I also found that the stories highlight the greedy and self-centered nature of people, even those chosen by God. The very nature of the stories lead me to question God's character in these stories. Lastly, that man was created such that he had lifespans of HUNDREDS of years and then God spoke and forced man to have lifespans of only DECADES means that God is fallible: either God made a mistake in the initial creation of mankind OR there was an oversight made in that creation. Either way a correction means a mistake was made. The idea of a correction being made means that the idea of God being infallible is incorrect.

Faith and the lack thereof

Part of my drive to absorb the works of the major religions is that I have been pondering them for many years. I have been thinking about what they mean and trying to understand why people have faith in any of them.
This has also made me consider the idea of a lack of faith.

I have come to the conclusion that there are two very different versions of not believing in an all-mighty being and/or force. The difference between them can be reduced to a single character; "a" or "A."

Atheism is the evangelical belief that there is no god(s). Atheism the just as much a religious dogma and faith as any of the major religions (as is the fanatical belief in just about anything). On the other hand atheism is the failure to have faith in any of the religions. The difference between the "a" and the "A" at the front of the term terms is the difference in faith. Those who are Atheists have the faith that there is, without a doubt, no god(s). Those who are atheists fail to see proof that there is one. The difference is minor, but VERY important. One group has active faith in a negative while the other merely lacks faith in a positive.

I've often found that people who refer to themselves as "agnostic" dislike the word "atheist" regardless of their capitalization because they don't want to be associated with Atheists. I've also found that atheists resent people who use the term "agnostic" because they feel that it is a cowardly way of saying "I'm an atheist." I've also found that many people who are religious seem to think anyone who fails to have a fail MUST be an Atheist.

The reality is that these words have different meanings for different people and that is just as much a problem among the non-believers as different interpretations of dogma have among different sects of believers.

When you're speaking with someone who uses the term "atheist" to describe themselves it may be wise to inquire if they are an "Atheist" or an "atheist" before entering into any discussion on the topic of religion. I know that the difference between the two will be my first discussion point shall I ever be in such a situation.

Genesis, part 1

The first of the works I am examining is the Old Testament of The Bible.
The first book of this is the book of Genesis.

My thoughts, comments, questions, observations, etc are below:

Genesis Chapters 1-16
During creation it is outlined that God created all of the universe and then created life to live within it. He fashions the plants and animals and then he fashions man from the dust of the Earth. Why then did he have to remove one of Adam's ribs to fashion a companion for Adam? Why was Eve not also made of the dust of the Earth? Why were all of the other creatures given the ability to reproduce and created in (at least) pairs when mankind was made as a single individual first? Did Adam then have a missing rib on one side?
When were the angels created?
After Adam and Eve were exiled from Eden Cain and Able were born. Cain slew Able. Cain was cast out to wander the land. Cain found a wife and began a country with others. If Adam and Eve where the first two people WHERE DID THOSE PEOPLE COME FROM? Whom did Cain marry? Where did she come from? Whom did Seth find for a wife later on?
God explicitly states that mankind is mortal and, as such, his lifetime shall be limited to 120 years. This is well after MANY people have lived for HUNDREDS of years. After this proclamation people continue to live well past 120 years. Why and how is this happening? There does seem to be an asymptotic relationship with age and the 120 year cap among the main players of The Bible through the end of chapter 25.
The ark could not exist as written. It would be far too huge. Having only two of every creature would consume FAR more space than the size of a marine vessel could handle let alone all of the supplies needed to sustain all of those animals for 150+ days at sea (even assuming that fresh water was plentiful and that they did not need to pack it). So, unless Noah is a Time Lord from Galifrey and the Ark is a TARDIS disguised as a boat this story is not possible.
It is stated that the flood waters covered the whole earth and destroyed all life not in the ark. This would include all olive trees. Where did the dove get the branch that it returned to Noah to indicate that the waters were receding? Why was the dove more successful than the raven? Is that supposed to be a symbolic/metaphorical message of some sort?
After the flood mankind rebounded into a larger population again. If one assumes that Noah and his wife were on the ark and that the others on the ark with them were mated pairs of humans who were descended from Noah and his wife one must ask: where did the grandchildrens' spouses come from?
We have built structures equal to or exceeding the Tower of Babel; why have we not been struck down?
How were there as many people in Babel as stated if only two generations earlier all of mankind was wiped out by the great flood?
The book is obviously biased toward the main characters (what story is not) as there are many instances of characters having "many other sons and daughters." What happened to these people. Are NONE of them worth mentioning?

Genesis Chapters 17-25
God instructs Abraham to mutilate all of the men in his house whether born into it or purchased. This mutilation is called circumcision. Whether one believes there are hygienic reasons for this procedure (still performed all over the world today) or not it is removal of flesh from the human body and, thus, a form of mutilation. The origin of it appears to be God speaking to Abraham. It makes one wonder why God would require this; did he not create mankind in his own image? Does this requirement imply that God made a mistake in creating mankind or that he deliberately made a portion that can be removed so people can prove their faith by removing it of their male children?
These passages also point out that God (at best) condones of slavery. Any person who is purchased is a slave. Slaves who are forced to be circumcised because of the faith of their owner are being mutilated against their will (most likely).
These chapters have additional incidents of people living longer than 120 years
These chapters have commentary about people being old and past child-birthing age in their 80s when people where having children into their 800s earlier in the story - this is a contradiction in the facts of human lifespans presented by the story.
After the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah Lot takes up residence in a cave with his two daughters. Each of these daughters get their father drunk and, essentially, rape him to get pregnant. They each bear a son from the encounter. This is stated factually and without statement as to a consequence imposed on Lot or his daughters by God for the action. Does this mean that God condones incest?
Later on Abraham and Sarah are referred to as having had the same father but different mothers - so they are married half-siblings? This is more evidence that God condones (and rewards) incestuous matings.
Sarah insisted that Abraham father a child through a maid-servant then exiles the servant and the child when Sarah is able to have a child. This is willful example of child neglect, hypocrisy and abuse but it is not only tolerated by the Lord but also Abraham is told to do it. Does this mean that God rewards terrible behavior among his faithful if the terrible behavior supports God's preferred ends?
God instructs Abraham to murder his son, Isaac, in a "burnt offering." After Abraham has tied up Isaac and lain him on the pyre an angle tells Abraham not to harm his child. A ram appears and it is sacrificed instead. Sacrifice of animal tissue is a terrible waste. Who is God that he requires the blood and burnt body of animals be spilled on the ground? This, to me, is murdering the animal for no reason; killing an animal and consuming it provides a reason for the death of the animal where as murdering it in such a way as to prevent anything from using it is a waste of that animal. Requiring someone to murder their own child is also a terrible thing. This story seems, to me, that the entity claiming to be God is evil.
The book repeatedly refers to Issac as "your son, your only son" when it is well-established that Abraham had another son before Isaac with the maid-servant. This is either an attempt at revisionist history (e.g. an attempt to forget Ishmael) or a continuity error in the story: either makes for bad writing. If it is an attempt on the characters to revise Ishmael's existence out of their lives then it shows that they are less than kind and loving humans. God rewards them anyway. It seems that God will not only do evil things but also reward evil among his followers.
God promised that if you do this thing for me I will make your descendants more numerous than the stars but then required more and more... Darth Vader's statement to Lando Calrissian of "I have altered the deal; pray I do not alter it further" comes to mind.
Rebecca died at age 127. 127 is greater than 120. This is further discrepancy of the age limitation imposed on mankind by God.
Rebecca is the grand-daughter of Abraham's brother and is marrying Abraham's son, Isaac. Rebecca is, therefore, Abraham's grand niece. Does this qualify as incest?
Racism is practiced and rewarded: Abraham's insistence that Isaac be given a non-Canaanite woman as a wife. God, allegedly, supports this by directing Abraham's servant to locate the right people so that he may find Rebecca.
This far the Bible is demonstrating that women do not matter as more than property. The gold nose-ring for Rebecca is mentioned repeatedly and, at least in my interpretation, it is mean to mark her as property of Isaac. Additionally female children are rarely mentioned in the book and usually only as "they went on to have many more sons and daughters." Women are not significant players in the story other than as the wives of the male leads. Furthermore, concubines are mentioned repeatedly. Concubines are, essentially, sex slaves of the males. They are owned and mated with at the whims of the owners. This is considered normal so it implies that men are dominant and that monogamy among the men is not enforced. It also reinforces that women are to be owned.
I think it is also important to note that there are a few instances where it is mentioned that women were virgins. This is important to mention not because of it being mentioned but because of how rarely it is actually mentioned. Historical documents regarding people's burials in medieval Europe mentioned it when people were buried with a full set of teeth because it was very rare for that to happen. People today mention things that are rare and ignore things that are commonplace. This leads one to wonder if women were rarely virgins when they were married off to men. This, coupled with the obvious women-as-property mentality of the remainder of the book (thus far) makes me wonder what the norm of the society was and whether it was common practice to sell one's daughters/sisters/etc sexual services prior to them being married off.

Lastly I want to know why it is considered such a large and magnificent reward to have offspring and descendants as numerous as the stars (or grains of dust). It is mentioned so many times to the main characters of the book that it obvious was culturally desired at the time of the book being recorded, but the desire for that to be the case seems misplaced. More children (after a certain point) becomes a cost burden rather than a financial asset and the more children generated the farther one might have to travel to maintain good genetic matches for future generations of breeding. Lastly, it is not possible to have a human population that rivals the stars in number on this planet and there is not enough time to populate planets around all of the stars (if there is enough time to even populate planets around one other star).

These are my thoughts through the end of the Book of Genesis: Chapter 25.

Faith and Religion

It's no secret to anyone who knows me that I have no faith.
It is important to note that "faith" does not necessarily have to be religious in context. "Faith" is, essentially, blind belief in something without evidence to support the belief (or, in some cases, belief against the evidence that supports an oppositional viewpoint).
EVERYTHING I accept as reality is based on evidence leading up to it or based on the idea of giving someone/something the "benefit of the doubt" until they generate enough evidence to confirm or deny that they deserve that benefit.

This is not just applicable to people. It's also applicable to vendors and other organizations. It's applied to concepts and philosophies.

This is why I have troubles with organized religion. They are ALL based on faith of some sort.

Of course, I realized a few years ago that my disdain for certain religions was/is based on assumptions of those religions and on the faith that what I have absorbed through living in the life I live in hasn't been warped or distorted.

In an effort to eliminate this error on my part I have decided to absorb the contents of the core books of several religions.

I am starting with the Old Testament of The Bible (this books is common to both the Jews and Christians) and then I will work into the New Testament of The Bible (Christians) and then I will absorb the Book of Mormon (applicable only to a sub-sect of the Christian faith). After that I will move on to the Holy Quran. If I can find audio versions of many other religious books (including the "banned" books of the bible and alternate books used by alternate variations of the Christian faith I will absorb them, too.

I will post commentary as posts as I am absorbing some of these materials.

Holidays

It's been awhile. I've been busy. Real life (mostly work) got in the way of me doing writing.

Yesterday was Easter. As just about everyone knows Easter is a religious holiday.
One of the things about religious holidays is that not everyone celebrates them another is that they are religious.

Yesterday I tried to do some errands and I was thwarted by signs posted to the local Wal*Mart store's front doors. The signs stated that the store was closed in compliance with a state law. This REALLY bothers me because this country is SUPPOSED to have a separation of church and state. That means that there should be NO incidents of law FORCING a store to close for a religious holiday (yes I feel the same way about Christmas). Holidays, such as Thanksgiving and the 4th of July, which allegedly commemorate a historical event directly tied to the origins of the country are one thing (although I don't thing that there should be laws telling businesses they CAN'T be open on those days, either) but those holidays do have direct and non-religious impact to the country itself.

I know many Christians take Christmas and Easter as historically factual, but that is a part of their faith and even if they are both historically factual they are not directly related to this country (indirectly, of course).

I mentioned this in a tweet yesterday as I was thoroughly annoyed that my errands were ALL thwarted by businesses being closed and one of them was closed because of legal obligations. I was surprised to find that someone took offense to my annoyance. Someone took offense to my opinion that the law shouldn't be involved with this issue.

Our country was founded on an ideal of no religious persecution and having ANY law that supports or enforces ANY religion is a failure in that concept. That is my major offense to Easter: the idea that the law is NOT separated from the church when it is allegedly separate in this country.

The Message - fiction

I woke up this morning with a story in my head. I share it with anyone who wants to read it. It's probably written really poorly.... but it is a first draft of the wording. The concept was fully formed in my head, not the words.

The story originally posted on 1/7/11 at 12:24 Eastern. It was Given a title on 7/14/14 at 16:46 Eastern