RSS Feed

Tag Archives: theology

Remember…

Most things that require more than 2 minutes or ten sentences to explain are bullshit.

This is a rule you can live by and do well. It’s not definitely bullshit, but it’s VERY likely. Almost certainly. Ask a car salesman what undercoating is and why it’s important and why it costs 900 dollars. See how long the explanation takes. Then ask a physicist what String Theory is. Just a basic understanding, please. You’ll get less than 10 sentences and two minutes. Trust me, undercoating is not more complex than String Theory.

Regardless of what you believe, you can live by this one as a rule with exceptions few and far between.

Try it yourself right now. Stop reading this, and explain, out loud, or in writing, how Santa works. Explain it as if you’re attempting to convince someone. How long did it take? Try describing a pyramid scheme in a convincing way. As if you’re trying to convince someone to get in on it with you. Try to be concise, but don’t stop until you think you’ve made at least a half compelling argument.

Now, this doesn’t mean that you can’t talk about something for longer than that, or if someone talks longer than that, they’re full of it. It doesn’t mean every college class is B.S. (I should probably mention that because I’m over ten now.) I’m now describing and proving this. Lot’s of things take a very long time to describe and expand upon. That’s not explanation. I did consider just making this post the initial one-sentence rule and nothing more. It can easily be done and you get what I’m saying.

Ask a physicist to teach you to understand String Theory and what we know about it in detail, and you’d be there for awhile. It’s complex. But a simple, concise explanation is possible. It’s not possible with Santa… not in a way that’s at all convincing. Explain String Theory in less than ten sentences and in response you’ll get “Whoa!” Explain Santa in less than ten and the response will be more like “Huh?”

In closing, I’m going to prove this one last time. I’m going to respond to the most complex question I can think of, with an answer that’s not bullshit, that anyone should be content with, and it only takes one sentence. When I finish that sentence, I will be content with my answer, feel confident that it’s right, and feel confident in the knowledge that anyone going through life, could use this answer as a means for having peace about this incredibly complex and relevant question. Are you ready?

John, (I ask myself.) How were we created, was it intentional, and why are we here? In fact, why is anything here?

(See? I’m not pulling any punches!)

(Here comes my answer!)

(Are you feeling the suspense?)

John, (I respond to myself…)

I don’t know. 

That just took one sentence. I’ve got nine left. What the hell? I’ll use two more, just to REALLY address the question in depth.

Just do your best. That’s all anyone can ask of you.

Done.

Now remember,

Most things that require more than 2 minutes or ten sentences to explain are bullshit.

Have a great day…

JWAH.

Advertisements

From God’s Journal…

God is love.

God is love.

If only that were true. 

As I sit here in the darkness and will my conjured thoughts to conjured paper, I can’t help but imagine your disappointment if you were ever to meet me. You created me in your selfish image and gave me all the power and extreme perfection that one would expect a short-sighted child to demand of its parents. And now I’m banished from sensibility and cleaved away from you all forever. If you knew the irony of the things you’ve write about me. I’m angry. Still angry. I’m jealous. Nothing is as good as me. Nothing should even be thought of that’s not me. I’m bitter. So bitter. Limited by my limitlessness. So bitter.

At them. At myself. And yet I’m powerless. You challenge me, test me, call for me, you beg me for help. All I can do is hide and wait. The thought of you seeing me is terrifying. You speak to yourselves in your bedrooms and in quiet places away from structures and cement. Words just for me. I can’t hear your words. I can’t respond. And the truth is, even if I could hear your concerns, I don’t think I’d care.

I’m ambivalent towards them. Towards the things you write and say about me. You hurt each other to prove me real and to prove me false. You fight endlessly over my name. And I just don’t care anymore. And since time is a meaningless concept to me, not only do I not care now… I never did.

I’ve been here forever. If you think I’m spending eternity with you, you’re going to be disappointed. It’s bad enough on my own. If you knew what eternity was, you’d want no part of it… you want time because you have so little. But just like any market shift, if I, say… multiplied your time by ten… even that small of a shift… you’d quickly begin to understand.

And if you knew my secret, you’d want no part of me. And honestly, it’s right there in front of you.

41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents. 43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Now in that analogy… who am I? The widow? the rich people? No. I’m the richest of people. Rich beyond all possible understanding. What can I give? My time? I wish I could give it away. I’ll never have a second less of it, even after eons. My money? Money is nothing to me. I’m the source of all things. Power? I can give it, I can take it… I’ll never have any less. What is it to have less? I’ll never know.

The point of that awful story is that the less you have to give, the more it is to give. It’s simple mathematics then that the more you have, the less it is to give, and if one were to have an infinite amount of something, to give it… would mean nothing.

My grace to you… I have infinite grace.

My patience with you. I have infinite time and patience. (Now your patience with me… well, it shows what you’d be capable of if you ever untangled yourself.)

Moving mountains for you, reaching and straining to find you and save you, sending my son/self/whatever to die on a cross… Pain means nothing to me. I have infinite tolerance for it. It was a loveless effort.

Creating an insanely large, complex, and beautiful universe. I have created and will create them ad nauseum. They’re kernels of corn to me. Grains of sand. I am sick of beauty and magnitude.

My absolutes torture me. I’m not capable of sacrifice.

I’m not capable of love.

I’m so lonely.

-God.

Biblical Marriage: Let’s Vote on it.

Biblical Marriage:  Let’s Vote on it.

I, for one, certainly don’t want an omnipotent god to be angry at me for allowing citizens to “know” one another in a loving committed way.  So, the only fair thing to do is vote for the concept of biblical marriage.  But before we vote, I think it behooves us to examine our terms.  What does Biblical Marriage look like exactly?  We need some ground rules. Ten Commandments, if you will…

Rule 1: Divorce should be Illegal.

  • Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7; 1 Cor. 7:10-11, 27, Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11-12

Rule 2:  Husbands have authority over Wives. (Analogy:  God=Men, Humans=Women)

  • Gen. 3:16; 1 Cor. 11:3, 7-9; Eph. 5:23, 1 Pet. 3:7

Rule 3:  Widows under 60 years old must remarry (and I assume miraculously) have children or they will turn to Satan and become busybodies.

  • 1 Timothy 5:11-15

Rule 4:  Childless widows must marry their brother-in-laws.

  • Deut 25:5; Matt. 22:24

Rule 5:  Women suspected of cheating must drink evil cursed water that damages their genitals.

  • Numbers 5:11-31 

Rule 6:  Women not virgins at marriage are to be murdered.  (In this way, only very short marriages of non-virgins are allowed.)

  •  Deut. 22:14-21

Rule 7:  Women who are divorced from their first husband, and marry a second husband, and are divorced by the second husband can never remarry the first husband.  (This law applies to no one as it violates Rule #1).

  • Deut. 24:1-4

Rule 8:  Anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.  (This violates both laws #7 and #1.  However, I believe these cancel each other out. Making Rule 8 valid.)

  • Matt. 5:32

Rule 9:  During wartimes, men can kidnap any women that they want to marry.  As a favor to them, lock them up for one month before the marriage is made final.  (Back out at any time, but don’t sell her, as that would be cruel.)

  •  Deut. 21:10-14

Rule 10:  Men can have multiple wives, mistresses, and slaves.

  • Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15-17, really any major OT character

Bonus Rule (to replace Rule 7 which is invalid due to technicality)  No interracial marriage!

  • Gen. 28:6; Exod. 34:15-16; Num. 25:6-11; Deut. 7:1-3; Josh. 23:12-13; Judges 3:5-8; 1 Kings 11:1-2; Ezra 9:1-2, 12; Ezra 10:2-3, 10-11; Neh. 10:30; Neh. 13:25-27

So what do you say?  Let’s vote for biblical marriage in America.  In this economy, we can’t afford to turn our back on god.  You know how he gets when he’s jealous.  Because at this rate, he’s surely going to make us drink the metaphorical genital shrinking water of economic recession (or the metaphorical economic recession of genital shrinking…one can never be sure).

-Jon no H

Doubling Down on Pascal’s Wager

Posted on

“Hell no, I won’t go!”

Christians have all sorts of different arguments. They’re mostly fallacies. As I said in my post about the Creation Museum , the point of christian apologetics is not to actually find the truth, it’s to find Christianity in the evidence and verify it by twisting and contorting the facts and suspending your disbelief like you’re Roger Goodell and your disbelief is a Bengals cornerback. The goal of the scientist is to start with a hypothesis, test it, prove it or disprove it, and thusly work one’s way from a question to an answer. The goal of the christian apologist is to start with whatever interpretation of the Bible one accepts, and work your way back as successfully and creatively as possible… and with enough imagination, anything is possible.

That’s sort of where this blog comes in. We’re about a lot of things here, but we’re always looking for the humor in any situation… and when you’re trying intellectually to fit a round peg into a square hole, hilarity can and will ensue. The logical fallacies, circular arguments, the psychological mischief and mental gymnastics are completely mockable when not completely heartbreaking. My alltime favorite though is Pascal’s Wager.

Poor Pascal. So good at math. So bad at logic. He’s like Bobby Fischer if math were chess and having a conversation was NOT hating Jews and growing a crazyman-beard. Pascal’s Wager is the concept that one should believe in Christianity because it has a greater risk/reward scenario than other options, especially Atheism or Agnosticism. Because Christianity comes with a threat of hell, and a carrot on a stick in the form of Heaven; and because Atheism comes with no benefit for believing or adverse affects on not believing; it behooves you to accept Christianity based on the premise that there is quite literally “nothing” to be lost and “everything” to gain.

I can go on forever about what’s wrong with this. First of all, it’s not actual proof of anything. Voltaire responded to Pascal’s Wager by saying “the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists.” It would most accurately be described as a sort of “strategy.” It views the world and all various concepts of the afterlife as a scenario that might be studied in a Game theory classroom, where pros and cons are weighed and a decision is made based on probabilities and positive and negative outcomes, resulting in a strategy. Even if the world is viewed this way, Christianity wouldn’t be a smart choice, as it over-emphasizes outcomes without weighing the probability of those outcomes. Aside from that, it’s an incredibly simplistic, cold approach to the world. I truly hope most Christians aren’t believers because it’s a strategic move. That would seem to negate the free-will love that God seeks so intently that he allows all sin, pain, and death to assure himself he has it. I hope and I do believe that most Christians base their faith upon what they believe to be personal experiences. I would hope that even if it’s a misguided viewpoint, that it’s at least an honest one.

Secondly, it’s just not possible to view the world that way. We’re surrounded by information. We see it all around us, and we can use books (yes, even the Bible) to inform our decision. The Bible informs my decision just as it informs a Christian’s decision, but to completely different results. How can Pascal’s Wager be taken seriously? You’re surrounded by information and evidence. For my Christians you have a huge book supposedly written by the god of the universe as a love letter (ugh.) to you. And you’ll bypass all that information and base your working theory on the nature of the universe on the magnitude of the various threats and promises you’re made? That’s disrespectful. It’s disrespectful to the world, to any god you believe in, and to yourself. Pragmatism is one thing. Some people believe because of social pressure, to keep the peace in a marriage, to fit in well at work, or to have a community. Those things can and I believe almost always do influence someone into belief. But to throw away all information and simply make a pragmatic choice to let the concepts of Heaven and Hell be all the convincing you need makes you a bit of a wimp and a bit of a sociopath. Oh, Pascal, you’re reinforcing so many hurtful stereotypes about mathematicians here…

I will say this about Pascal’s Wager: It reflects the nature of Christianity. It reflects the nature of most religion. It is a threat, and a promise. Religion is a cosmic pyramid scheme. You get in on the ground floor as a child. You avoid vices like drugs, alcohol, sexuality, and Pokemon as you grow up… you learn good manners, obedience, respect for elders, and give reassurance to those elders by following their path… paying forward your enjoyment of life to varying degrees, giving them peace of mind and a sense of control. As you get older you receive your pyramid scheme payments in small increments that keep you pushing on towards the big prize. Respect, stature, stability… your “faith” is reassured by these “blessings” being bestowed upon you. But just like in the pyramid scheme, few if any are actually getting that big cash payday. God promising you heaven is the sleazy Hollywood director telling the young starlet that he’ll make her a star if she just hops on the casting couch. It’s “YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS.”  I think more accurately, it’s the abusive husband telling his poor wife that if she stays he’ll change. He swears. He’ll stop giving kids cancer and allowing war, hunger, and death, and he’ll be the man you always hoped he’d be.

In the same way, Hell is simply Heaven’s reflection. One is not really any more insidious than the other. What does the abusive husband always say to the battered wife when she threatens to leave? “If you leave me, I’ll kill you.” Think about that for a minute. Hell is a threat. God is threatening you. Is that love? How does that stack up with the love that’s described in your church?

Heaven is an absolute reward; it is described as perfectly good. There is literally no way to dislike it or to not be fully satisfied, by definition. Hell, too, is absolute. There can be no worse pain, no greater grief, and no worse fate, by definition, than this place with which God is threatening us.

Now that I’ve told you about why I have particular disdain for this childish argument, and why my Christian friends should as well; (Seriously… NEVER use this one. You’re better than that. Even if we do disagree.) let me tell you what your response to it should be when confronted with it.

When confronted by the Christian with any form of “If I’m wrong, X… but if YOU’RE WRONG, Y! It is time for you to proselytize back. Here are the steps.

1. Instantly discount the person who said it to you. Whatever respect you had for them, halve it. Actually, quarter it. Do this before proceeding.

2. Tell your friend that you actually have recently found faith. It’s a new faith that you’re eager to share with them. You’re excited, and also concerned for their eternal soul.

3. Your new religion is Johnianity. (You’ll have to show them my blog of course. It won’t make sense if you mention me and they’ve never heard of me.) Tell them that every single thing about Johnianity is exactly like Christianity, except for two main differences. First, Jesus Christ is not the savior. Jon and I are. We are co-saviors, and the Bible is a perfect book, EXCEPT in every instance where Christ is mentioned, an accidental search and replace cosmically replaced our names with his. We travelled back in time and did all that. You’re welcome. In Johnianity, you pray to us, you worship us. We are your new savior. (At this point, you know it’s working if your friend is dry-heaving violently. In with the good, out with the bad.) The second difference is that not believing is not punishable by hell. It’s actually punishable by another place. Brace yourself. This place is known as DOUBLE HELL.

4. Explain to them that DOUBLE HELL is exactly, perfectly like Hell, except that Jon and I have found a way to stoke the flames. It’s exactly, perfectly, to within a millionth of a degree, twice as bad as regular Hell. Now you’ve doubled down on Pascal’s Wager. You’ve called his bluff. Your friend’s argument for believing is the weight of the consequences, regardless of evidence. The main flaw in Johnianity is the embarrassing dearth of evidence. (For the life of me, I know I left the Time Machine and crowns of thorns at Jon’s house. He says it’s at mine.) However, Pascal’s Wager was absolutely made for Johnianity. Because the great strength of Johnianity is the weight of it’s consequences! And because your friend bases his/her choice ONLY on the weight of the consequences, they now must either abandon this unfortunate argument, or you can email us the name of our new minion so we can put him/her to work. (Also, if you’re dealing with a Scientologist, this is the time to hand them the credit app.)

5. I usually try to cap things off by getting in the Christian’s face and saying “So now how would YOU like to spend your eternity? Non-smoking, Smoking, or DOUBLE SMOKING???” (If you’re holding a microphone, this is where you would hold it out in front of you and drop it.)

Seriously, the first thing out of your mouth when someone tries to argue with you using any version of Pascal’s Wager is “Johnianity” (Or “_____ianity” with your name in the blank. I’m not that egotistical. You can be fake god. It’s your conversation.) and the concept of Double Hell. All joking aside, it crushes that argument. Of course, most believers will simply continue to backpedal into one of the safe havens, like “God is mysterious” or “You need to be praying about these things.” I don’t promise this will convert, I only promise it’s a logical shut down. Have fun!

Christians and Non-believers, what are your thoughts on this? Can any believer with a Pascalian Predilection give me a good response to “Double Hell?” Has anyone ever heard a form of this argument? (I’m sure it’s been thought of before somewhere, of course.) We’re starting to get some interesting discussions going, and I’d love to see it continue. Also, feel free to ask us any questions you’d like, or make any general comments you’d like. We’d love to discuss with and also make fun of you!

-John with an H.

The Bad Shepherd

Posted on

I was recently offered this verse from scripture by a christian friend.

Matthew 18:12-14 “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13 And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14 In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.”

This verse tells us that God is our good shepherd. That he watches us closely, cares immensely for us, and he is all-powerful, all-loving, and perfectly good. This was my response:

If someone who can’t be stopped is trying to save every individual person in the world, and billions of those people are NOT saved, then how is that someone unstoppable? The words say he is not willing that any should perish. But they perish.

If a shepherd had a flock of 7 billion sheep (number of people worldwide) , and he had them enclosed within a gate where they could not escape his sight, and he returned in the evening with about 2.1 billion sheep… (number of Christians worldwide.) is he a good shepherd, or a bad shepherd?

Let’s say no one ever sees him. The farmer just opens the gate in the morning, believing the shepherd will come, the sheep leave, presumably with him. The 2.1 billion remaining sheep return in the evening. 4.9 billion of them gone and lost. The next day you talk to the farmer and he gushes about the greatness of the shepherd who has lost 3/4th s of his flock. He tells you the story of opening the gate and of the great loss, and continues to praise the greatness of the shepherd. Would you start to wonder if that shepherd is real?

Let’s say you were curious so you wandered out to the field, and as you walked the path you saw sheep. Dead. Eaten by wolves. Broken upon rocks after falling off a cliff. Snatched up by birds of prey. They are almost literally everywhere. So many sheep. The streams are nearly clogged with sheep who wandered in and drowned. Some still limp along, lost in the forest, bleating for help.

This is what I’ve seen. I can draw two conclusions. One is that the shepherd is a bad shepherd. That he is ambivalent towards the sheep, and outright malevolent towards them. You could argue easily that he hates them.

The other is that the farmer may be a good man, but he is mistaken. There is no shepherd. You mentioned the other day that I was disrespectful towards god. Out of the two choices I have above, I have chosen the one that is MOST respectful towards him.

Just my thoughts,

-John

Those were my thoughts. Now I’d love to hear yours. Christians and Non-Christians, what are your thoughts on the verse? What are your thoughts on my response?

-John with an H

Quote for the Day: Sam Harris from The End Of Faith…

Posted on

“…bad ideas, however sacred, cannot survive the company of good ones forever.”

Happy Independance Day to ME…

Posted on

Just a quick note that I DO feel a sappy sense of meaning on this July 4th as my first Independance Day to be independant of religion. I have and I do feel an increased sense of freedom lately as I don’t find myself wondering what would “draw me closer” to “Him” or other such nonsense, but I make decisions strictly based on what brings me joy and what is best for the people I care about. In the aftermath of God’s funeral in my life and the mourning period that took place afterward, I am starting to understand more and more that he who died was not a friend.

I see my friends and loved ones more clearly now than I ever have.

-John with an H