This year I have Nokia E71. It is better than god:
1. It has a well-written manual. I don't have to study commentaries to be able to use the phone. If I´m not sure I can ask the manufacturer. The manual yields well to translations and its meaning is easily maintained in different languages. Readers of the manual find very little ambiguity in it and they gain a common understanding of the text. (Compare with bible.)
2. It fulfills my wishes the way I mean them and does so immediately. (Compare to prayer.)
3. It doesn't threaten to kill me if I switch to Ericsson, for example. (Compare with god's threats, e.g. here)
Tuesday 15 December 2009
Wednesday 2 December 2009
How Bible (/Torah/Quran) guides our lives - a manual
Follow these steps:
1. Decide what you want to justify / what you want someone else to do / what you want to ascertain.
2. Pick such statements from the text which contain a word pertaining to your subject. (It's easy - there are around 27000 verses in Torah and Prophets, 138000 verses in the New Testament and 6300 verses in Quran)
3. Out of those statements cherry-pick the one which seems the most to agree with your opinion.
4. Discard the others.
5. Say "This is so because the Torah/Bible/Quran says [fill in the statement from step 3]".
Troubleshooting:
Can´t find a fitting statement? Don´t worry, holy books are full of hidden meanings. Pick a statement of which meaning can be said to ALLUDE to the one you need to prove. Alternatively, INTERPRET a statement so that it fits yours. Who are we anyway to claim understanding of a text written in a foreign language and an ancient context!?
Real-world example:
Is it right for Jews to fight in Gaza, given the high risk of harming civilians?
A) Yes, it is! Why? Take your pick:
- Sodom was to be destroyed even though not all of its inhabitants were spoiled. (Before Abraham intervened).
- "Go, depart, go down from among Amalek, lest I destroy you with them." (Shmuel 1 15:6) This gets interpreted as even though you are my friend, if you are there, you could get hurt or killed. (seen here)
- An entire city holds collective responsibility for the immoral behavior of individuals. (In Gaza, the entire populace is responsible because they do nothing to stop the firing of Kassam rockets.) - by Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu
B) No, it isn´t. Why? Take your pick:
- Don't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do unto you... (Talmud)
- God took care of Egypt and Sodom (i.e., the bad guys). All Israel has to do is keep his commandments, and God will protect them as it is written ...
Fantastic.
1. Decide what you want to justify / what you want someone else to do / what you want to ascertain.
2. Pick such statements from the text which contain a word pertaining to your subject. (It's easy - there are around 27000 verses in Torah and Prophets, 138000 verses in the New Testament and 6300 verses in Quran)
3. Out of those statements cherry-pick the one which seems the most to agree with your opinion.
4. Discard the others.
5. Say "This is so because the Torah/Bible/Quran says [fill in the statement from step 3]
Troubleshooting:
Can´t find a fitting statement? Don´t worry, holy books are full of hidden meanings. Pick a statement of which meaning can be said to ALLUDE to the one you need to prove. Alternatively, INTERPRET a statement so that it fits yours. Who are we anyway to claim understanding of a text written in a foreign language and an ancient context!?
Real-world example:
Is it right for Jews to fight in Gaza, given the high risk of harming civilians?
A) Yes, it is! Why? Take your pick:
- Sodom was to be destroyed even though not all of its inhabitants were spoiled. (Before Abraham intervened).
- "Go, depart, go down from among Amalek, lest I destroy you with them." (Shmuel 1 15:6) This gets interpreted as even though you are my friend, if you are there, you could get hurt or killed. (seen here)
- An entire city holds collective responsibility for the immoral behavior of individuals. (In Gaza, the entire populace is responsible because they do nothing to stop the firing of Kassam rockets.) - by Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu
B) No, it isn´t. Why? Take your pick:
- Don't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do unto you... (Talmud)
- God took care of Egypt and Sodom (i.e., the bad guys). All Israel has to do is keep his commandments, and God will protect them as it is written ...
Fantastic.
Thursday 26 November 2009
Let's abandon the concept of good and evil
Let's forget the good and evil
All the three big monotheistic religions work with a text which clearly promotes an understanding of the world primarily in terms of good and evil. The good is the desirable, the rewarded, the blessed. The evil is the unwanted, the painful, the punishing.
God presents man with a choice between good and evil, allegedly depending on the man's behaviour. This choice is imposed on man, as if man agreed to choosing between good and bad. As if the world had to be created with these 2 categories. But surely god is not limited by design constraints. Then why not choose between good and neutral instead of good and bad? I can imagine a world in which, instead of good and bad, there would be good and neutral. I think I would like such a world better.
Perhaps you say, "But the new neutral is just another name for the old bad", or, "The neutral would soon become the bad, bad just by comparison to good", or, " Maybe the bad used to be neutral, we just call it bad today". So what's the difference between bad and neutral? Bad is something I do not want. Neutral is something I don't mind. That's a pretty simple distinction.
The Bible does not explain or justify why these categories are imposed on man and we have a possibility to stop interpreting the world in terms of good and bad, just because it is perhaps not the best model.
All the three big monotheistic religions work with a text which clearly promotes an understanding of the world primarily in terms of good and evil. The good is the desirable, the rewarded, the blessed. The evil is the unwanted, the painful, the punishing.
God presents man with a choice between good and evil, allegedly depending on the man's behaviour. This choice is imposed on man, as if man agreed to choosing between good and bad. As if the world had to be created with these 2 categories. But surely god is not limited by design constraints. Then why not choose between good and neutral instead of good and bad? I can imagine a world in which, instead of good and bad, there would be good and neutral. I think I would like such a world better.
Perhaps you say, "But the new neutral is just another name for the old bad", or, "The neutral would soon become the bad, bad just by comparison to good", or, " Maybe the bad used to be neutral, we just call it bad today". So what's the difference between bad and neutral? Bad is something I do not want. Neutral is something I don't mind. That's a pretty simple distinction.
The Bible does not explain or justify why these categories are imposed on man and we have a possibility to stop interpreting the world in terms of good and bad, just because it is perhaps not the best model.
Why did God choose text?
Given that TEXT is a highly unreliable and corruptible medium of communication, why did god decide to use TEXT as the primary means of conveying his message?
(He did not? He's chosen verbal means and man chose to scribble it down? Not quite; he commanded Moses to write it down, see here or here. And if he did not command any note taking (in Christianity or Islam), how else was man supposed to keep the communication for future generations? By oral tradition? They work real bad - they get distorted much quicker than text. We'd have as many versions of oral tradition as there are Bible interpretations today. If someone tells you and only you something crucial, you write it down. Effectively, god chose text.)
(He did not? He's chosen verbal means and man chose to scribble it down? Not quite; he commanded Moses to write it down, see here or here. And if he did not command any note taking (in Christianity or Islam), how else was man supposed to keep the communication for future generations? By oral tradition? They work real bad - they get distorted much quicker than text. We'd have as many versions of oral tradition as there are Bible interpretations today. If someone tells you and only you something crucial, you write it down. Effectively, god chose text.)
Problems with text:
1. It ages. Scribes have to (or had to) copy it over and over while making mistakes. (There are almost no two same hand-written Bibles in existence.) This corrupts the text.
2. Text implies language. Languages change (nobody speaks ancient Hebrew), meanings change. Requires translations into other languages which sometimes necessarily alters meaning.
3. Text is always ambiguous to some degree. Scientific papers are very good at not being ambiguous. (Any scientific paper which would allow for such a varied interpretation as the Bible does would be considered of unsatisfactory quality.)
4. Requires people to DECIDE which text is true.
5. Requires people to DECIDE which interpretation of the text is true or correct.
As a result of 4. people who believe in god do not agree on the correct text. As a result of 5. people who believe in particular text do not agree on the correct meaning.
Now, considering the immense possibilities god has, why not pick a better medium? Text is unreliable, corruptible and a text that allows for such a varied interpretation as the Bible does is useless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)