Were someone attempting to convince me a specific holy book was truthful, the best thing he or she could do would be hold up the book and say, "Quentin Tarantino couldn't make this stuff up!?"
Because there are so many holy books on the market, drafted by ancient individuals with very creative imaginations, one undeniable reality is that all can't be accurate.
This reality begs the question: Why hasn’t anyone portrayed God as normal?
Regardless of your specific faith, if you were told to get into character as your god and explain the reasoning behind the drafting of your strict set of rules, there is absolutely no way a trip to the insane asylum could be avoided.
"People must respect their parents, so despite circumstances behind the feud, I think it's important to punish the cursing of a mother or father with death... Though they had nothing to do with the criminal act and are often too young to even grasp the concept of right and wrong, if a man or woman acts wickedly, it's often best to go ahead and murder their child... Though I offer no proof, every person who doesn't believe without a doubt that I created the world should be killed. Celebrate these killings by dancing in the streets."
Why isn't there at least one holy book that argues god calls for common sense regulations with which normal people can get on board? Why doesn't at least one claim, "And God said, 'Respect your parents when respect is deserved. Don't nitpick their every error, but if they're good people overall, watch your language when addressing your mother and father for they likely sacrificed a great deal of personal luxuries to raise you in comfort.'"
The following sounds reasonable: "And God said, 'Laying a finger on a child in response to a sin committed by his or her father or mother is morally reprehensible because they are obviously blameless. Come to think of it, never punish anyone for the vile action of another!'"
Doesn't this sound better than an eternity of damnation for decent nonbelievers born to parents of the "wrong" religion: "Everyone enjoys credit, so it would be extremely nice if a plethora of humans acknowledged my work and even built places of worship in my honor, but, because I offer no proof of my existence for the express purpose of encouraging debate, I will only judge individuals based on the content of their character."
Of course religious folks are going to respond by saying that god works in mysterious ways and that by believing his teachings and Biblical actions are justified, you have great faith.
If god was testing your faith, however, why would he do it with words and actions that will and did (according to your books) lead to the brutal termination of innocent children!? Why not test your faith by demanding you hand out harmless justice your instincts warn against? "If your husband breaks any of my commandments, make your firstborn go to bed without dessert."
No one in their right mind would agree with any retribution, but if you insist god would demand a medieval approach to punishing children whose parents have sinned, why not at least stop short of the death penalty! Why didn't the authors write something along the lines of, "After a parent sins, make their children bleed, but only as much as their gums bleed while flossing their teeth after it's been forever since the last time they flossed."
I find it strange so many people believe in books that call for acts so disturbing no one should be required to receive instruction restraint is needed. In other words, it's so obvious children shouldn't be punished for the transgressions of their parents that mentioning it isn't necessary. After all, if the topic was left out of the Bible, would you wonder, after seeing a man sin, "Should we seek out his children and make them pay dearly?"?
Perhaps the ease of unauthorized reproduction is the reason no one has claimed god came to them with instructions to publish a book with one chapter and one verse, which stated unequivocally: "What is understood need not be discussed."
No comments:
Post a Comment