The arrogane of the individual

Before you read this, if you are a believer I want you to consider a few questions.

Have all fallen short of the glory of God?

And is it sinful to simply be human?

People sometimes surprise me, and sometimes they don't. It's not very rare for me to see a post on my facebook feed requesting prayers for some illness, decision or situation. I know as a Christian I prayed quite a bit about all kinds of things big and small. Like about getting a good parking spot, who I should date, that every stoplight could be green for me, for wisdom... The list goes on and on (like I said, quite a bit.) I was taught that all prayers are answered, it just might not be the timing or way that we wanted.
Many times I felt like my prayers were answered and if they weren't, I believed it was because God had another plan. The light turned red, but I would have been in an accident maybe. Or being moments late would give me an opportunity I wouldn't have had otherwise. Either way, I believed it was a victory to God. And if he cares about my small things, surely he must have even more care for bigger life issues. Right?
I can remember marveling at the universe as the handiwork of God. Especially the pillars of creation. The formation just captivated me. I thought all of this wondrous universe was created, by God, just for humanity. With omnipotence you could do quite a lot.
Most Christians I know see everything from a good parking spot to cloud formations as a message from God, meant just for them.
The other day my wife told me about a woman on facebook who revealed her baby had stopped breastfeeding and when she took it to the doctor they told her, that this infant would die in a few weeks and there was nothing which could be done. It's heartbreaking. I cannot imagine the depth of agony this family must feel being helpless to do anything but watch as this tiny new life fades with suffering.
Many responded to the post saying they would pray.
I wonder if they were doing it right? Or if no one praying did so in the name of Jesus? In truth I have absolutely no doubt that many of them genuinely believe and used the name of Jesus in their prayer.
I can already hear believers' excuses. "It's all part of God's plan." or that mankind brought sin into the world and that's why we have such deadly diseases.
I went down so many lines of thinking on this. Why would God allow a soul to be brought into this world and not give them a choice, if the whole point of life is to give us an opportunity to choose him?
Bottom line is though, that set of verses in John is false.
What is worse to me is that people are so quick to give a fictional deity the glory for a parking spot as a prayer answered, and so quick to make excuses on the much more meaningful unresponsiveness of the asserted character when it comes to dying children around the world. Especially the ones we do not yet have a way to save.
Empathy enables me to feel pain for this family in a way no imaginary character can.
It is exceptionally arrogant to think God made all the universe, kept the traffic lights green, and saved a parking spot just for you instead of saving this baby from the incurable.

To go back to my questions to believers at the beginning: What sin could this baby have possibly committed?

The Easter story

I recently received a comment from a believer asking where I found fault with the scripture. I find it in many places which I've written about before but I thought in honor of the coming holiday I would lay out the Easter story as best as possible in chronological order.
Firstly I would like to thank On Things Above... for accepting the my challenge to post a rebuttal which I will link at the end of this post.
Many believers assert the Bible is the infallible word of God. I certainly believed that, but under close examination, it is far from it. The Easter story is a good example of an opportunity to examine a biblical story closely because there are four separate accounts of the same event and time. The question believers need to ask themselves is, can all of them be true? And if they cannot all be true some of them must be false, and if they are false, can they be the word of God?

 

Mark 16

 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 

 

Mary, Mary and Solome apparently bought spices the night before (the Sabbath ends at sunset.) Now Nicodemus had already put a lot of spice on the body earlier and was a sign of respect but maybe these women wanted to show more respect.

 

John 20

1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

 

This seems to be the earliest (chronological to the story) visit to the tomb because it was still dark. It is Mary Magdalene and mentions no other women and no spices. The stone covering the tomb of Jesus is already gone and she runs to report this to Simon Peter and John. She sees no angel or Jesus on the way back and still thinks someone stole the body.

 

Mark 16

2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

 

Back to Mary, Mary and Solome. Notice that it was just after sunrise and Mary Magdalene seems to be talking about who will move the stone when John says she already saw it was removed, but maybe it was her second trip and wasn't convinced of what she saw. Also they see a young man in white saying Jesus has gone ahead to Galilee, but the women say "nothing to anyone." It should be noted that this is the original ending to Mark. The rest of Mark directly violates several verses throughout the Bible which instruct not to add or take away. It leaves you wondering though, why leave off with the women saying nothing? But at least they got to see a guy in white.

 

Matthew 28

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”

8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 

 

Here we have Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" (presumed to be Mary mother of James) going to look at the tomb. Maybe they brought the spices too but the author didn't mention it, or come to think of it, Solome. Now the story gets really amped up with an earthquake brought on by an angel with a face like lightning coming down and the women see him roll the stone away. This is contradictory to all previous stories no matter how you try to time it. When the women leave to tell the disciples, Jesus shows up and they worship him. Call me crazy, but if this seems like a pretty significant development from the other two stories. It's the first appearance of Jesus raised from the dead. Why would Mary Magdalene think the body was stolen in John if she saw Jesus alive? And why would they not mention it in Mark? This is also the only story with roman guards.

 

Luke 24

On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee:7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” 8 Then they remembered his words.

9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. 12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

 

In this account three women are named and there are others, so more than four. At least they remembered the spices this time. This time we have two men in shiny clothes, but after they leave there's no mention of Jesus before they reach the Eleven. Peter runs to the tomb, seemingly alone, and leaves wondering what happened.

 

John 20

3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. 8 Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9 (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) 10 Then the disciples went back to where they were staying.

 

This time Peter and John (presumed) go to the tomb together and John believes.

Matthew 28 skips over this portion on favor of telling what happens with the guards. He makes no mention of any visit to the tomb and moves onto:

 

16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

 

Maybe this was not the first time the disciples saw Jesus, but why would it mention that some doubted at that point? It should also be noted that this first recorded appearance is in Galilee.

 

John 20

11 Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”

“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”

Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”

16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”

She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).

17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.

19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

 

Plot twist: Mary Magdalene (aka the original M&M) makes a second trip to the tomb and this time she sees two angels and Jesus. This seems to fix some issues but only brings more questions because this means the disciples went to the tomb before the angels or Jesus appeared here. Do you think M&M brought the spices this time? Were there other women there? Did they have a time machine? Jesus appears to the disciples in Jerusalem. Why did Matthew not mention this? Also the disciples are granted the power to forgive sins by the holy spirit. I'm really not sure how this fits into non-Catholic Christian theology anywhere, but maybe it's just ignorance on my part. As a Christian i believed only the blood of Jesus could forgive sins.

 

Meanwhile, back in Luke 24 Jesus appears to "two of them" on the road near Jerusalem and "they" tell Jesus

 

22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.”

 

The women said they did not see Jesus. Maybe these guys heard from M&M after her first trip... but wait, she didn't see angels then. Maybe this fits with Mark's account? No wait, that's not right either, because they saw one angel.

 

The author of Luke 24 goes on to say that Jesus met them in Jerusalem and says:

45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

 

Didn't John just say Jesus gave them the holy spirit and they could forgive sins?
John ends with the famous appearance to Thomas.

 

Is it even possible for all of these stories to be true without parallel universes and time machines? If the authors did not have the truth about so many aspects of what is arguably the most important story in the Bible, how can we trust them elsewhere?

In school I heard a rumor that Marilyn Manson had two of his ribs removed. I believed the story and repeated it as true to others. A lot of people believed that rumor. So many that the singer addressed it in his own book. Imagine a time where rumors are much more difficult to verify, and you have to rely on the information given to you by others versus being able to verify it, or discredit it, through multiple ways as we can today.

The Gospels were written several decades (most scholars agree Mark, the earliest written Gospel, was written around 70 A.D.) after these purported events so at best the information came from someone who knew one of these people in the stories, but more likely it is further removed simply because of the years between the Easter events and when they were written. It would be easy for rumors about a man to become legend and reported as fact. The facts which are reported in the gospels. But if they are fact, why are they not factually the same?

I have done my best to lay these out to compare simply the chronological order and there are many, many other issues I haven't even addressed trying to maintain some sort of brevity, but am I wrong?

If you want a different perspective on Biblical thing including this article you can check out the On Things Above... blog here.

Marry your rapist

Deuteronomy 22

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

I have seen this verse many times in arguments against the Bible. As can be imagine there are quite a few articles around the interwebz which aspire to defend this virtuous piece of writing.
The two top results justify this edict as punishment for the rapist.
Seriously.
There are many cultural differences of the time which are crucial to note in regards to this commandment. Girls were regarded very much as property, as they are still in some middle east countries, and as such, if a man wanted to marry her, he had to pay her father. A girl whose virginity was not intact was not worth much because men wanted virgins and it might be that she would spend her life alone and have no man to support her, leading to a very difficult life.
This is where the possible benefit of this passage comes in. The rapist would be forced to care for her since he defiled her. It also helps the father because no matter what happens (even if he does not give the rapist his daughter) he gets his price for his daughter.
There's another matter which is also important to realize and that is the age of brides in that culture. 12 years and 1 day is old enough to marry with your parents permission and 21 was old enough to marry without. A lot of marriages were arranged in biblical times. So an "unbetrothed virgin" is in many cases a fairly young girl.
Perhaps my aversion to pedophile rapists is just a cultural difference, but i cannot honestly think of any culture where this is the optimal solution.
What is really scary to me about this, is that faith overcomes any rational obstacle to this passage being wrong!
I cannot imagine the hell many girls were forced into because of this passage, being subjected to their rapist throughout the rest of their life. As far as it being a punishment for the rapist, unlike one of the articles which jokes she might not be the right girl for him (seriously? Rape jokes?), i have a feeling the rapist being of questionable morality at the time of the incident, might use the opportunity for ongoing sexual gratification at the girls expense. And he, not being a philanthropist exactly, might not be so careful with her physical or mental well being either.
It's a rapist, not a purse thief! It's a complete violation of human dignity, not a prank.
I'm by no means an ISIS sympathizer, but those men believe they are doing what is righteous. How they can commit such heinous crimes is because faith allows them to overcome the obstacles of reason and morality, just like the two articles i referenced earlier. This is why so many in the atheist and agnostic community regard religion as dangerous, because it can lead good men to do terrible things and still feel like they're in the right.
Why couldn't the commandment say she had to sacrifice a sheep and should be considered a virgin from that point?
I understand that there is no perfect solution to rape, but I can't believe that this is the best an omniscient god could come up with which is why I cannot accept that this scripture is from any deity.
It could be that God's ways are well beyond mine and that the real issue is me, but I still don't think this lines up even biblically and it might be scarier if it does. Read Deuteronomy 28 for the prize and price, biblically speaking, of this passage.

Irreducible complexity

I was very much a subscriber to irreducible complexity as a Christian. There are many creatures, appendages, and organs which i could see no logical path for their evolution like the long neck of the giraffe and its small heart-like organs used to keep its blood flowing properly or the bombardier beetle and its explosive concoction of chemicals it uses for defense.
For anyone who is unfamiliar with the concept, irreducible complexity basically a concept that systems could not have evolved because each piece is needed in order for any part to be functional and all parts cannot be functional throughout the evolutionary process meaning it would not be selected for.
I subscribed fully to this idea.
I used to describe it to others like this:
The wing of the bat works great as a whole, but in the evolutionary process it doesn't function and works against its survivability.
Imagine it's a mouse-like critter with long fingers and webbing, at some point it wouldn't yet be a wing and would impede the animals movement and it would reduce its survivability and we would have no bats.
Enter Wallace's flying frog.
It's pretty incredible amphibian that can glide up to 50 ft. And amazingly enough it's in that sweet spot of webbing to wing process. Isn't it crazy that a little further down the evolutionary tree we might have a full fledged flying amphibian?
As you can tell, it's not that a bats wing couldn't evolve, it's just that i lacked the imagination to understand how it might have happened. It probably didn't help i had a pretty strong confirmation bias against it.
Now I don't know if anyone else is using the bat's wing as an argument for irreducible complexity but christian scientists use a lot of other animal features such as the unusual aspects of woodpecker physiology.
In the same way the story I assumed spoke to the concept against evolution, the entire concept is flawed by a lack of imagination.
The truth can be just as strange as the fiction and our search for it shouldn't stop at our lack of evidence for the specifics of the how. Where we don't have evidence lies the starting point for truth, not the end of a path to a deity.

What am I?

I feel this is a question I must pose to myself. I am a eukaryote, animal, mammal, primate and human, but none of these things define my individuality. There is so much of me I can lose, and still be me. I can lose my hand, my foot, my lungs and even my heart and still be myself.
I used to think I was a flesh machine powered by an everlasting soul where I was. I imagined my soul and physical body were linked, but the soul was where the real me resided. But without a soul I am relinquished to rethink my position.
I am inclined to think mostly that I am a composition of my genetic being and my memories and experiences stored within. I am quite certain that if I was able to upload my every memory to a machine that it would not be me, although it is a nice sentiment. Even into another body I don't think it would be me even if it thought it was me. I think it's quite obvious that if we could transplant the mind of a professional athlete into my body, it would cut his career short. So would it still be them? Or would some of me still exist?
Even now, as I replace and replenish the cells throughout my body I wonder if I am even the me I was years ago? If every atom has been replaced, am I still me? Or do I only think I am the same me?
Would it be the same if I slowly replaced my physical body with digital parts until all that was left was an  immortal consciousness? I imagine it would be incredibly difficult to perceive such a slow change and maybe that is a hope for a future in which each of us can experience a meaningful eternity. I have been unable to acknowledge my exchange of matter as a progression to a new self up until the point I considered all of this.
I have often speculated that if teleportation were possible, it would actually be the death of one consciousness and the creation of a new one which only thought it was the original.
What I think is most meaningful of all these questions is I am privileged to be of the only species which can even ask them. It is astounding that I am no where near the apex of intellect for our kind, yet I can ponder on such things and it leads me to wonder: what other questions are waiting to be mulled over which have yet to be even thought of? Because I know that aside from scientific knowledge, there is more of me to be discovered.
One day I will cease to exist and for me, everything will cease to exist because I will be unable to observe anything. The feel of the sand on the beach. The wind moving through the trees, the smell of a home cooked meal, the feeling of deep love i get when i see my wife, all of it will be gone someday. I am existing now in a small fraction of my eternity because I am experiencing everything I will ever know, or be able to know.
Regardless of what I am, I am.
I hope that everyone can enjoy their journey to self discovery as much as I am and that mine is lifelong, not for the sake of busywork, but because there is simply that much for me to learn about myself.