Oh My God...Christians! Part 1 - The leap of Faith

A Few Little Things About Christianity...

I originally was going to throw all of my points into one post, but I decided to break it up a little, both for myself, and the reader.

Why am I writing this?

In short, to share a few of the Ideas I've had of late concerning Christianity and Christians, and to provide some rebuttal for the various arguments for Christianity, and the phenomenal amount of Christian Propaganda in circulation. For those Of Christian Faith, you may find some of the below blashphemous, and you will almost certainly find a lot of it offensive, so take this as your first and final warning – If you are a Christian, you are likely to be offended, so stop reading now.

...Wait, let me offend you just a little before I start. I would just like to point out, that contrary to the way many Christians seem to act about their faith, their religion is not considered by society a fringe cult of loonies, in fact, Christianity accounts for well over half the population of This country, and is still by far the largest religion in the world. Also, despite the “official” claims that we are a secular nation, historically speaking, almost all of our leaders have been of Christian faith, and more than half of them have elected to swear in as PM on a bible (thankfully this excludes our current PM). We are a country that has been run, since it's founding on Christian values, by Christian leaders.

In any case, moving right along...

The Leap of Faith

People have been saying to me for years that they feel that “they know there must be something out there” or that they “can't accept that there isn't more to life than what we see”. As far as this matter is concerned, I can strongly sympathise. Humanity has a long history of proclaiming itself loudly, and people (particularly scholastic people) have a tenancy to think they know everything, and yet time makes fools out of all of them. A case example of this is the fact that you only have to go back five hundred or so years, and the science of Alchemy was seen as, not only valid, but of the utmost importance. Only a few hundred years before that, Physics was seen as a Ludicrous, and blasphemous area of study. in another few hundred years, who knows? Maybe we'll see organ transplants as barbaric, and people will be focusing their attentions on a new area of study – something that we can't ever perceive now, that will seem so obvious to the people of the future that they will scorn the people of the past for not understanding it.

Another thought I've had to back up this idea is based on sense. The only means of perception people are our senses – Sight, Sound, Smell, Taste and Touch. There are many things that can only be detected by one of the five (e.g light can only be seen, air can only be smelled). There are animals who possess senses to perceive outside of what we can, For instance, some fish and sharks possess a sense known as “electroperception” which allows them to detect other animals electric field. many species of migratory animal have a sense known as “Magnetoception” which allows them to orient themselves based on the earth's magnetic fields. It seems quite possible to me, that like other senses there are thing that can be detected by these non- human senses – things we couldn't even begin to understand because we haven't the senses to perceive them with.

So, as far as their being more out there that people can understand, I'm completely with you.

The problem I'm having is understanding how you move from “there must be something” to “there's an intelligent, eternal god who created the world and man in six days, nothing came before him, he is the origin of everything, and is present with everyone every moment of their lives, and this book I have here chronicles his doings since the beginning of time if you'd like to read it?”

We all take small leaps of faith every day – crossing the road with faith you won't be hit by a car, going to sleep with faith that you'll wake up, but you're asking me, without basis, to take a very large leap of faith. A very, VERY large leap of faith, based on what a very old book has to say on the subject of philosophy. Interestingly, the age of the bible seems to validate it's authenticity in the minds of many modern day Christians. In other field, taking the advice of a book over two thousand years old would be laughable – Imagine if doctors were still using two thousand year old medical techniques – you'd probably be dead before your tenth birthday! In addition to this, If we do take age to be a mark of authenticity, then It's worth mentioning that there are numerous philosophical texts which predate the Bible by thousands of years (e.g. The Tibetan book of the dead, the Indian Veedas).

I really think that it's absolutely amazing that, considering we are taught (in the first world at least) the value of cynicism and critical thinking from a very young age, that people are still willing to follow the teachings of any book so blindly – let alone one with as little credibility as the bible

I am aware that archaeologists have found some of the bible is truth, but I'd like to point out that some of Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy is true as well. England is Definitely a place on Earth, and Quite likely there is a man named Arthur Dent, not to mention houses, pubs, Bulldozers, towels and the like. I don't think you'd find many people who would dispute this. However, that does not mean that the whole book is an historical recount - I'm quite sure (unless I was gone for a while) that the earth was not destroyed by Vogons, and Arthur Dent didn't go on a great journey through time and space to recover the earth, discovering in the process that the earth was an experiment designed my mice, who are in fact the most intelligent creatures in the universe. It is, and has been commonplace for literature to have a real-world base since long before the bible was written, dating back to the very first great literary work, The Epic of Gilgamesh - As an interesting aside, this pre-dates the Old Testament by around 2250 years, which is almost exactly the same amount as the old testament Pre-dates the works of Douglas Adams.

While We're on the subject of the epic if Gilgamesh....

Like I said, It was Written more than 2300 years before then bible, and is said by almost all historians to be the beginnings of written narrative. Despite this, there are some interesting comparisons that can be made between this, and the bible; Both speak of a great flood which wiped out most of humanity (which, again, Is common to a lot of religious texts). Both Stories contain a martyr who is half god, half man and looks out for people, both stories have the relationship between man and god as a core theme, both explore man's Hubris.... the list goes on and on – I could easily use up several pages just listing the similarities between the two stories. My point is that the ideas that are presented in the bible are at least as old as writing itself, probably older. Both the core Ideals and the narrative are recycled from a much older source. There were also several other recreations of this story in Mesopotamia, India and the far east in the period between Gilgamesh and the Bible which apparently resemble the new testament Quite closely, but I can't really comment on them because I haven't read any of them. There Is also historical evidence (census and economic records) to show that Gilgamesh was a real person, and in fact the king of Uruk. Similarly There is Historical evidence to show that Jesus was a real person, and Heir to throne of Israel. However, there is NOT historical evidence to support that either of them were capable of superhuman feats, or even that they were decent people, not to mention of course, claims of divinity. Again this is something that people have been doing for the length of recorded history as a political ploy, right up to the present day (George Bush being a prime example of this). What I'm getting at, is that it's quite a bit more likely that the bible (the new testament at least) was written as a piece of political propaganda that has been taken way out of context. Having spoken to a scholar of ancient languages about this, one who has in fact had the pleasure of personally reading over a few of the original biblical manuscripts, and the dead sea scrolls, I found that there is quite a big difference between the version of the bible that we read and the bible that was passed between the gnostic schools in the few hundred years after the death of Jesus. The latter of the two apparently tells not only of the "miracles" that Jesus performed, but how he performed them with the help of his followers. Evidently, Jesus' miracles were illusions; he was no more magical than Chris Angel. Certainly the difference between the modern day translation and the original text coupled with the obvious plagiarism of the new testament are enough to shatter the bible's credibility?

It's also noteworthy that, due to god's noticeable absence since the beginning of recorded history the bible was written by men, not God. This is important for a couple of reasons – firstly because it means that the author/s of the bible are human, and subject to the same flaws as you and I. By and large this seems to be overlooked, and when it is mentioned in relation to the new testament, the fact that the twelve witnesses of Jesus' Divinity are his disciples seems to be treated as if it meant they could tell no lies. Let's say, hypothetically, I was to sit down with twelve of my best friends and write a story about myself which included isolated accounts of miracles I performed, and a brazen claim that I was the son of god. Throughout this story, I've also pushed my own lofty socio-political ideals on the reader, and told them quite brazenly that if they do not believe my teachings, then they will be unhappy in this life, and will be sent to hell in the next, whilst my followers will come with me to paradise. Whether I genuinely believed it or not, if I started preaching this to people, I'd be locked up as either a nutcase, or a public menace. However, this seems to more or less be the case with the bible. A few of Jesus' buddies wrote a fantastical account of his life, a few people added to the narrative after his death and we have the new testament. I think this is probably why not a lot of attention was paid to Christianity in its first few hundred years – the story was too recent to be feasible to most sane people. Laugh at Scientologists all you want Christians, but you've been doing the same thing as them for a hell of a lot longer.

Add all of this stuff together, and essentially what you have a being that you cannot prove the existence of, and a text which is neither old nor young, poorly translated, Plagiarized, likely subject to strong social Bias, and could have been written by anyone. That is what Christians base their lives on. Without even going in to the specifics of the gospels or the meaning behind them, the entire basis for the religion is ludicrous. Sorry, guys, but that's one leap of faith I will not be taking with you.

Next time, I'm going to be writing about why I think that, if we take the bible to be truth, God is sadist.

Daniel