Jim Speaks!

Greetings, loyal followers of Ron's blog. (All 3 of you.) This is Jim. Do not try to adjust your monitor. We control the horizontal, and the vertical, and the verbal. Well, I've been thinking about contributing to Ron's blog for a while now, but couldn't find a good opportunity, until now. Today, I found a cute little pamphlet at work shaped like a wallet. Unsurprisingly, the content was less cute. It was a religious tract. Oh, joy...

Now, I'm sure Ron's gotten through most of the general objections to religion already, since I've read his previous posts. So, I'll focus on the tract itself, and on the specific objections to it that I have. Now, first off- the wallet thing is a bit cutesy, and detracts from the seriousness of the message about hell, salvation, sin and all that crap. The inner portion of the wallet folds out to reveal a purported "Personality Analysis", which is a thinly veiled guilt trip in the form of 10 questions. I'll quote the questions here. Now, keep in mind that these are not of my own invention. I couldn't think up worse shit if I tried. The tract is put out by Living Waters, whatever the fuck that is. Anyone who feels like it can check them out and see I'm being honest here. Anyway, on to the schlock.

1.) If this was a real wallet, packed with real money, would you:
Keep it, take it to the police, or give some of the money to the poor?

I shall commence to give this inane question an ass-whooping. First of all, I work in a fast food restaurant. People leave stuff all the time. I've never taken anything that didn't belong to me unless it was cash laying out on a table, clearly intended as a tip. Change on the floor behind the counter goes into the drawer, since one of the employees had to have dropped it. Change on the floor near a table is pointed out to whoever might have dropped it. Lost items are taken to the office for safe keeping. We have policies in place for these things, and there are cameras watching us.

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I would try to return a wallet if there was ID in it. I try to follow the principle of reciprocity, also known as the Golden Rule- "Treat others as you would like to be treated." I've never really had this one fail me. If I were a masochist, it might be different, but then that's an entirely different story.

To get back to the other stupid response, who the HELL would give that money to the poor!? There is absolutely no way that would happen. Anyone honest enough to return the wallet wouldn't take any of the money. Anyone dishonest enough to keep it isn't going to give their ill-gotten gains to someone else. The whole thing is a non sequitur. Whoever wrote this thing wasn't thinking things through. On to question 2.

2.) You have been underpaid for years. There's a BIG mistake in your paycheck to your advantage, would you:
Tell the boss, keep quiet, or give some to a church?

I think most of the same objections to question 1 apply here. In fact, this is pretty much the same question. I'm pretty sure they had to inflate the number of questions to get it to reach 10, since they couldn't think of 10 good question, or even 1 really.

3.) If telling a white lie would save a friend's job, would you:
Tell the truth, act dumb, or lie?

Well, this one is a bit better formulated, but it's not really a religious issue in my mind, so I'm not sure this is a good question for this sort of tract. In my opinion, if my friend deserved the job, I wouldn't have to lie to save him. What kind of white lie saves someone's job? "No, he hasn't been embezzling for years."? Any infraction severe enough to cost someone their job should automatically preclude the usage of the term "white lie". That's not a little thing, like "You don't look fat in that dress." or "I'm sure she's just lost your number." That's some serious bullshit.

4.) Do you consider yourself to be a "good" person?
Yes or no?

I'm pretty sure most people would answer yes. Who actually thinks they aren't a good person? Everyone tries to rationalize and justify their behavior, especially to themselves. Most likely, anyone who thinks they aren't a good person is already into some religious guilt trip for sinning or some shit, so they wouldn't even need this tract to tell them they are a sinner. Moot point, dumb question. Let's continue.

5.) Have you ever told a lie for any reason (including "fibs" and "white" lies- be honest)?

I'm guessing everyone is gonna say yes, at this point. Humans have been lying to each other since we developed language. Some lies are harmful, some less so, and others are necessary for social reasons. Tell me, can you imagine someone who always told the unvarnished truth, all of the time? They would be miserable. Any time someone asked their opinion, they wouldn't be able to soften the blow. No "It's... ok.", or "You look fine...", or "It's probably nothing." Every response would be the equivalent of "You have cancer." Again, bullshit moralizing on an issue which isn't religious.

6.) Have you ever stolen something- irrespective of its value?

I'm not going to object to the idea that stealing is wrong, but I think that this comes back to the Golden Rule instead of being a religious issue. I'm pretty sure if someone stole something from me, I'd be a bit miffed. I can take that knowledge and extrapolate from it that other people probably don't like getting stolen from. I'm going to admit, yes, I stole stuff when I was a kid. Small stuff, it's true, but I still did. I didn't really think about it at the time. I just wanted that candy, or whatever it was. However, as an adult, I can see now that it was wrong, and so I try my best to make up for it by not stealing anymore. Once more, not a religious issue.

7.) Would you consider someone who admits to being a liar and a thief a good person?

Ah, here we have another difference of opinion. See, the point of this question is the big guilt trip, the "AHA! GOTCHA!" part of the act. Now I have to disagree with automatically applying the labels of liar and thief to anyone who has ever lied or stolen. The problem here is that I would call someone a thief or liar if they regularly or habitually engaged in the aforementioned acts. If the person in question committed these acts and later came to regret them, or possibly tried to make amends, I might call them a former or reformed thief or liar. Or I would let them get on with their life and hope they learned their lesson. If not, we have jails and police for just that reason.

8.) Who do you think will enter Heaven?
Those who say they are good when they are not, liars and thieves, or those whom god has forgiven and cleansed of sin?

This right here presents a false choice, and not a very good one at that. There are really a lot more than three types of people in the world. As for all the myriad assumptions one has to make to even believe Heaven exists in the first place, don't even get me started. The problem with this question, even from a religious point of view, is that most sects and churches disagree on this very issue. Some say baptism is essential to get to heaven, some say good works and confession of sin, and some say merely being a good person is enough. Hell, even Jesus gives three different explanations on how to get there in the Bible, but of course I couldn't give a shit about that.

9.) Did you realize that the Bible warns that thieves, liars, fornicators (those who have had sex out of marriage), idolaters (those who create a god to suit themselves), adulterers, and the covetous (the greedy), will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

Oh, God. Here we go. The first problem I have with this question is that it assumes that the reader is stupid or ill-read. Anyone with a decent vocabulary knows what fornicators, idolaters, and covetousness are. I have to disagree strongly with religion having any say at all about reproductive morals, simply by virtue of the fact that most religions are hideously sexually repressive, usually in regards to women, and most of these religions were conceived back before we had a lot of scientific knowledge about human anatomy and biology. Hell, some religions still "circumcise" (read: mutilate) women by cutting off the clitoris, a scarring and painful process that has lifelong consequences, usually resulting in a complete destruction of pleasurable sexual sensation. Other religions believed menstruation was some sort of curse or impurity. This kind of Dark Age bullshit is not worthy of mention in today's society.

Now, I find it interesting that they mention idolatry, since the changing and making of gods to suit oneself is how religions got their start in the first place. Whatever is most convenient for the upper class of religious authority is set down as law. Since the decline of organized religion, the churches we see nowadays are pretty much peddling their wares on the street corner. If you want to pick and choose the god that's right for you, you can mix and match till you find a church that suits you. Seriously, there are over 1000 denominations in the US alone. If all of them can't be the one true religion, then what makes any one of them any better than the 0thers? It's simply so that people can reinforce their own biases with a bunch of like-minded crazies. Religious believers cherry-pick quotes and rules to suit themselves all the time, since the Bible is vague enough to say just about anything you want to make it say. Religion is idolatry.

The next problem with this one is covetousness. In my opinion, wanting something isn't really a bad thing. Taking it by force or trickery isn't good by any means, but without the drive and ambition to achieve one's goals, where would we be as a species? If the US and Russia hadn't been trying to "keep up with the Jones' " (or the Rasalnikovs), as it were, then most of our recent achievements in space flight or mathematical theory would have taken decades longer.

Finally, we've reached question 10- the wall of text that throws together a bunch of bullshit Bible quotes and admonishes you to revile yourself as a horrid, dirty little sinner. Every tract ends like this. It's not even a question by the end of it. Here it is, and I quote (of course):

10.) Did you also realize that the Bible says "whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery already with her in his heart"? On Judgment Day God will bring to light "every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil." When you stand before God on Judgment Day, will you be innocent or guilty? Will you go to Heaven or Hell (there is no such place as Purgatory)? Please, let go of your self-righteousness (saying that you are good when you are not). Instead, put your faith in Jesus Christ. He suffered and died on the Cross, taking the punishment for all of your sins: "God commended His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Then Jesus rose from the dead and defeated death. If you will repent and trust Him, God will forgive your sins and give you everlasting life. Death will lose its sting!- "What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his soul?" Pray something like this right now: "Dear God, I have sinned against you. I now turn from all sin and trust Jesus Christ alone as my Lord and Savior. I will read Your Word daily and obey what I read. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen."

Fuck. That was painful to type. That much concentrated idiocy in one place gives me a headache. Let's start from the beginning and tear this piece of shit apart, line by line.

A.) Did you also realize that the Bible says "whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery already with her in his heart"?

a.) This admonishment has got to cause a lot of grief, since the human brain is hardwired to enjoy sex, and to find its contemplation pleasurable. Why is it that thoughts are somehow equivalent to deeds? If I was punished for everything I thought, I'd be pretty well fucked by now. However, the great thing about self-restraint is that we can deny ourselves the temptation to act out our base desires for rapacious gluttony. The text is pretty much assuming that anyone who reads it has no self control.

B.) On Judgment Day God will bring to light "every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil."

b.) Here comes the End Times theological scare tactic. This fails pretty much at the starting line since Jesus was under the impression that the End Times were coming about 2000 years ago! That's a pretty big margin of error there. He specifically states that the Kingdom of Heaven will come to pass within the lifetime of the people he has preached to. That is, from around 30 A.D. onward, there was a time frame of about one generation for the whole Armageddon thing to do its work. That's around 30 to 45 years, at best, since the average lifespan was a bit shorter then. After that, people should have just given up and gone back to their lives.

However, the shame of devoting their lives to a sham just made them believe all the more stubbornly. This is what is commonly known as cognitive dissonance, or Festinger's Syndrome. Cognitive dissonance is commonly defined as an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously, such as "the end of the world is at hand", and "Oh. No it isn't. My mistake." The most common feelings associated with cognitive dissonance are anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and other various negative emotions. Commonly, cognitive dissonance also results in rationalizations, confirmation bias, and denial of evidence. These are mostly steps taken to reduce damage to one's ego after making what might be considered a bad decision. If that doesn't just scream religion to me, I don't know what does.

Funny story, the first use of the word cognitive dissonance was coined in relation to a failed religious prophecy. It was observed that a particular sect of a doomsday religion had predicted the end of the world on December 21, 1956. When the day arrived, and Armageddon didn't, the results were surprising. Several members of the church actually clung to their beliefs all the more irrationally, inventing numerous reasons for the failure of the prophecy. From this phenomenon, scientists theorized that the emotional investment in the irrational belief actually prevented the cultists from admitting to a failed belief. From this, it can be further theorized, though this is somewhat conjecture on my part, that one reason the early Christian religion was so fervently clung to in the face of compelling contradictory evidence is the feeling of cognitive dissonance.

C.) When you stand before God on Judgment Day, will you be innocent or guilty? Will you go to Heaven or Hell (there is no such place as Purgatory)?

c.) Oddly enough, people still have to go and point out that there is no Purgatory. It was abolished fairly recently, so I suppose it makes sense. My question here is, do these people deny the truth of Purgatory from the beginning, or is there no longer a Purgatory? It was established pretty explicitly that there was a Purgatory by St. Augustine and Pope Gregory I. Are these people accusing a saint and a Pope of lying? Where do they get their authority? I'm guessing a later Pope, but how do we decide which infallible representative of God to believe? They can't both be right. I say let 'em fight it out. Winner takes all, no-holds-barred Pope fight. Winner gets to issue God's commands like a big boy, loser sulks and goes home to Heaven.

D.) Please, let go of your self-righteousness (saying that you are good when you are not). Instead, put your faith in Jesus Christ. He suffered and died on the Cross, taking the punishment for all of your sins: "God commended His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

d.) Having to define self-righteousness shows again how condescending these people are to their readers about their intelligence. One of the major problems with the Crucifixion is the simple question of "why?". Could God have not simply forgiven humanity its sins without the need for a sadomasochistic sacrifice? No, the Old Testament laws demand a sacrifice to appease God. There must be blood. The Abrahamic God is, most of all, bloodthirsty. Killing rival tribes, destroying their cities, dashing their children against the stones, raping the virgin girls as spoils, the God of the Old Testament certainly commands violence.

See, the Crucifixion just ties back to the absurd Jewish rite of scapegoating, or the expiation of sin by proxy. The first scapegoats were literal goats, but damned if God didn't do the Jews one better and send a demigod to kick things up a notch.

The New Testament may put on a new costume and tart itself up as a great new thing for even the Gentiles to have, but God is still a wolf in sheep's clothing. Jesus might love us, but he certainly didn't have any love for the Gentiles then. He even comes out and says his daddy is God of the Jews. He refuses to heal a Gentile girl until her mother debases herself, and then only grudgingly. Not the best example, eh?

E.) Then Jesus rose from the dead and defeated death. If you will repent and trust Him, God will forgive your sins and give you everlasting life. Death will lose its sting!-"What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his soul?"

e.) Here, we get to the crux of the matter, one of the primary primitive motivations for believing such absurdities- wishful thinking and the fear of death. Believing one will survive one's own death is the height of arrogance. Hoping it is so is just being human. That doesn't make it any more likely, however.

One of the primary objections to the life after death theory is the uncertainty of the existence of the soul. Generally, the soul is described as being the essential essence of a person, what makes them who they are. Now, for this essence to survive the process of death, the personality of a person would have to be outside of the brain, or in some other medium than the physical realm. However, since brain injuries and alterations in brain chemistry have been shown to produce personality changes, it is highly unlikely that the personality is not specifically tied to the brain, and the physical processes that make up its operation. In essence, there is no soul. Therefore, physical death is the end. Consciousness dies with the brain.

F.) Pray something like this right now: "Dear God, I have sinned against you. I now turn from all sin and trust Jesus Christ alone as my Lord and Savior. I will read Your Word daily and obey what I read. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen."

f.) Ambrose Bierce had a pretty clever definition of "to pray": "To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy." From there, let us move on to the issue of God's Word. We're supposed to read it every day. Which one? The King James? The NIV? The NET? The ESV? Authorized Version? Gnostic Gospels? There are no two versions of the Bible that are exactly alike, and any deviation violates the sanctity of God's Word. How is one supposed to obey what they read without getting jailed for it? Killing children for disrespecting their parents, killing gays, stoning adulterers and those who work on the Sabbath- these are all out of style. We have moved past these primitive rules for our conduct. There are better ways to live our lives.

Well, that about wraps it up. I hope someone is still reading this, otherwise I've just wasted a huge chunk of time and effort. Anyway, I promise my next post won't be such dry reading. I'll be covering the other end of the nerd spectrum. Ron will handle music and some movies, I'll go for games, manga, comics, and anime. We'll probably collaborate on some movie and book reviews too, so look forward to it.