Bible

Great to the nTH power Uncle Tiktaalik

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

In 2006, in the cold Arctic north, in an area on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada, the fossilized remains of our great, great, great to the nth degree uncle Tiktaalik were discovered. The name, Tiktaalik, is a Inuktitut word meaning “large freshwater fish.” The fossil was estimated at 375 million years old.

What this fossil did was fill in one of the “missing links” in the fossil record between amphibians and the tetrapod (four-legged animals.) The skeleton of the fish bore the unmistakable evidence of early formation of shoulder and wrist structure.

One of the scientists involved in the discovery, Jennifer A. Clack, a Cambridge University expert on tetrapod evolution, said of Tiktaalik, “It’s one of those things you can point to and say, ‘I told you this would exist,’ and there it is.”

Just as evolution described it would exist, it did. Uncle Tiktaalik is just one example. It filled a gap previously occupied by the intelligent designer fallacy, the god of the gaps.

The (inane) argument against evolution, the promotion of the teleological argument for the existence of god, aka intelligent design, is gaining ground in public education. It is the opening round of the dumbing down of America.

Proponents assume both are on equal footing and should be “taught” in school. Nothing could be more detrimental to education than teaching students unquestioning acceptance of information without proof.

It is not teaching, it is indoctrination. Science admits it cannot explain everything, but continues to seek the answers. Religion claims you can’t explain it so it must be god and no further inquiry is necessary.

The contradiction arises in what one considers teaching. In teaching science, one details not just the result or most comprehensive theory (in the scientific sense) but the process and the emphasis on skepticism. Science is based on the ability of independent verification, or falsification, of the conclusions. Nothing more so than the unquestionable evidence for evolution.

Teaching Intelligent design, the teleological argument for the existence of god, is the educational equivalent of “Because I said so…” As are most religious instructions. No fundamental understanding of the process is necessary. Understanding is an anathema to faith. As a matter of fact, I would argue the teaching of Intelligent Design specifically prohibits and discourages any questioning of the logic (or lack thereof) behind the contention and demands it be accepted.

It is similar to the argument for the god of the gaps. where “god” fills the gaps in scientific knowledge. This argument fails, of course, with each new scientific advance. And, to demonstrate the inconsistency of these arguments for existence of a supreme being, whenever science fills in one of these gaps, a new interpretation of Biblical verse is proposed, i.e. the Bible knew this all along.

Here’s one example.

“The idea is that as scientific research progresses, and an increasing number of phenomena are explained naturalistically, the role of God diminishes accordingly. The major criticism commonly states that invoking supernatural explanations should decrease in plausibility over time, as the domain of knowledge previously explained by God is decreasing.
However, with modern advances in science and technology, the tables have been literally turned. With the advent of electron scanning microscopes, we have been able to observe the intricate workings of the cell for the first time. What had originally and simplistically been thought to be nothing more than a “blob” of protoplasm is now seen to be far more complex and information-packed than had ever been conceived of previously…
…In reality, a belief in God can be derived by means of an objective assessment, rather than the subjective conjecture that may have been the case millennia ago. But many people simply deny what is obvious to them. The Bible addresses those very people: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20). The God-of-the-gaps argument is an example of “suppressing the truth” because it relegates God to a “backup” explanation for those things which cannot yet be explained by natural phenomena. This leads some to the faulty conclusion that God is not the omnipotent, omnipresent, absolute Being of whom Scripture testifies.
…There is much for which the natural sciences simply cannot provide an explanation, such as the origin of the time/space/matter continuum and the fine-tuning thereof; the origin and subsequent development of life itself; and the origin of the complex and specified information systems inherent in all living things, which cannot (nor ever will be) explained by natural means. Thus one cannot rationally divorce the supernatural from the observed universe, proving once again that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).” https://www.gotquestions.org/God-of-the-gaps.html

They apparently can’t even recognize the inconsistency in their own writing. “God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen.” Ah, if they are invisible how can they be seen? Or that the fine-tuning argument has long been overcome by evidence. Nor can they get past the “uncaused cause, the unmoved mover, or the who created god” issue.

Nothing could be more detrimental to education than teaching students unquestioning acceptance of information without proof.

Joe Broadmeadow

This invasion of public secular education by the religious evangelicals was foretold by one of the most preeminent conservative Republicans, Barry Goldwater, and called out for what it was, a usurping and diminishing of public education, secular government, and the separation of church and state.

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.” Barry Goldwater.

If evangelicals get full control of public education, we are in serious trouble. There would be blind acceptance of this type of nonsense, the devil in the smoke of 9/11. Another mythological creature “seen” by the hysterical faithful to justify their faith.

https://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/satans-face/

Something that can easily be explained by the behavior of heat and gasses and a powerful example of how our evolution made pattern recognition a key to survival. Better to think what you see is a danger, i.e. a lion, a snake, etc. than to ignore it because of uncertainty.

Given the opportunity, evangelicals would replace the periodic table with the decalogue, a map of the solar system with an earth-centered universe, and replace teachers who encourage students to question everything with parrots of the irrational who teach blind acceptance.

Religion: An Atheist’s Perspective

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

I write quite a bit about religion and the objections to it that I’ve developed over the years. My objections are not about religion itself, but the insistence on the dominance of one over any other.

When religion is defined “as an interest, cause, belief, or activity that is intensely or passionately held to,” or, “to turn to or adopt an enlightened course of action or point of view,” I have no quarrel.

Under this definition, embracing science as an enlightened course of action is a form of religion. There are distinct differences: science revises its texts when new evidence is uncovered, whereas most religions insist their holy texts are not to be refined or updated.

My main issue with what most people would consider religion—Christianity  or Judaism in this country, Islam in others—is the insistence that theirs is the only true religion and that there is a being who is the eternal overseer, has us under constant surveillance, and can intercede on our behalf if one engages in an appropriate level of worship, recites prayers seeking this intercession, and accepts the results, no matter what happens, as a “mystery.”

And in particular, when they insist on defining this country as a “Judeo-Christian” nation as if that is somehow both necessary and beneficial.

Now, to engage in one of my favorite practices, the Devil’s Advocate (which, under the title of Advocatus Diaboli, was once a position within the Catholic Church), I’d like to talk about some of the known benefits of embracing religion and misconceptions as well.

Study of the Benefit of a Religious Upbringing

In 2018, Harvard University published a study in the American Journal of Epidemiology that demonstrated that being raised with religious practices had a positive effect on early adulthood. (“Associations of Religious Upbringing With Subsequent Health and Well-Being From Adolescence to Young Adulthood: An Outcome-Wide Analysis,” Ying Chen and Tyler J. VanderWeele, American Journal of Epidemiology, online September 13, 2018, doi: 10.1093/aje/kwy142)

“Participating in spiritual practices during childhood and adolescence may be a protective factor for a range of health and well-being outcomes in early adulthood, according to a new study from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Researchers found that people who attended weekly religious services or practiced daily prayer or meditation in their youth reported greater life satisfaction and positivity in their 20s—and were less likely to subsequently have depressive symptoms, smoke, use illicit drugs, or have a sexually transmitted infection—than people raised with less regular spiritual habits.” https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/religious-upbringing-adult-health/

I would argue that these religious prohibitions on certain activities are a temporary measure, effective until one matures into a rational being. Religion then serves a diminished, or perhaps even an unnecessary, purpose.

Study of the Efficacy of Prayer

 1998. Herb Benson, a cardiologist at Harvard, led what became known as the “Great Prayer Experiment,” or technically the “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP). (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16569567/)

The study consisted of three control groups.  A control group (no prayer) and two groups that received intercessory prayer from various Christian denominations. The two groups receiving prayer differed: one knew they were being prayed for, while the other did not.

“Complications did not vary as a function of prayer. But 59% of those who knew they were being prayed for experienced at least one complication compared with 52% who received no prayer, a statistically significant result. This might reflect the creation of unrealistic expectations from knowing one is the recipient of prayer and experiencing stress when those expectations are not met.” (https://www.templeton.org/news/what-can-science-say-about-the-study-of-prayer)

What does this mean? I suppose that would depend on one’s perspective. At a minimum, it challenges the belief that inexplicable things must be the work of an interested or faithfully petitioned god.

Perhaps it is the pageantry of religious ceremony in our formative years that provides a benefit. As I am writing this, I am listening to a mix of Gregorian Chant and Handel’s Messiah, works inspired by faith. No one can resist being inspired by the sounds of Plain Chant or the Alleluia Chorus from the Messiah echoing in a magnificent cathedral.

And I can still recite the Mass in Latin and remember the cue to ring the bell.

I think believing in something beyond one’s understanding isn’t necessarily bad, unless one insists, by persuasion or force, that others adhere to the same concept.

I have a good friend I’ve known since the 8th grade. Kent Harrop is a retired minister who fully embraces his faith. He and I once collaborated on a blog called the Heretic and the Holy Man, where we discussed our different perspectives on faith in a civil manner. I enjoyed it quite a bit. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which of us is the heretic.

Kent now coordinates a group called Pray and Paddle (https://www.facebook.com/prayandpaddle) and writes inspiring and intriguing articles for the Pray and Paddle blog (https://www.prayandpaddle.org/news)

I would encourage you to read Kent’s writing. He often turns me back from the brink of total dismissal of organized religion through his well-crafted words. Now that I am back in New England, I plan on attending one of these events. I hope Ken won’t mind if I go with the Fish and Paddle version.

Embrace your religion however you see fit, be fervent in whatever faith you embrace. But remember, no one path, not religion or science, has all the answers, and we are all seeking them in our own way.

A Presumption without Merit

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 2 Comments

One of the most striking differences between the United States and Britain is the level of religiosity paraded in the public square.

In England, which has an official church and a monarchy in which the King is the titular head of the church, religion is almost a sidenote in public discourse.

In the United States, which, by our Constitution, is a secular nation ostensibly devoid of any official religion, the faithful seem determined to infect and infiltrate every aspect of our public and private lives.

We are a Christian nation, they shout, apparently never having actually read the writings of the men who crafted the Constitution or noticed that, not once, is the word god in this founding document.

One would think that, if we are a “Christian” nation, god would at least merit an honorable mention. This fallacy of our founding causes unrelenting difficulties in our lives.

Government functionaries demand the right to refuse to perform their duties based on a faith-based objection to other lifestyles.

Companies demand to refuse health care coverage for their employees that provides contraception.

A significant majority of Republicans insist on the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal money to fund abortions, being included in any revision of the Affordable Care Act. An objection substantially based on religious grounds.

I believe the government has no business in religion. I would also argue that religion has no place in government. 

Joe Broadmeadow

School boards seek to post the Decalogue, a fundamentally Judeo/Christian set of proscriptions by their god, as a sound basis for improving the educational environment.

Those who support these actions see it as their moral duty and an exercise of their First Amendment right to free speech. When the Free Speech argument fails because their speech is tantamount to hate speech and bigotry (God Hates Fags is one example), they rely on the religious freedom argument.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I believe the government has no business in religion. I would also argue that religion has no place in government. 

But what about morality, justice, fairness, the religious might argue? We need religion as a moral guide. I would argue the opposite.

Herein lies the problem.

Every act by the government in enacting laws, defining criminal acts, and ensuring the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be based on open and frank discussions, empirical evidence, and a sound consideration of the benefits and costs of such legislation.

Yet when it comes to religious practices, we defer to the faithful simply because it is a religion. We offer a presumption of respect for the practice absent any offering of a basis in fact.

Suppose someone believes, as part of their doctrine, that offering a prayer is necessary before engaging in a sports competition or beginning their school day, or that they cannot engage in some aspect of their job because their religion tells them they cannot. In that case, we just accept that without restriction.

Why?

Why is it that we cannot question the validity of a religious doctrine or practice simply because it is part of a religion?

Why is it that we must accept practices or behavior that impact secular existence simply because some religious doctrine demands it from its adherents?

Why is religion never subjected to the same rigorous analysis or dissection of its foundations or presumptions in the same manner as we would question a proposal for a change in the law, or medical treatment, or the tax code when it directly impacts the public?

Why is religion entitled to any respect simply because it is a religion?

Why is it that we cannot ask this question? Can you prove your religious doctrine is the inerrant word of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent immortal being?

It may well be impossible to offer such proof, which in and of itself should be enough to discount it, but I think this is still a valid question.

By this point, I know the Christians are up in arms, screaming about this as another example of the discrimination heaped upon them. They are joined by the Jews and Muslims in this outrage, although each group believes the others are worshipping a false version of god.

If someone came to a school board meeting and said their son or daughter needed to sacrifice a lamb before they could take to the football field or basketball court, no one would consider denying such a request as prohibiting the practice of religion.

We would consider it a prevention of animal cruelty and curbing insanity.

Or, even more dramatically, if an individual were seen brandishing a knife over their bound child on an altar, preparing to slit their throat because they were instructed to by an unseen voice, would we stand idly by and just say, it is a command from god?

I think not.

Why is praying to an invisible being, variously defined by myriads of sects and faiths in distinct and conflicting ways, any different?

Having traveled quite a bit, I’ve been exposed to a variety of religious practices. In Morocco and Turkey, whenever I saw someone laying out their prayer rug in response to the call for prayer, it seemed strange to me.

When I encountered Buddhist Monks in Thailand and Vietnam, their incantations and manner of dress seemed exotic.

Yet, if I were to encounter a nun or priest wearing the habit or the Roman collar, it would hardly raise a notice. This is just a matter of familiarity and the fortunes of geography, which is more determinative of religious upbringing than any special validity of the particular faith.

Since the Enlightenment, we have made steady, if inconsistent, progress toward a more rational existence. Science has become the sound basis for almost all human progress.

Most religions recognize this, even if a bit reluctantly. They stopped burning heretics for stating the Earth revolves around the Sun, for example. They also update their interpretations of their “holy” texts to accommodate the new information.

The scientific method works because it is based on skepticism, the ability to recreate or refute the contentions of a hypothesis, and the constant verification and validation of any developed theory.

 The three primary religious texts in our world, the Torah (or Pentateuch), the Bible, and the Quran (interestingly enough, all essentially plagiarized from earlier texts), are often used as the basis for arguments about the free exercise of religion and its applicability to secular matters.

Yet these works are rarely, if ever, subjected to thoughtful, thorough analysis of their origins or basis before acceptance. Instead, they are offered, with various levels of interpretation, as proof of the religious tenets.

Why?

If a school board wants to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms, shouldn’t we expect a demonstration that these were the word of god?

If a person wants to wear a T-shirt that says “There are Only Two Genders” because their faith demands it, shouldn’t they have to demonstrate the source of such commands?

The case above, L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, is an excellent example of how religion is a form of child abuse. While I admire the stand taken by the fourteen-year-old boy who wore the t-shirt to school, his indoctrination into the Christian faith began long before he was able to make any rational judgment or choice. This practice, taking innocent children and subjecting them to religious indoctrination before they reach the age of reason, is, in my view, an act of abuse.

What would happen to most religions if we let children grow to the age where they can intellectually choose to accept or reject their parents’ religious faith? I think everyone knows the answer to that.

The call to prayer sounds strange yet I often listen to Gregorian Chants, an artifact from my own indoctrination.

I think much of the fervor for these religious positions is the result of this early involuntary indoctrination. We should demand more than fervent belief before we accept something as a valid position.

Suppose a company wants to refuse health care coverage to employees because their faith opposes contraception. Shouldn’t there be something offered as proof for the origin and validity of the contention?

Where is the line in the sand where religious beliefs and practices cross from embracing a harmless philosophy into a dangerous practice capable of causing significant harm?

While sacrificing goats and one’s own child because you believe your god compels you to may be extreme examples, they are all well-detailed, and accepted as fact, in the very texts the religious would have us use as the basis for morality and practices in the public square.

Embrace your religion in any way you see fit. Argue, based on that faith, for the morality or immorality of laws and practices in public life. But if you choose to submit that faith or religious texts as the very foundation of the argument, you should be prepared to offer evidence of their validity, origin, and rational basis.

You may sincerely believe your god is well pleased by the aroma of burnt offerings. I think we need more than your faith before we accept, unchallenged, these practices in our secular world.

Let’s Just Kill ‘em All, God Will Sort Them Out

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

The score so far is:

US Military 8 – Alleged Drug Boats 0

We’re off to an undefeated season.

Due process is such a woke thing. About time someone ignored it for a more expedient form of American Justice. Something those Central and South American countries apparently don’t remember, but we are reminding them.

Don’t make us come back there like we did before. Our CIA has a long memory and plenty of new tools. Nobody wants that again, do you?

But what do you expect by sending your poison to our country? And don’t give me that “we wouldn’t sell it if Americans weren’t buying it and making money” nonsense. You are doing this to yourselves.

I mean, if it looks like a drug-carrying boat, operates like a drug-carrying boat, and is located on the common course of drug-carrying boats, what else could it be? A fishing boat? Come on, be serious.

Three strikes and we have every right to turn you into a thoroughly disassembled with extreme prejudice former drug carrying boat.

Right?

Sure, the unintended consequences may drive up the cost of fish in some areas of South America, but who cares? We can send our American fishing boats there to sell fish to them and we won’t make them pay any tariffs on it for the service.

Why should we wait to have incontrovertible evidence of their purpose?

Why should we have to wait for them to enter our jurisdictional waters before we use one of our very effective weapon systems and obliterate them?

What did you say? “What if we tried the same logic?” Is that some kind of threat? It’s a foolish one.

I can’t imagine you’d be so naïve as to target one of our commercial fishing vessels and blow them up. You must realize that would be a Trump-Hesgeth wet dream come true. They’ve been itching for a war of their own to prove the effectiveness of their concept of lethality.

But we know what you’ll do, nothing. You’ll just wail and gnash your teeth over the unfairness in the balance of power.

And now that we’ve found an effective deterrent, why stop there?

I mean, if we know somebody is dealing drugs and we know where they are and we know when they’ll be there, let’s dispense with the formalities of due process and just kill ‘em.

Come to think of it, what better way to decrease the prison population? I mean, with a recidivism rate of 66% (the highest in the world, woo-hoo! we’re number 1) and the highest incarceration rates (woo-hoo, we’re also number 1), our current get-tough approach to lock ‘em up ain’t working. We keep making the mistake of letting them go.

But wait, there’s more.

What if we made every felony a death penalty case, especially if we do it at the time of the arrest? Think of all the money and time we could save. Sure, there’ll be a lot of unemployed judges and correctional officers. Still, there’ll be plenty of jobs open on American fishing vessels plying the waters off Central and South America, or at companies building new boats for the Central and South Americans who actually want to fish.

And on the odd chance that we kill an innocent person (something that probably has happened with the death penalty, but doesn’t diminish its deterrent effect, right?) our faith as a Christian nation will soothe our troubled souls with the comforting thought they are safely in the hands of a loving American flag wrapped God.

After all, we are the real chosen people, as the Bible says.

I do wonder about something though.

We do have incontrovertible evidence that the Chinese, and perhaps some American companies, provide many of the precursor chemicals producing these drugs.

Haven’t seen us sink one Chinese freighter yet. Or send DEA or the FBI after those American companies, perhaps due to their largesse in political contributions. Or I guess the agents are too busy deporting the entire McDonald’s and Walmart workforce and making us safer. I certainly feel safer knowing it wasn’t me who couldn’t understand what the drive-up at McDonald’s was saying when I wanted a cheeseburger. Damn foreigners, speak English!

Or could it be something else?

It’s easier to pick on the ones who can’t fight back. It’s the favorite tactics of schoolyard bullies. Just out of curiosity, I wonder where the masks ICE agents wear are produced? The irony would be too much to bear if it’s China, but bringing those jobs home could balance the budget and help pay for the Trump Ball Room.

I say we go for broke and use all those expensive weapon systems at home (but far enough away so the left-wing media doesn’t start posting images of bodies with some reassembly required floating in the water) instead of giving them to other countries.

P.S. Speaking of the Trump Taj Mahal Ballroom and Bankers Banquet Facility, will the first dance between Donald and Melania be accompanied by the theme from Beauty and the Beast?

But it Says it in the Bible

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Of all the terrifying trends under the umbrella of Mr. Trump, the rise of Christian Nationalism is the most sinister and dangerous. It is a descent into the vortex of anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-enlightenment leading to a society run by dominant males and subservient females.

In a country of 300 million people with access to modern medicine, terabytes of data, and instant worldwide communication, a significant number still believe in signs, astrology, magic, angels, and Biblical abiogenesis.

These fundamentalists, preying on these dark ages beliefs, would drag us back into the era of witchcraft and demons with their medieval philosophies.

Their authority for such a philosophy resides in a book translated from ancient languages to Greek, Latin, German, and English, with hundreds of versions and conflicting translations of the text. And keep in mind that for most of the period since the first written versions of the Bible were translated into Latin, the lingua franca of the church, it was a sin punishable by death to translate it into a language anyone outside the clergy could read.

And when these Christian Nationalists offer Mr. Trump as the one to battle the rise of this mythical Anti-Christ, it goes beyond the hysterical to tragic.

Trump is the least likely of any to be an example of Christian piety or defender of the faith. Even if he had the good fortune to be around during the time of Jesus Christ and heard him speak, his only chance at entering heaven would be to ride one of the crosses in the back row. Redemption by way of good timing rather than a shining paragon of the faith.

Which leads me to wonder why people fail to see the contradiction in that story. If we assume the circumstances of the crucifixion to be accurate, those two criminals on the crosses in the back row didn’t need to seek redemption, didn’t need to repent, didn’t need to do anything but have the good/bad fortune to be crucified at the same time as Jesus. Hmm.

But putting Mr. Trump and other contradictions aside for the moment—oh, that I wish that to be possible—let’s look at this authority.

The version of the Bible most people are familiar with, the King James Version (KJV), was a product of, wait for it, political intrigue. James, the son of Mary Queen of Scots, needed to shore up his power with the ardent Scots, who hated the English Catholics, and with the other various factions.

Meanwhile, the Protestants created their own version in the Geneva Bible. And in an interesting side note to the history of the Bible in America, it was the Geneva Bible that accompanied the Pilgrims to America.

Here’s the same passage in the KJV and Geneva Bible.

Isaiah 7:14 1599 Geneva Bible
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

KJV
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Not a lot of difference, but how can the inerrant word of God be different depending on who is doing the translation?

Just for fun, here’s a version from the Orthodox Jewish Bible.

Yeshayah 7:14
14 Therefore Hashem Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben, and shall call Shmo Immanu El (God is with us)

Here’s the same verse in the New Revised Edition Anglicized Catholic Edition

Isaiah 7:14
14 Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

Now here is where it gets interesting. The whole virgin thing has a glitch. In the original Hebrew, the word in the verse is “alma” which means young woman. Other words represent “virgin” such as “betulah.” Why is “alma” translated as ‘virgin’ in most versions, you might ask? And why do we call him Jesus instead of Immanuel or Shmo Immanu El?

Again, the politics of power and control.

The Catholic Church in 451 A.D. was the dominant force in the known world. There were factions and disagreements, so a meeting was called to resolve and consolidate the faith into one doctrine. The Council of Chalcedon.

You may have heard about an earlier meeting, the Council of Nicaea, which resolved the issue of the dual nature of Jesus. At the time, some believed God to be eternal and Jesus to be created by God, also eternal but only from the point of his creation. The Council at Nicaea said nope. Jesus and God are the same; thus, the beginning of the Holy Trinity, or at least leading to more creative interpretations to concoct that myth.

By 451 A.D., more heretics began teaching conflicting doctrines, an intolerable situation to Rome, thus a more refined explanation arose from this new council.

1. God the Father almighty and in
2. Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord,
3. who was born of the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary.

“These three statements wreck the tricks of nearly every heretic. When God is believed to be both almighty and Father, the Son is clearly proved to be co-eternal with him, in no way different from the Father, since he was born God from God, almighty from the Almighty, co-eternal from the Eternal, not later in time, not lower in power, not unlike in glory, not distinct in being. The same eternal, only-begotten of the eternal begetter was born of the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary. His birth in time in no way subtracts from or adds to that divine and eternal birth of his: but its whole purpose is to restore humanity, who had been deceived, so that it might defeat death and, by its power, destroy the devil who held the power of death. Overcoming the originator of sin and death would be beyond us, had not he whom sin could not defile, nor could death hold down, taken up our nature and made it his own. He was conceived from the holy Spirit inside the womb of the virgin mother. Her virginity was as untouched in giving him birth as it was in conceiving him. ” The Council of Chalcedon – 451 A.D.

The reality of an eternal God and of Jesus —the key to everlasting life —was the source of the Church’s authority. John 14:6 (KJV) “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Her virginity was as untouched in giving him birth as it was in conceiving him.

The Council of Chalcedon – 451 A.D.

But some thought of Jesus and God as separate. The council put an end to this heresy. “Whilst remaining pre-existent, he begins to exist in time.” More illogical contortions to prove the impossible.

But that wasn’t enough to satisfy the needs of religious abhorrence of earthly pleasures. Jesus could not be tainted by such things.

“By an unprecedented kind of birth, because it was inviolable virginity which supplied the material flesh without experiencing sexual desire. What was taken from the mother of the Lord was the nature without the guilt. And the fact that the birth was miraculous does not imply that in the lord Jesus Christ, born from the virgin’s womb, the nature is different from ours. The same one is true God and true man. … Her virginity was as untouched in giving him birth as it was in conceiving him. The Council of Chalcedon – 451 A.D.

And the subsequent translations of the Bible were molded to fit the doctrine.

If one wants to submit a document as evidence in court, one must prove both its origin and authenticity. We have hundreds of court cases trying to interpret the language of the Constitution, and that is in the original English.

Why would any modern nation, or world for that matter, choose to ignore science and enlightenment and base a society on a book of questionable origin, with myriad interpretations, and modified over the millennia by organizations with a stake in the results?

Because it’s in the Bible?

P.S. Another interesting tidbit. The American Standard Edition of 1952 used the words “young woman” instead of “Virgin.” It took the fundamentalists until 1978 to get it changed. Biblical politics? Who knew?

Vanitas Vanitatum, Omnia Vanitas

/ / 2 Comments

 What’s in a word? Turns out, plenty.

A recent piece I wrote, Why Write? Finding Undiscovered Places, sparked some enthusiastic discussion. In the piece, I quoted a line from Ecclesiastes 1:9.

“What has been is what will be,
and has been done is what will be done;
and there is nothing new under the sun.”

Ecclesiastes 1:9 (at least in one translation)

One reader, Dan Walsh, a former high school English teacher with a significant influence over my love of reading and writing, commented that his favorite quote from Ecclesiastes is,

“Vanitas Vanitatum… All is vanity. All is chasing after the wind.”

Ecclesiastes 1:14

My five years of Latin—which today seems to have been taught to me just shortly after the language went out of style—is rusty, but the Latin phrase seemed straightforward, if incomplete. Summoning the Oracle of Google, I searched for the entire phrase.

The full phrase in Latin is “Vanitas Vanitatum, omnia vanitas” which translates to “Vanity of Vanities, all is Vanity.” This gave me pause as I wondered where the “all is chasing the wind” part came from.

Back to Google to search the phrase in Ecclesiastes. This led me to Biblehub.com and sparked this piece.

Listed on Biblehub.com are thirty English translations of this same verse. Thirty English interpretations of the same line. If there can be so many interpretations of English, how many versions are there from the original?

Ekklisiastés is the original Greek (actually Εκκλησιαστές is the original, original) predecessor of Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes is the Greek translation of the Hebrew name קֹהֶלֶת–Qohelet. So the path of translation, jagged and fraught with variations and interpretation, of just this one line started with Ancient Hebrew, to Greek, to Aramaic, to Latin, to German, to Old English, to Modern English.

If we do simple math, allowing for fewer numbers of literate people able to do the translating in ancient times, one version in Ancient Hebrew X 5 versions of Greek X 10 versions of Latin X 20 versions of German X 25 Versions of Old English X 30 versions of Modern English means there are possibly 750,000 translations since the original. Mathematical progression is unrelenting.

So those who would argue the Bible is the inerrant word of God might need to revise that view since there are so many versions. If one argues the underlying meaning is unaltered, it still opens much to interpretation.

This reminds me of an old joke. 

A well-respected Cardinal retires. He is invited to an audience with the Pope.

Pope: “So, my son, is there anything I can do to make your retirement more meaningful?”

Cardinal: “There is, your Holiness, I’d like to have access to the Church’s archives so I may spend the rest of my days in deeper understanding of the foundation of the faith.”

Pope: “Then you shall have full access with my blessing.”

Several months later, the Pope wanders into the archive to check on the Cardinal. He finds him in tears, sobbing, an old manuscript beneath his hand.

Pope: “What troubles you, my son?”

The Cardinal looks up from the manuscript, points to a word and says, “The correct translation is Celebrate, not Celibate.”

I’m just saying…

************************************************************************

Spring Reading Sale. All my Kindle books $0.99! Download a copy today http://amzn.to/2cyabM9

JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services.

Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into a reality. For more information and manuscript submission guidelines contact us at info@jebwizardpublishing.com or 401-533-3988.

Signup here for our mailing list for information on all upcoming releases, book signings, and media appearances.

A Conversation of Differences

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 5 Comments

It is not often that I stimulate a spark of deep thought and inspiring words in others (and truth be told I must share credit with Philosopher Bertrand Russell for the original thought.) Yet a good friend of mine, Kent Harrop, recently penned a post on his blog I believe was inspired by a Russell quote I sometimes append to my email.

Russell (1872-1970) said, “Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.” This caught Kent’s eye and he decided to put down some thoughts.

Kent wrote (https://greenpreacher.wordpress.com/2016/01/25/is-religion-irrational ),

There’s much that Mr. Russell and I agree upon. But where we part company, is his belief that ‘religion is something left over from the infancy of intelligence’. For me reason and critical thinking need not be contrary to religious life. Even Russell for all his strong views towards religion considered himself an agnostic, ‘in that I cannot disprove the Christian concept of a divine being, just as I cannot disprove the reality of the mythical gods on Mount Olympus.’ Perhaps Mr. Russell has cracked open the door for a conversation.

In this, the fact that it opens a door for a conversation, Kent and I agree.

I consider myself an atheist. I define my atheism as finding no basis for a belief in an anthropomorphic God, or gods, that show an interest in how we behave, what we do with our lives, what we choose to wear or eat, or how we prostrate or otherwise demonstrate our devotion to such a being.

Russell’s quote illustrates the fact that, over the time of our human existence, we have attributed almost all natural phenomena to a divine being at one time or another. Until science and reason took hold.

I think Russell’s quote is more in line with progressive thinkers like Kent than even Kent might realize. The difficult questions we all have beg for answers.

How did we come to be?

What is the meaning of life? (42 is a good start for you Douglas Adams fans)

How did this whole thing get started?

I agree with Russell in that almost all religion is a simplistic attempt to answer an infinitely complex question. I think it fails in this and causes more harm than good.

I think Viktor Frankl (1905-1997), a MD and psychiatrist who survived Auschwitz, found a better answer in his book, “Man’s Search for Ultimate Meaning.” Frankl’s research and life experiences showed him there is an innate essence within man for the religious. However, Frankl did not define religiousness as being in anyway associated with the common concept of religion.

Instead. Frankly believed, from his many years of research, that there was an unconscious religiosity within man. One that compels him to seek meaning in life. The many iterations of religion, from the many gods of early man to the monotheistic dominant sects today, are just stepping-stones to finding the true religiousness within us all.

It is not that we will someday become god. It is that we will someday no longer need a symbol, or a template of acceptable practices, or a script to follow to please god and lead an exemplary life. We will find that our innate, unconscious religiosity points us to a full, responsible, and meaningful life.

Let the conversation begin.

I encourage you all to read and follow Kent’s blog, The Green Preacher, (https://greenpreacher.wordpress.com/2016/01/25/is-religion-irrational. His writing is thoughtful, articulate, and compelling. I find his intelligent and persuasive pieces to be wonderful, if inexplicable, reading considering he is a Red Sox fan. Nevertheless, I suppose no one is perfect.