Belief in a religion or a religious ideology is the same as the sense of taste. In our entire lives we need evidence in order to live. We do not jump off a cliff because the evidence shows that of we drop an apple, it falls to the floor. When we are pulled over by a police officer, we need to show evidence that we can drive the car legally. We need evidence at the end of the week to substantiate our claim for our wages via timesheets. When we travel internationally, we need evidence that the little ones that are in tow are really part of our family. When we cross the border back into the United States, we need evidence that we are citizens of this great nation.
However, when we focus on religion, it becomes similar to taste. A religion can make you suspend all need for
evidence and forces you to depend on belief to satiate our evidence seeking
faculties. We believe because it makes
us feel good. Soda is a prime
example. We generally love the taste of
soda but a study has found that a few ounces of soda is linked to an increase
Will this stop everyone from drinking soda? No al all, because it tastes good and it
makes us feel better. We do not see the
damage that soda can do to our bodies and we continue with its consumption. Religion takes a similar avenue. We continue because it makes us feel better and
all of the evidence in the world that God does not exist will not change our
minds. Religion just tastes too good to
stop. It satisfies our pleasure zones
and allows us to continue to believe in this nonsense.
What say you? Is this analogy accurate or am I way out of line?
“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no
more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and
by no means a necessity of life.”
― George Bernard Shaw
What do you think
about the above quote? True or false?
We went back. We went back to the “truth.” Afterward, many things happened. Some of the things that occurred I choose not to explain in this book for the sake of being terse and succinct. The main point of religious contention however that allowed me to pivot out of the “Witness Organization” was the situation that occurred with the birth of my second biological son (3rd son), Preston. Preston was going to be born with a rare heart condition known as “Transposition of the Great Arteries,” also known as TGA. Without going into the finer details, the layman explanation of the condition is that the heart was fine, but the arteries, the plumbing of the heart, was inversely installed. The oxygenated blood that was meant for the body was re-pumped back to the lungs, and the deoxygenated blood destined to be replenished with oxygen in the lungs was redistributed into the body again. In essence, he was going to choke to death almost as soon as he left the safety of the womb. He would die in minutes, hours or days. If there were sufficient mixing in the heart (something that occurs in almost all newborns), he would live a month or two tops. The diagnosis of TGA was a death sentence. A baby born with TGA, if no remedial is done, will die. It is certain death.Herein lies the issue. The Jehovah’s Witness organization does not allow the use of blood transfusions. They use the bible as evidence that God would not allow such a thing. If a Witness were to proceed with a transfusion, they would be disfellowshipped, the most severe form of excommunication that exists. Here is the defining moment for me personally. My wife followed her own path to emancipation, and I am happy to say we all met at the same destination of peace. We found the best doctor in the world to do the procedure, Dr. Jan Quaegebeur and the procedure in his hands had a 99% success rate. We discussed with the other doctors that we needed this to be a bloodless surgery, and they agreed to do their best. They gave our son blood expanders and would recycle his blood as required. However, the day of the surgery came and Dr. Q, as he is called at the hospital came up to us and said that he would do the best to avoid a blood transfusion but that he could not guarantee a bloodless surgery. There is a certain amount of blood required in the blood pump before it can operate and being that Preston was two weeks old, he did not have a lot of blood available. I kept saying out loud “this is supposed to be a bloodless surgery!” but my loving wife intervened and said, “Please do whatever it takes to save our son” and she signed the requisite waivers. I felt relieved that my wife made the tough decision but also ashamed. Did this false religion mean more to me than my son? See chapter 4 for a more in-depth view of this situation under the discussion of “Social Compliance.” I feel that in the end, I would have caved in and accepted the procedure with blood, but I will never truly know. I only know that I have Dr. Q and my loving, intelligent wife to thank in saving the life of my son. A blood transfusion was, in fact, necessary or the chance for death was certain. I never wanted to broach the subject again, but my wife did and one day asked “Are you ok with my decision for a blood transfusion?I pick the life of my son over God”. I agreed with her decision, with the weight of my shame in full view of my facial features. I thanked her for doing what I was not ready to do, save our son over God.The damage was done, however. There was a point where I may have allowed my son to die for the cause of religion. This was tantamount to a mother of a radicalized Muslim being happy that her child was martyred for an Islamic cause. I will carry this burden of disgust for the rest of my life. I hope Preston will forgive me when he is older and hears this part of his story for the first time. The surgery was a success! He healed wonderfully and is now a rambunctious 6-year-old. In addition to the second chance my son was given, I was given a second chance in life as well. I felt the connection with the parasite of religion sever. Unfortunately, I continued to attend the Kingdom Hall, not out of belief in God but out of necessity. My friends and family were there, and the roots that I grew in the new neighborhood we moved to was entrenched with the religion. I was invested in the “truth.”
If the Nephilim (giant humans) were
created because angels procreated with humans and the resulting DNA made them
giants, why was Jesus not a giant? Was
it because the angels were fallen and the evil in their hearts made giant
children? Was not Jesus a man made by Mary
and God, creating a child with human and spirit? Why the discrepancy? If he was in fact a real life human, why was
Jesus not a giant?
For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. – Genesis 7:4.
If God initiated the flood because man was wicked, why did he have to kill off all the animals, creatures that did not sin? What did the animals do to deserve this punishment, the extinguishing of their lives? Why God?
When Jesus (God), the originator of the cosmos and creator of all
life, specifically human beings, was confronted with an epileptic individual in
Mark 9, did he cure his neurological illness by touching his head and somehow
halting the incessant random impulses in the brain with his magical powers? No. He
exorcized the demon that was controlling
this individual’s body. Epilepsy is the
misfiring of neurons that unconsciously promotes sudden and awkward movements
entirely out of the control of the afflicted individual. Demonic exorcism is not a valid form of
treatment. If this is the God who
created us in whole, why was he ill prepared to administer the proper
care? Doctors today can explain in great
detail what exactly happens during a seizure.
Why is it that human beings (created by God) are better equipped to care
for this malady? If Jesus was the
creator of all humanity, why did he
provide false information to be inscribed in his inspired word?
He took the blind man by the hand and
led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man’s eyes and put his
hands on him, Jesus asked, “Do you see anything?” He looked up and said, “I see people; they
look like trees walking around.” Once more Jesus put his hands on the man’s
eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything
clearly. – Mark 8:22-25
What was the deal with Jesus spitting
on people? We know that if Jesus was
real, he could heal with just his own words.
Why did Jesus need to spit on people to heal certain maladies, like
Absalom said to Ahithophel,
“Give us your advice. What should we do?” Ahithophel answered, “Sleep with your
father’s concubines whom he left to take care of the palace. Then all Israel
will hear that you have made yourself obnoxious to your father, and the hands
of everyone with you will be more resolute.” So they pitched a tent for Absalom
on the roof, and he slept with his father’s concubines in the sight of all
Israel. Now in those days the advice
Ahithophel gave was like that of one who inquires of God. That was how both
David and Absalom regarded all of Ahithophel’s advice. – 2 Samuel 16:20-23
So all in all, because
David killed Uzziah in order to sleep with Bathsheba, Uzziah’s wife, God cursed
David and had David’s son forcibly have sex with his concubines “in the sight
of all Israel!” What does this say about
Yahweh, the God of Judaism and Christianity?
But if the thing is
true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they
shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men
of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful
thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put
away the evil from among you. – Deuteronomy 22:20-21
Therefore, if a woman has sex before marriage, she should be
stoned to death. What does that say to how
early Christian women in that time period were treated? This does not happen to men. Why the dissymmetrical management between
sexes? This is because women were
treated as chattel in the eyes of men and that belief was transposed into the
Bible because the Bible is the act of men and not of God. What say you?
Why is it wrong when a suicide bomber detonates themselves? Lets pretend that there are no civilian casualties or building damage. The bomber fails and he or she is the only resulting death. What is the problem with that? We would still say that the person was a deranged individual. However, this person believes in martyrdom and has come to the conclusion that this needs to occur in order to please its God, Allah. It is the art of human sacrifice to a diety. If this is true, then Jesus sacrifice can be viewed in the same manner. Both are acts of human sacrifice to a God. Both died as martyrs. Both should be viewed as deranged. What do you think?