My first rationalist in months
A guy I used to deliver pizzas with - 25 years ago? - found me on Facebook and sent me the following message:
"The death of Judas, descriptions of snakes eating dust. Many more biblical contradictions. Oh, nearly forgot : If the love of money is the root of all evil, why is blasphemy the only unforgivable sin?. Google "Evil bible" for a list of contradictions. Chapters and verses sited."
It's been a while since I've gotten one of these. Used to get them all the time on the Star Trek forums. Some people the idea of being both an intellectual science fiction writer and a Christian upsets a universal fundamental balance; it's offensive. Of course, that's not my former coworker's motivation. He knew me before I was published. He just thinks I'm wrong. We used to have conversations about how wrong I was. I think he - like most rationalists who challenge the precepts of what they think my faith represents - is sincerely trying to straighten me out. Which is okay.
As it happens, I'm familiar with the evil Bible site. I prefer the scholarship of the skeptic's, but there are dozens of places you can look online to find out all the things about Christianity - or any faith for that matter - that do not line up with rational thought. A lot of people think rational thought and faith are mutually exclusive. They're not; they're just two different things. As I've said elsewhere, trying to understand matters of the spirit through applied rationalism is like trying to understand light through applied acoustics. The vice is also versa, of course - as anyone who's tried to pray their way through a calculus exam can tell you. We all need both faith and rationalism to get by.
I'll admit I do get annoyed by folks who declare my faith is evidence of mental instability. But I suspect they're just as annoyed by just about anything I say on the subject. I'm neither confused nor dismayed by rationalists' arguments - no matter how closely reasoned. It's a bit like someone with an AM-only radio adjusting the dial to every whole kHz between 520 and 1610 to prove the FM band does not exist.
That was a simile, by the way. I also use metaphors. So did the writers of the Bible and every sacred text of which I'm aware. Some critics of these texts tend to behave as though these evocative tools of communication - which predate written language - don't exist. Or that writers of things they don't like aren't allowed to use them. Thus saying that someone who has been reduced to the lowest level must "eat dust" is irrefutable proof the writer doesn't understand basic nutrition.
Many "contradictions" are linguistic word games of this sort. Or pretending not to understand how the calendar works. God tells a people that they will live in peace and to beat their swords into plows blades. Six hundred and fifty years later an enemy arises and God says it's time to beat the plow blades back into swords. Setting aside the fact the action is metaphorical in both cases, the statements illustrate a changing events, not changing intention on the part of God. Inhaling and exhaling are contradictory, but they're both part of respiration.
As for "blasphemy" being the only unforgivable sin, the archaic English phrase "blaspheming the holy spirit" means refusing or rejecting the spirit of God. (More literally, calling God a liar.) In other words God says "Here's the deal: Accept and you're in." If the person says "no," God will not go against the person's free will and force them in. It has more to do with God's respect for us than condemnation. Nothing keeps you out of heaven except your own refusal to go in. The choice is available as long as you're alive. After that you have eternity to consider the consequences of your decision.
"The death of Judas, descriptions of snakes eating dust. Many more biblical contradictions. Oh, nearly forgot : If the love of money is the root of all evil, why is blasphemy the only unforgivable sin?. Google "Evil bible" for a list of contradictions. Chapters and verses sited."
It's been a while since I've gotten one of these. Used to get them all the time on the Star Trek forums. Some people the idea of being both an intellectual science fiction writer and a Christian upsets a universal fundamental balance; it's offensive. Of course, that's not my former coworker's motivation. He knew me before I was published. He just thinks I'm wrong. We used to have conversations about how wrong I was. I think he - like most rationalists who challenge the precepts of what they think my faith represents - is sincerely trying to straighten me out. Which is okay.
As it happens, I'm familiar with the evil Bible site. I prefer the scholarship of the skeptic's, but there are dozens of places you can look online to find out all the things about Christianity - or any faith for that matter - that do not line up with rational thought. A lot of people think rational thought and faith are mutually exclusive. They're not; they're just two different things. As I've said elsewhere, trying to understand matters of the spirit through applied rationalism is like trying to understand light through applied acoustics. The vice is also versa, of course - as anyone who's tried to pray their way through a calculus exam can tell you. We all need both faith and rationalism to get by.
I'll admit I do get annoyed by folks who declare my faith is evidence of mental instability. But I suspect they're just as annoyed by just about anything I say on the subject. I'm neither confused nor dismayed by rationalists' arguments - no matter how closely reasoned. It's a bit like someone with an AM-only radio adjusting the dial to every whole kHz between 520 and 1610 to prove the FM band does not exist.
That was a simile, by the way. I also use metaphors. So did the writers of the Bible and every sacred text of which I'm aware. Some critics of these texts tend to behave as though these evocative tools of communication - which predate written language - don't exist. Or that writers of things they don't like aren't allowed to use them. Thus saying that someone who has been reduced to the lowest level must "eat dust" is irrefutable proof the writer doesn't understand basic nutrition.
Many "contradictions" are linguistic word games of this sort. Or pretending not to understand how the calendar works. God tells a people that they will live in peace and to beat their swords into plows blades. Six hundred and fifty years later an enemy arises and God says it's time to beat the plow blades back into swords. Setting aside the fact the action is metaphorical in both cases, the statements illustrate a changing events, not changing intention on the part of God. Inhaling and exhaling are contradictory, but they're both part of respiration.
As for "blasphemy" being the only unforgivable sin, the archaic English phrase "blaspheming the holy spirit" means refusing or rejecting the spirit of God. (More literally, calling God a liar.) In other words God says "Here's the deal: Accept and you're in." If the person says "no," God will not go against the person's free will and force them in. It has more to do with God's respect for us than condemnation. Nothing keeps you out of heaven except your own refusal to go in. The choice is available as long as you're alive. After that you have eternity to consider the consequences of your decision.