The Ramblings of Octavo

Christians believe that God, the creator of the universe, incarnated itself as Jesus around 2000 years ago and walked the earth. This is such a fundamental tenet of Christian doctrine, that I don’t think many Christians actually stop to consider the implications. I challenge believers to sit down and really think about it. Examine it critically with a logical mind.

First of all, if you believe in a God, it makes would make sense to also believe that intelligent life has arisen elsewhere in the universe. What other purpose does the rest of the universe serve otherwise? I mean, what an incredible waste of time and effort for God. Why create all those billions of galaxies and stars if not to create life on many of them? So, assuming for an instant that there are other planets out there with intelligent beings on them. Did God also incarnate himself on those planets? Does Christianity exist elsewhere in the universe?

Second, getting back to earth - why did God incarnate at the time and place he did? That may sound like a silly question, but it’s not really. Why did God not incarnate in ALL cultures? Surely that would have been a much more intelligent way of spreading the word? Why did he not incarnate among the Mayans or the Egyptians or the Polynesians? Why did God choose the Hebrews as his “chosen” people? If he created all life on this planet, why is he so exclusionary? So biased against the rest of humanity? What did the Mayans do or not do that did not make them worth a visit by the one true creator of the universe?

I want people to think about these things. If God is capable of all things, why was he so terribly inefficient when it came to spreading the word of his existence? Why did he not give all people and all cultures the same choices and options? What made the Jews so special? Do you really believe that an all-loving God would be so bigoted as to choose a single nation as his “chosen” and not even let other cultures know of his existence? Why no Mayan Jesus?

Comments welcome

I believe that humans have an innate need and ability to tell themselves stories about the world around them. We feel a powerful urge to find the meaning in things - even where there is no meaning. We need things to have a rhyme and reason when often they don’t. Take for example thunder and lightning. Before we had the science to explain and understand this phenomena, we didn’t sit around wondering what was going on. Instead we made up stories to explain thunder and lightning. Thor is a perfect example of this.

People have horrible, tragic events happen to them and immediately seek to find an explanation for why these things happened. It’s as if we need to put everything in neat little boxes so that we can make sense of the world. I understand this urge - I feel it myself. I believe this is one reason why people stick to their chosen religion so fiercely. To deny their religion is to render the death of millions of innocent children from leukemia completely meaningless. If you’re religious of course, you can come up with any number of reasons for why those children suffered the way they did. They are without exception disgustingly abhorrent reasons, but to the religious mind they seem completely reasonable. This is just another example of how religion can skew one’s moral compass. To honestly believe that God requires the death of a child to teach someone else a lesson (or for whatever other reason) is completely ridiculous. If you believe in an omnipotent God, surely he could have achieved His ends, without resorting to the infliction of lethal disease on innocents? Of course this sort of mental acrobatics is required if one wishes to believe in a kind and loving God. The current genocide in Darfur is not helping anyone. Why is God content to sit back and allow this to continue?

My point is that the logical problems with God are plain, yet people continue to believe (in part) because to deny God would mean those children are dying for no good reason other than they had the misfortune to develop cancer.

WEll friends, my two-week hiatus has been due to many things. One of them being a resurrection of my StarCraft obsession, but that is unimportant - let me get on with the work of atheism.

God undoubtedly created pain, suffering and evil. Now many apologists dispute this or get around it by invoking free will. The argument usually runs something like this: God gave humans free will so that they could genuinely choose to obey God or not. It is through our free will that atrocities are committed. However there are many kinds of suffering and pain that could easily be eliminated without removing our free will.

For instance, God could have prevented AIDS from evolving. Or SARS. Or Polio. Or Ebola. Or God could prevent birth defects. Can you come up with a reasonable explanation as to why a loving God would allow a child to be born to devout Christian parents (or otherwise) with a horrific birth defect that leaves the child in constant pain for a few short years before dying in agony? Why would a loving, caring God allow that to happen? The fact is that humans have cured Polio on our own. We have prevented untold millions from suffering permanent disabilities through the application of science… not prayer.

The next time you see a child dying of leukemia, ask yourself what they did to deserve such a fate, for surely if God exists, it is his doing. Or you could wake up and realise that in this world, things just happen. There is no “master plan” according to which nature orders itself. Life is happening to you now and you only get one shot at it, so stop wasting your time hoping JC is going to save you and enjoy the only life you have while you still have it!

Often when I quote some of the more disturbing scripture to Christians, their reaction is one of shock. It would seem that relatively few Christians really study the Bible, which I consider pretty poor form given that they believe their immortal soul rests on their abiding by the tenets of Christianity.

Even those who do “study” the Bible, do so with the use of aids and companion books in order to “help” them “understand” the Bible. While I don’t dispute that much of the Bible is metaphor and imagery (much of Daniel and Revelation for instance), this reliance on the interpretation of others is worrying. If you are a Christian reading this, I challenge you to read the Bible as you would any other book. Start at the beginning and read it through to the end. Don’t rely on the interpretations of others, but try and discern the meaning of the words yourself. When you read it, try to remember it for what it is and put it into context. An ancient text, written by a relatively primitive and superstitious people who had absolutely no knowledge of the scientific method and were relatively ignorant about the natural world around them. This is not an attempt to demean them, it is a simple fact. I’m certain that in another 2000 years, my own meager writings will look equally ignorant and primitive.

I guarantee that at the very least, it will give you a very different outlook on your beliefs.

Given the time and the will, I hope to present some of my own Bible study here on The Ramblings of Octavo. I know I just enjoined you to read it yourself and not rely on the interpretation of others, but I need SOMETHING to post about, right? And I’m hoping that putting my own atheist perspective on the scripture may lead you to your own, new insights.

Marriage is a big deal in the Bible and gets a lot of emphasis. The widely accepted biblical doctrine on sexual relations is that either one must remain completely celibate (no masturbation even) or one must be married. Sex before marriage is a big taboo and masturbation is severely frowned on (God kills Onan for it in Genesis 38:9-10).

In Luke 20:27 - 35 the Sadducees (a sect of Jews who didn’t believe in life after death) ask Jesus what happens to someone who has been married several times in heaven. Who exactly are they married to? In Luke 20:35 Jesus says “But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage”.

There are two ways to read this passage and although I personally feel that the language seems clear here, many disagree and point out that the translation may not be 100% accurate to the original meaning. The first interpretation (and the one I contend is clear by the language used) is that married people don’t get into heaven. The second is that in heaven there is no such thing as marriage.

Assuming the second interpretation is the correct one, doesn’t it seem strange that there is so much emphasis on marriage in this life if it is completely irrelevant in the next? One must assume that concepts like love and commitment exist in heaven (although not necessarily romantic love) and given that, it seems strange to me that there exists no mechanism in heaven (where you will spend eternity after all) to come before your God and in His presence declare an everlasting commitment to a loved one.

So if you are a Christian and you are married, there exist but two possibilities for you. 1) You will never reach heaven. 2) You may reach heaven, but you and your wife will no longer be married and there will be no possibility of you ever being married again.

Neither of those options sounds particularly appealing to me…