Closet Atheist
Religion is not a big thing for me. I feel that there’s probably a God up there looking out for us human beings. There’s no scientific basis at all for my belief in an omniawesome God, I know, but I need my invisible means of support. If there’s no God then I need to create one, a being larger than myself to whom I can offer my dreams, frustrations, demands, angst, and all the dirty little things innate in the human parasite. This kind of thinking has led one of my buddies to point out that I am an atheist in denial. I said ‘closet atheist’ seems a more clever way to put it. And maybe I am at that.
That reminds me of a famous saying by some chaplain during the First Great Godawful War: there are no atheists in the trenches (or something to that effect). Most decidedly not. If I was in a muddy trench in the Western Front during World War I, getting shelled by enemy artillery, I’d probably be saying my Hail Marys as often as I’d be shitting my pants. And I’d probably sincerely believe each word too. No, there are no atheists in the trenches. Atheists can be very accommodating that way.
But I’m not in a trench and no one is raining artillery shells upon my skull. My problems are a little bit more mundane than that so I have the luxury of objectivity. I grudgingly believe that there is a God. My spiritual beliefs are suspect, though. If you pay me enough money I’ll profess belief in anything. I wouldn’t mind spending the rest of my life believing in something as ridiculous as Mormon archaeology if I were to live that life as a very wealthy Mormon. With many wives. Wives who all have perfect silicone tits.
Having been raised a Catholic, I still carry around the baggage relapsed Catholics everywhere probably have at varying degrees. I can’t help that. I’ve been conditioned for too long. Whenever something unfortunate happens in my life, my first thought is always that God is probably punishing me for posting Jesus LOL pictures in one of my blogs. Catholics tend to think of God as a sociopath waiting for people to slip up even a tiny bit so that He can smite them down with a plague. The Old Testament has a lot to answer for.
Let me be clear about this. I think the Bible is an interesting read. I think that it is an entertaining collection of Hebrew and early Christian myths, legends, tall tales, ideological ranting, and such. I enjoy reading the Bible, especially the juicy parts. And if there is a God, I think that it is divinely inspired. I also think Con Air is divinely inspired in that it entertained me for an hour and a half, so my judgment of divine inspiration is dubious at best.
What the Bible isn’t, though, is a perfect guidebook on how to get to Heaven. It’s too screwed up, full of the imperfections of man. In the first place, why does man need a guidebook to get to heaven? Because he’s imperfect and is prone to sin. Why is he prone to sin? Because of Adam and Eve. Why did God make Adam and Eve imperfect enough to be swayed by the serpent in the Garden. Why even put a serpent there? Hell, why put the fucking Tree in the middle of it all? I know that the theological sides regarding this issue are myriad but let us get down to the bone of the problem. If God hadn’t created humans in the first place, there wouldn’t even be a problem. He’s got the angels to work with, doesn’t he? That’s another thing. If the angels are so perfect, why’d one of them rebel? Why does God need angels anyway? Might as well question why God needs man, animals, trees, oceans, mountains, planets, galaxies, the universe, time, et cetera ad nauseum? The only reason I can think of is that He may be bored. Or that maybe there is no God and that everything just fell into place the way it is for no particular reason. At least common sense tells me that.
Common sense. At the end of the day, it’s all you can rely on, isn’t it? Common sense leads to scientific discoveries. Science flips a dirty finger at the Bible. If I was God I wouldn’t blame you for using logic and science to make your way through the muck of your lives because that’s all I gave you that actually works. I certainly wouldn’t send you to hell for it. Of course, common sense isn’t as awesome as it is touted to be. Common sense made people think for centuries that the world is flat.
The believers amongst you would, of course, contend that the Bible is perfect. Since I’m not here to convince anyone to renounce their faith, I’m not going to embarrass you by pointing out how utterly wrong you are. Live and let live.
Okay, maybe you need a kick in the head. Click these links if you think you’re strong enough in the faith… or if you have a growing suspicion that you’re being screwed:
Squid Villanueva
» login to post comments | 1637 reads
KA-CHING
Submitted by babywinter on January 8, 2007 - 12:13pm.
I'll discuss this one I found in KA-CHING. hehehe.
The guy is talking about bible inconsistencies. Well, obviously, there is.
________________________________________________________
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
___________________________________________________________________
Now, let's use common sense for a meantime:
(1) The first couple of verses about the Light and the Sun would give us a glimpse about the difference between the Light and the Sun. The sun, yes, we know it separates day and night (darkness and light) literally. The Light... well, since you're an intellectual man, I guess you know how Light separates the darkness and the light differently from the Sun.
Oh, before I forget, the Big Bang theory supports these verses.
(2) The other verses talked about (a) Genesis Ch. 1 creating man last, and (2) Genesis Ch. 2 creating man first. These give us the glimpse of two different creation stories. Therefore, one of these creation stories is the Thought, which is similar to a writer imagining a story before he actually writes it; while the other is the Manifestation, in lay man's term, the reality, the creation of tangible things.
You might perhaps ask me why man was created last in the Thought, while was created first in the Manifestation. It is because Man was endowed with God the power to create, which explains why we at times, act like a God, or think like the Omnipotent. So, there you go, God rested and Man created what was in His thoughts. Do you remember the bible verse when Adam named the animals. Of course, it's not just naming, as in calling names like how we call a fat classmate baboy. When he said Elephant!, there you go, an Elephant appeared.... You see, if Adam named the dog a dog, then why do we call it aso?
And He can move the mountains too! Wow....
Same thing with the tress. There was a mention of nobody was created to till the soil so Man was created. The seeds were already created by God, and Man needed to make them tangible. Of course, at first, Adam didn't use a sickle or a plow... it was more of speech. The use of a plow to till the soil was later introduced in the next chapters when Adam was punished.
Then why didn't he create a woman....
(3) The last couple of verses stated that the woman was created with man. So in other words, Adam was both man and woman in Genesis Ch. 1, a dual being. Bisexual? No, since sex wasn't introduced at that time yet. Not until they discovered that they were naked. Logically, there's no sex if there's no concept of nakedeness.
And then the woman was taken from the man in Genesis Ch. 2, the first surgical operation. She was taken from the man because he was sad. This explains that all other creations were original except the woman. Elephants are original creations. THe dual being is an original creation, too.
Now, do you still think the bible is a guidebook?
» login to post comments
More on Genesis
Submitted by babywinter on January 8, 2007 - 12:26pm.
Hell, why put the fucking Tree in the middle of it all?
^-^ There's no fucking Tree in the middle of the garden. If you think it's a furniture material that stood sturdily there, then you got it wrong. So logically, if we ruled out the presence of a tree there,(to some an apple tree), then there is no FRUIT and no SERPENT clinging and deceiving. However, there is. In other words, the FRUIT was not a real fruit like a Washinton apple, and the SERPENT not a real snake. The Fruit is similar to our bunga, as in sanhi at bunga. And the Serpent, as snake, as in "Ahas yang girlfriend mo! Inaahas ako!"
I wish I could tell you more, but I guess I'm wasting my effort. ^-^
So long for the guidebook.....
» login to post comments
Pardon me, madame, but what
Submitted by squid villanueva on January 8, 2007 - 6:29pm.
Pardon me, madame, but what in blazes are you talking about? You're constantly harping on about me my my guidebook, which just shows how much you DIDN'T get the point. I was arguing AGAINST the Bible being a guidebook to get to heaven, not FOR it. I said I think the Bible is an interesting collection of ancient texts, which I actually enjoy reading from time to time. I don't even believe that a guidebook exists, ferchrissakes.
So you think you know more about the Bible than most people. Good for you. I wish you luck in your endeavors. Along with every quasi-Christian cultist in the world. The reason I say this is because you're arguments are so muddled that it seems you can't decide between being a Bible apologist or a New Age guru with all this pig-Zen babble about there being no fucking tree (excuse the French). And I suppose there's no fucking spoon either (again, the French). Obviously ancient Hebrews thought there was a real, honest-to-God tree in the middle of it all or they would not have called it tree. They would've called it something else instead, fnord maybe. Occam's Razor. But that's just old-time Catholic atheist me. Maybe youngsters have a whole new way of reading things. Like assuming things that ain't there for the sake of making something sound true.
And if the Bible must be true because of the Big Bang Theory, pagan Egyptian myths must be even more true because of their cosmic egg stories, which sound more like the Big Bang than the "let there be light and there was light" schtick. And because the ancient Egyptians wrote it first before the Hebrews.
Look, with enough rationalization and pseudo-intellectual sleight-of-hand you can turn a Jollibee menu into the Word of God. If it helps you live your life to the fullest, congratulations. And, as I've said, if you pay me enough I'll even go out into the streets with you, sing Hallelujiahs to Jollibee, and bring the Gospel of Chickenjoy (with gravy) unto the heathens.
» login to post comments
^-^ Cosmic Egg Theory
Submitted by babywinter on January 12, 2007 - 12:09am.
Hey squid! Of course, you don't believe that the Bible is a guidebook. (Or a guidebook really exists, just like what you have said and had in your previous posts) I'm just setting a tone that the GuideBook Theory is not applicable anymore, just in case, you think I do. So it is not appropriate to disbelieve the bible just because somebody told you it was a guidebook. You disbelieve the bible because of something else, (as far as I know), and I'm still trying to know that certain reason of disbelief. It's more of understanding what you have in mind, not you understanding me, since I never expected to be understood. This thing that I have is more than the weight I can carry. ^-^
(1) It's like somebody showed you an egg and told you it was a chicken... Then let's say you don't believe chickens exist... Is it right to tell the egg-guy that there's no EGG existing? Of course not! The egg is as tangible as the bible. And just like what you have said it is a collection of stories... But that's not the real challenge. (2) This somebody would ask you if you believe there's a yolk inside. I think in that case you won't believe him anymore.... You would try to argue that the yolk doesn't exist. Why would you argue? You see, the egg is but a white shell nestling on his palms. No signs of yolk from the outside. But NATURE says so.... there SHOULD be a yolk because it's an egg. Thus, you're trying to tell me that you believe that the bible exists, but the God in that same bible doesn't exist. If this is what atheists mostly believe, and I think this is what you're pertaining to pseudo-intellectual sleight-of-hand that can downsize the Word of God into a Jollibee menu. ^-^ It's like you're doing a BOOK REPORT and taking the main character away from it. It's like taking away the Gods from the Greek Mythology. Oh yes, this one makes sense, isn't it?
So you might ask me if I believe in the Greek Gods... Of course, I do. Are they real? Yes, as real as the yolk in the egg. Tangible? Why not. Do I believe that they live in Mount Olympus? Hell, yeah. You wouldn't expect me to understand the context of the Greek mythology while I'm thinking it's crap, would you? And those atheists, whose knowledge was rooted in Hellenistic and Egyptian and Ashanti and Aztec and Christian Knowledge, were too dumb to unearthen the past to see how artificial their pseudo-knowledge is. It's like reading without understanding. It's like you base your knowledge and writing on your experiences.
By the way, the one I explained about Genesis is but a crumb of a gigantic blueprint. The reason why you think it's confusing and seems strewn is because you don't have the big picture. Well, that's why we can't rely on Common Sense.
Anyway, about the COSMIC EGG THEORY, the LET THERE BE LIGHT THEORY, and the BIG BANG THEORY, I believe all of them. They were just called different names, different terminologies. But the concept of course is real. And just like what I had said, you can't alter HISTORY. It seems atheists were tired enough to piece together the past, the present, and the future that they gave up and became unbelievers. It's like a Grade Four kid who wanted to remain in Grade Four. ^-^
Of course, I'm not telling you to believe. I'm not showing off either. It just feels good to have an opportunity to talk about HISTORY and HUMANITY even it had to be crumbs by crumbs... I think the topic about religion is just more sensational than me explaining the Philippine History which I'm doing most of the time.
^-^ Regarding the Jollibee menu that can turn into the Word of God, why not? I think you have read about how the Word of God turned into bread, fish, wine, etc. and this same bread,fish, and wine turned into the Word of God again... It's just the bread, fish, and wine turned into poo afterward, but the... anyway, I don't want to open amother crumb topic. I think I made my point already.
^-^ Good luck! I know that everyone of us were here to gather wisdom.
» login to post comments
bible and its contents...
Submitted by meg on January 12, 2007 - 2:45pm.
babywinter, i think there's one word that can describe what you're trying to explain to squid...it's all about: FAITH
hey squid, i agree with you that bible is full of inconsistencies. but i think it has to do with so many passages and the translations done through the centuries. i remember, one of my professors in theology once said, that sometimes, its difficult to get through and distinguish the fiction and non-fiction in the bible because of these factors; therefore creates confusions with so many new sects and their own version of interpretations.
so i guess, at the end, to each his own: your own belief and your own faith.
» login to post comments
Oh Look!
Submitted by squid villanueva on January 12, 2007 - 3:51pm.
Oh look, I found Jesus! I'm saved. Never knew he was lost, though. Now everyone go away.
» login to post comments
"The good thing about
"The good thing about scientists is they are logical. The bad thing about atheists is they are logical."
You're constantly stating that the bible is a guidebook on how to get to heaven. But no, it isn't. What the bible really is, I can't tell you.
Since you strongly believe that it is a guidebook, you arrived in a logical conclusion that is based on an awfully wrong traditional belief. How can the bible be a guidebook if it's tattered with illogical contradictories? See? Making the bible a guidebook berthed you to an appaling conclusion. Logical, yes. But conclusion process-wise, no. Start with a wrong concept, of course, arrive in a misleading conclusion.
The reason why you can't dovetail the Eden events, and the Christian legends, and the tall tales, and the ideological ranting to what we call the common sense is because you believe that there is such a thing as a guidebook. I'm sorry, but the guidebook thing is crap. I'm sorry.
And there's no sense in telling what the bible really is because you are an old-timer atheist, or sometimes, an old-timer Catholic.
^-^