The Bible

Odin’s Eye – Bible Problems: The Four Gospels

/ Ed Raby Sr / 1 Comment

Happy Thor’s Day

Discussion:

Another one of those posts where what I taught in the past about the Bible is going to have some of the problems I will now reveil. Problems I discovered that are a little overwhelming to maintaining faith. I am actually going to take on one of the more solid parts of the Bible – where we actually have four witnesses of events which would seem to fulfill the Bibles’s own standard of ‘two or three” plus one. However as we will see, this doesn’t’ a) solve other problems and b) some of the events witnessed still only have one witness.

The gospels actually illustrate some Bible problems so well that they provide an excellent test case for critics. I mean if you can have four witnesses, and still present something that makes you scratch your head, then anything less than that obviously is worse.

  1. The gospels are contradictory – This is particularly true when it comes to the resurrection accounts.  Some gospels really have no account at all.  Mark doesn’t have anything other than a statement that Jesus rose from the dead.  The longer ending is probably an addition from someone regurgitating a story and not someone who was an eyewitness. Even when there is a claim to being eyewitnesses they can’t seem to get their story straight. Despite the claim to the contrary, this does not validate the story, it is what in court would be contradictory testimony.  It would be thrown out, but gospel apologists continue to make the leap (this not being able to get their story straight) means the gospels are actually more authentic. No, quite the opposite in fact. It means there was a lot of confusion ‘resurrection’ morning and in moments of confusion any story can be both fabricated and  propagated.
  2. The gospels also suffer from confirmation bias. Every writer of each gospel clearly wants the story to be true, and thus does not offer critical analysis of many events that are presented in the Life of Christ. In my opinion, this is the main atmosphere on ‘resurrection’ morning.  A desire that Jesus of Nazareth was alive so strong that it created and atmosphere of mass psychological collusion. Before you think that couldn’t be possible, I remind people of Jim Jones and Jones Town and Heaven’s Gate, events that show that human beings can desire something so badly they will not look critically at what they are being told,  Based on these false beleifs they will in fact kill themselves and be martyred for it; if they believe it strongly enough regardless of whether it is true or a lie.
  3. Timeline issues – yeah, I am stuck on the resurrection again because it was one of the problems I faced regularly in teaching the event. The accounts vary in their timeline and even events are presented differently to the point that they contradict each other in order of events. Who saw Jesus before someone else is a regular problem.  Throughout the gospels some things appear in different order.  Not a deal breaker but one of those ‘ keeping a straight story’ issues.
  4. Historically speaking if you are looking for other biographies or historical accounts of Jesus of Nazareth, you will disappointed.  The only accounts we have are from his disciples and they biased. There is no objective historical account of his life,  There are mentions in other sources like Philo and Josephus but all they really prove is that Christianity is indeed something that stretches back to the first century, but Jesus himself and his life is untouched by these sources. .
  5. The two or three witness problem still persists despite their being four accounts.  Why? 1) The Gospel of John stands alone in many accounts. It offers up events that don’t have any collaboration at all. Even from the other gospels. John literally stands alone in his accounts of things at times and thus does not met the Bible’s own standard of ‘two or three witnesses’ for those events. 2) The other gospels clearly either copied each other or a common account.  I have no problem with this historically speak except sometimes the word choice is verbatim which means they didn’t do much more digging than to copy without further investigation.  There many theories to this, but in the end what you have is the possibility that instead of three accounts from three different witnesses, what you get is one account of these events, which are not collaborated, and simply copied by others.  When they do differ, Matthew, Mark and Luke have the same problem as John.  They often stand alone with many stories.  One gospel writer will present one story, but the other two leave it out. This happens a lot and in the end you get very few stories that all four gospel writers actually touch.  The only miracle they touch is the Feeding of the Five Thousand and it looks like John is trying to correct the account of the other three.  The rest mostly deal with Jesus’ time in Jerusalem before he was crucified. That he had triumphal entry, he held a last supper where he said he would be betrayed, etc. But all goes south at the resurrection where things get completely contradictory or confusing.

Time to Look Through the Eye:

Faith:

As a student of the Bible, what faith I have left in the Bible is an interesting thing and the gospels in particular.  I taught Life of Christ at least ten times in my ministry.  I think you can reasonably say that Jesus of Nazareth was probably a real person and that he indeed was a Jewish Rabbi, and probably a controversial one to the point he was hated by the other rabbis, religious teachers and groups.  The gospels are a reflection of that but are written by his followers. So how do you continue to follow the teachings of  a rabbi the others have decried as a heretic?  You present Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah and add a whole lot of legend to the real man, so that it makes the people who killed him look like complete assholes.  The gospels may very well be a reflection of reactionary activity. Like Paul Bunyan or John Henry who may have been real people but their legend got big to the point of being ridiculous; Jesus of Nazareth suddenly becomes much more than he really was to justify Christianity’s existence and growth. I have faith that human beings may want to believe something so badly, they will lie to themselves and create stories to make their experiences change in their mind to verify the new presented ‘truth’.

Religion:

Christianity itself developed a problem of having so many accounts of Jesus life that were so contradictory, they convened a council of the church to sort it out.  This has led to the question: the criteria used may simply been one way of one group trying to politically eliminate another. The criteria were created by men for men’s purposes.  The gospels chosen in the end may simply been the least contradictory, but still not perfect by any stretch of the imagination.  Religion then has a vested interest in defending its ‘holy’ book so they cannot be questioned and ‘BAM!’ – two thousand years later, they still stand despite all the problems.  Not because they are the truth or history, but they have become religious tradition further defended by doctrine and dogma.

Theology:

I suppose I have no Messianic Theology anymore.  I was asked once recently if I had renounced Christ.  I shrugged, is there anything to renounce? I mean I don’t see the need for humanity to have a messiah figure.  In fact I would say looking for one or needing one is a cop-out trying to look for someone else to come along like a white knight and save you from all your problems. My Christology these days might simply be non-existent. Not renounced, just faded out of existence as no longer needed. Jesus was either a great teacher that people either added to his story to the point it is just as unlikely as other tall tales, or he was a lunatic who people believed so strongly they made stuff up to reinforce their belief in a lunatic.  Was he the Messiah? – My answer: do we need one?  Was He Lord? Once again do I need one?

Spirituality:

I like some of the teachings of Jesus.  I find them spiritually uplifting as I consider them. That said, I would also say I can treat them with the same attitude I treat the teachings of Buddha, Confucius and other great and deep thinkers.  Containers for truth, but not THE truth.  Just human beings that said some wise words and I find spirituality in a lot of people’s words beyond the standard religious figures.  It is the one way we live on I suppose – the wisdom that can be found in words we wrote or spoke.

Events are a different matter. I don’t find spirituality in events I didn’t personally experience anymore.  I can find inspiration in tales of courage, honor and other stories where virtues are center, but my spirituality is my own experiences in life, my own study and my own vision for myself..

Conclusion:

I would say my path has taken a very honest turn.  You can’t create a special group of ideas or books and then say you will not criticize them and then claim to be objective.  The gospels are ancient writings, that when we subject them to the same scrutiny as many other writings of antiquity, fall short in many areas. This is simply true.  They are religious tradition protected by religious dogma that once ripped away, you find a much more difficult truth. They are perhaps a mixture of true stories about Jesus of Nazareth mixed with tall tales.  They are very possibly fabricated stories with an agenda that has nothing to do with the real man Jesus of Nazareth.

Continuing to Walk the Path,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Odin’s Eye – Return to My Theological Objections to Christianity – No Takers

/ Ed Raby Sr / Leave a comment

Happy Thor’s Day

Discussion:

I don’t know, when it comes to my four theological objections to Christianity, I feel like the god Heimdall guarding the Bifrost Bridge.  Most of the time I seem to be just standing there waiting for something to happen and nothing does. I am not really looking for a fight but I think I have laid it out there what I feel are the four major problems with the Christian theology are and why they basically make it so the whole thing is just another man-made attempt to understand god that is flawed and failed. The result has been crickets.

Simple Restatement of my Four Theological Objections to Christianity:

  1. The Bible’s Inspiration by God – it is not proven, nor can it ever be.  It seems highly unlikely that the Bible is the product of a supreme being but rather the product of men. It’s divine inspiration is asserted but never proven.
  2. Sin is an Imaginary Man-Made Problem –   Like the Bible being inspired, Mankind being sinners and certain behaviors being sinful is asserted but never proven.
  3. The Cross and the Empty Tomb – an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem.  I would also say that such a solution with its suffering and death seems sadistic and unloving.  Not the product of a supreme being.
  4. The Justice of the Biblical God is Very Suspect – The scale of justice for the god of the Bible is very unbalanced when you rationally consider some of his actions in the Bible and the doctrines concerning hell and final punishment.

When I first laid these out last summer I did get some feed back, but it was clearly half-hearted and I answered the questions and objections they had to the point apparently that they had no response. This lack of response is not surprising, when I was a Christian I would read Christian apologists looking for answers to these very questions and they really had nothing.  The problem with the apologist is no matter how they try, they assume that the Bible is inspired, sin is real, redemption is real and god is just.  They don’t really see the need to address these issues because most of them are not really listening to those that object to Christianity.  They listen only to pick the battles they can easily win when they see objections to their faith, they tend to ignore the ones that are more difficult.

Time to Look Through the Eye:

Faith:

I refuse to return to having faith in Christianity, if those that practice it cannot provide sufficient evidence that the Bible is inspired, that sin is objectively real and that the solution the god of the Bible has for it is both rational and just. As much as I know Norse mythology is mythology, I actually find it easier now to believe that its’ view of the universe and the gods and goddesses solution to life and living is more in line with reality than Christianity until that happens. I have faith in myself, my family and the creator’s design.  Anything beyond that requires proof.

Religion:

It speaks to Christianity’s failure as a religion when it sees someone walk away from the faith and it comes up with doctrines and apologetics that basically shrug its shoulders and say ‘that is just the way it is’.  Calvinism is notorious for this fatalistic bullshit, but the fact that other branches of the Christian faith have this – ‘well, there is nothing I can do.” on the face of something that should have a response.  Well, then you have just shown to me that perhaps your religion, that you say should lead you to compassion for the lost, is also complete bullshit.

Theology:

Theologically speaking the subjects of special revelation, salvation, god’s nature and final punishment seem to be central to the Christian faith. If no good answer can come when it is proven these are inconsistent and quite frankly paint a picture of a god as 1) a sadistic torturer of his own son when He could have simply forgiven us, and 2) an unjust god who takes our whole lives and destroys them, torturing us forever,  simply because he is like a political snowflake who gets offended because we did something he doesn’t like. Perhaps he should develop some emotional maturity and realize he created man and he knew what he was capable of, so why get upset about it? Maybe should forgive them the same way you expect them to forgive each other – without condition. Or perhaps we should just conclude that the god of the bible is flawed and inconsistent because he is the product of the flawed and inconsistent thoughts and feelings of the men who wrote the Bible.

Spirituality:

The real kicker for me right now, is that I fell more alive spiritually speaking than I ever did when I was a Christian.  This break away has freed me from the shackles of religion and guilt and I don’t think I can recommend something more highly if you want joy and peace.  No more of the constant “You are not good enough.” No more of the psychological abuse of telling people they are garbage and God hates them until they turn to him. No more of using religion to manipulate the behavior of people, excluding myself from certain people, and justify interfering in people’s lives.  Shit, I feel like I actually have found spiritually what I was looking for all along.  The Freedom that comes from being liberated from religious shackles and nonsense.

Conclusion:

My problems these days are far more practical.  Spiritually, I am free.  Believe that or not.  My issues of struggle are family, relationships, career, life and enjoying the world.  The constant struggle of wrestling with this imaginary thing called sin, which was nothing more than me being taught to loathe and hate parts of myself, is gone.  I don’t struggle trying to destroy part of myself anymore.  I embrace it and seek to use that part of myself to make me stronger. My needs and wants are not sinful, they just are.  They are part of who I am and I accept that. I embrace them not as enemies but as allies.

In the meantime, my objections remain. And I wait.

Continuing to Walk the Path,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Odin’s Eye – The Wayfarer’s Spiritual Side – Adaptation and Balance

/ Ed Raby Sr / Leave a comment

Happy Thor’s Day

Discussion:

The Wayfarer’s Spiritual Side.  This post and those titled like it to follow in the future are largely just me looking through the Eye, so to speak at my own spirituality. To gaze into my own spiritual journey and come up with some observations I hope will be helpful to me as I continue to walk my life.

I would say that the two great struggles I have had since leaving my religion and my ministry have firstly been to adapt to the change and secondly try to find some way to achieve balance spiritually speaking.

I suppose part of the problem is defining my spirituality:

  1. I want my spirituality to be my own journey of discovery. That is why religion and I have a problem.  That is, I see all of them as being someone else’s journey of discovery that other people follow.
  2. I want my spirituality to embrace all that I am in balance.  Reason, Emotion, Relationships, Health (Both mental and physical) and that aspect we call Spirit must all be involved equally. Most of my spirituality is about achieving balance between all these things.

Back to the two struggles, adaptation is a struggle because I am very conscious of the fact that I was engaged in a lot of spiritual activities as a Christian that I would consider irrational now.

  1. I went to church, but I now understand what that was.  It was the reinforcement of belief by repetition, not necessarily by coming to understanding the truth, but group think and emotional experience are powerful ways to teach you how to deny what is true.
  2. I prayed, but I have realized that I was probably talking to myself most of the time.  Even if there is a god, the way I was conceiving him as I prayed him took on the aspects of my earthly father.  it was my concept of god I was praying to, not necessarily the divine power that actually exists.
  3. I worshiped, but that conception of god was my own creation, so I was worshiping my own ability to conceive god. I don’t do a lot of this anymore.  I honestly can’t say I miss it much.
  4. I studied the Bible.  But this was about repeating something over and over again and when you do that you are just training your mind to think a certain way. Doesn’t mean that way is true or right.

In my adaptation, I don’t want spiritual practices that don’t also leave me open to see possibilities I may not have considered or get me to be dogmatically telling others what “The Truth” is at the expense of their own freedom to figure it out themselves.  it leaves very little other than practicing meditation on the virtues I want evident in my life and living life with a spiritual eye.

The other struggle is balance. Keeping one thing from dominating so much that the others are neglected.

Time to Look Through the Eye:

Faith:

I have faith in myself. Like it or not it is all I really have. People say that might be a poor thing to have faith in and they may be right.  However, my self is all I really know I must have faith in, because it is the best thing I have to place my faith in that I know is real. Other things I will list that I have faith in I know based on my experience and reason that this is so, but I still must say I have a little less faith in these things than myself for obvious reasons. My wife, my small circle of friends, humanity all are worthy of various measures of my faith because they are real and proven through their actions.  That said at the end of the day the only one who can keep my spiritual life in balance is me.  The only one I can ultimately trust is me.

Religion:

I really try to avoid being religious, the problem is religion is very prevalent in spirituality, and eliminating it can be quite a challenge. The issue religion brings to the table is how much of other people’s spiritual experiences can be used to help my own and which ones are just controlling or fear mongering.  I find that if a spiritual notion leads me to being afraid or is trying to ‘force’ me to certain activities then it is a religious element to be rejected.  I just have time for notions that basically without proof try to tell me what ‘the truth’ is.  I think there may be many truths, but one single monolithic truth?  No.  I don’t think the universe is that small. If there is any force that can take me off my notion of balance it is religion.

Theology:

The most elementary shift in my thinking theologically speaking it is realizing that sin is a made up concept.  The writers of the Bible or any other holy book that talk about sin, just straight up called what behaviors they didn’t like ‘sin’.  Therefore, they took it upon themselves to speak for the divine as to what offends the divine. They offer no direct proof for this.  They claim it, but never prove it

Theologically speaking then, is humanity then inherently evil because they have picked up a sinful nature then?  No.  I have not proof one way or the other about that either. It is just asserted.  So when it comes to my spirituality it is not so much avoiding or overcoming sin anymore. My spirituality has shifted more to the notion of making myself better by strengthening what is positive or turning something negative into a positive. I don’t believe that part of my humanity needs to be destroyed or redeemed anymore.  I just think all elements of my humanity (needs, wants, reasoning, wisdom, etc.) need to be focused and work together to help me grow with balance.

Spirituality:

All of life then becomes just as much spiritual as it is anything else.  From taking a shower, to going to work, to making love to even me sitting right now and writing on this blog. All of it has the potential to strengthen me spiritually.  I simply have to find the element of each activity that helps me become a better person.  What is it that leads to long life, prosperity and balance.

Conclusion:

The issue I find is still the issue of balance and adapting to being an X=Christian.  Sometimes I find myself thinking about an issue and asking “Is that the former Christian talking or is it the real me?” It is the current state of my Spirituality as I walk the path of life. It is a question that comes up often.

Continuing to Walk the Path,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Of Wolves and Ravens – Hospitality: Home Presence

/ Ed Raby Sr / Leave a comment

Happy Tyr’s Day

Discussion:

As a virtue hospitality is something I have a grasp on intellectually.  It’s pretty simple to be ready to be helpful in any way possible and opening up your home to strangers in need is something you can provide is not hard to understand. It is one basic way of expressing it, but expression of hospitality is a little deeper than that. I like the quote about better where people feel at home in your presence. Because it is the kind of hospitality that can always be expressed.  You can always be hospitable by choice to anyone who simply needs to be in the presence of someone who makes them feel comfortable in a bad situation. At the very least learning not to be a dick is probably a positive thing to do.

In Christianity I spent a lot of time pondering the notion of – ‘love you neighbor as yourself’.  Jesus is pretty clear on the fact that even one’s supposed enemies or even people we find disgusting are one’s neighbors.  I get it; but more pragmatically, hospitality is simply being human to another human.  To see them not as objects but as they are – as people.

To the Wolves and Ravens:

Needs (Geri):

Hospitality has a certain level of need on both sides. 1) People are going to face things beyond their control and sometimes those things are devastating to life.  People need help sometimes and to reach out a hand and help them in those times can fill a great need.  2) You need to be hospitable for yourself.  I mean if your going to prove that your decent human being and treat others as humans.  Your human side needs this, so you don’t start feeling you have gone completely over to the dark side.

Wants (Freki):

We want hospitality and to be hospitable. Those moments are something we cherish when we led a hand or someone lends a hand to us. Less positive is when someone kicks us when we are down or takes advantage of our distress or bad decisions. We also want hospitality on both side for ourselves and others.

Reason (Huginn):

Rationally, hospitality is the heart of humanism.  It is about the notion that the solution to human problems is humanity.  We show great humanity in hospitality.  It is also actually acting rather than some other activity where we put on airs that we are helping but it reality we are doing nothing.  Prayer comes to mind. I know other people think prayer is doing something, but I used to see it as a most convenient excuse to not actually help someone and instead ‘pray for them’ for which they should thank you. Even though you didn’t do anything to actually help their situation.  The irony was there are many verses of The Bible that caution against this; but we would run to the ones on prayer to say we were still doing something.

Wisdom (Muninn):

Wisdom says that hospitality is what make the world a better place.  Not government, not laws, not better ideas.  Simply being a free human, freely helping our fellow humans. So that people feel at home when we are around knowing that the benefits and comforts of home are there with us; regardless of how far they are away from their actual home.

Conclusion:

For myself the biggest switch has been to dump the whole “I will pray for you” excuse and try to find something I can actually do.  It is hard to say to people: “Sorry, I can’t help you”, but it is more honest. When I can help, I act to do so.  When I can find someone who can help when I can’t is also a possibility. The one thing I never want to do anymore is create some activity that I claim is helping, but isn’t really doing anything. If I am going to justly toward others; with justice, part of that is making sure I am actually acting on the problem, not just ignoring it.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Odin’s Eye – Bible Problems: General Issues and Introduction

/ Ed Raby Sr / Leave a comment

Happy Thor’s Day

Discussion:

Odin’s Eye is about a lot of things but every eight weeks or so one thing it will be about is taking on the Bible.  I fairly sure that my Alma Maters of Trinity Bible College and Asbury Theological Seminary will not be proud of me during these posts, because I will be using knowledge I gained from earning my degrees with them and then turning it against them, but I know I am not alone in this department with either.

The amount of people who go to school to become ministers or Bible scholars and then turn their back on the faith is legion.  In fact, one of the atheist contentions is that the Bible itself is one of the best breeding grounds for atheism or at least non-belief in Christianity is probably true.  When you read the Bible objectively through the eyes of reason; you have to conclude ultimately it is a work of human beings and whether or not the divine has anything to do with its existence is pretty much a matter of opinion and blind faith.

See the source image

I am not an atheist, but I get the contention and it is valid.  In general, the Bible has some very basic problems that in my opinion point not to a divine authorship but a human one where human beings are giving their opinions about how god operates, giving an account where the author believes he (there are no female authors of the Bible) or someone else encountered God or wrote with the intention of ordering society using God as the authority to hush opposition to their plan. The nature of these problems are as follows:

  1. Contradictions – I spent the majority of my time as a Christian scholar and minister trying to explain contradictions in the Bible.  To be fair sometimes a contradiction is not always present where one is said to exist, but there were many that I simply had no answer for.  The bible does on occasion say two things about the same thing  and there is a direct contradiction. Many Christians point to the idea of people taking these things out of context, but I would say I have taken context into consideration several times and still find a contradiction.
  2. Confirmation Bias –  The Writers of Scripture want the God they are describing to exists.  They want to the resurrection to be true, etc. So they never really address questions that a skeptic would ask. Questions that would help their case if they answered them, but because they are not asked or answered, it just shows bias.
  3. Timeline issues – Like it or not some things don’t mess with each other from a timeline perspective. When I was teaching life of Christ, the one area that gave me the most timeline fits was the resurrection itself. The accounts of who and where Christ appears and in what order vary widely.
  4. Historical – despite my Bible college apologetics professor’s assertion that the Bible is grounded in history; much of that is either unproven or there is a historical record, archaeology, etc. that contradicts the Bible.
  5. The Bible doesn’t live up to its own standard of confirmation of fact – the ‘two or three witnesses’ standard does not always hold up with the Bible itself for establishing every fact. Most events in the Bible are stand alone with no other account of them existing in the Bible itself or in the world for that matter.
  6. God contradicts himself or it seems that God cold have done things in a far more simpler way – the moral questions of the Bible’s god are at times overwhelming. This includes everything from the treatment of women to God plain out not following his own standards for ethics and justice.

I could go on and on, but whenever you see and Odin’s Eye with the Subtitle – Bible Problems; know this is where I am going to take the Bible and be very critical of it.  I am not doing this to offend, but to point out how very questionable it is for the Bible to be a special revelation of God, but more a collection of men’s opinions and accounts of the almighty that should raise an eyebrow, not inspire devotion.

Faith:

People ask me then where my faith is when it comes to the Bible.  It’s not the Word of God to me. It might contain some observations that might help me understand the divine as a deist, but it certainly is no longer the divine special revelation I once thought it was. I think the notion of ‘special revelation’ is man-made so people can say something is of God when really it is just a man-made idea.

Religion:

If the bible is not special revelation, then the basis for most of the Abrahamic Religions is non-existent.  In these religions what we see most is them using ‘holy’ scripture to justify their existence and their use of force and religious ‘ethics’ to control the behavior of others.  Sorry there i\s a great deal of truth to the idea all religions are cults and engage in cultish behavior to control and just because it has it has a billion followers doesn’t make this less true.  Once you find yourself in the authoritative position to disperse the ‘proper’ interpretation of the bible, that gives you an incredible position of power over those who blindly believe. Religion thus cannot be trusted because it is very much about power and control most of the time.  It is why I have sworn them all off.

Theology:

Theologically speaking the so-called ‘special revelations’ might have some good theological observations at times, but I can get no confirmation as a deist that they are true and never will.  The real challenge to me in theology now is that I know I will die ignorant of the truth of the divine, but I am OK with that. Ignorance simply is, the question is what to do about it. Sometimes the thing to do; the only thing you can do based on the nature of the questions, is accept being ignorant.

Spirituality:

I would say over the years the Bible has been a tool of spiritual enlightenment.  But so have my weightlifting sessions, my hikes in the woods and my reading of other books.  I can’t say anymore that The Bible is my authority of faith and practice, nor would I say that I consider it a superior form of knowledge over all others.  It is one voice of many and sometimes I think what it says contains the truth and other times I think what it says is bullshit.  But that is true of pretty much everything I read so…

Conclusion:

My Bible; that I preached from not so long ago, sits on my shelf. I don’t think I have opened since that last Sunday.  It sits currently between The Armchair Economist and The Picture of Dorian Grey.  I suppose the irony of that, and the fact my last sermon was on adultery while I was engaged in an affair, will sit with me forever. I also have no intention of allowing it to be master over me anymore.  Where I walk, I take steps on my own and quite frankly I think my life is better for it. The Bible for me now is a collection of works that sometimes inspires wisdom and other times makes my eyebrow raise. But mostly it is just another book to me now as journey onward.

Continuing to Walk the Path,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Odin’s Eye – My Deism

/ Ed Raby Sr / Leave a comment

 

Happy Thor’s Day

I suppose my belief system is a little complicated. However, at its root or its central tenet is being a deist. However my deism, is not of the same flavor as most people would think of it; nor is it classical deism. Some of the things classical deism upholds, I have modified a little.

  1. Deism would maintain at single creator based on reason.  I would say based on reason, you can’t dismiss the idea of a group of powerful beings being the creators following a common plan or that the universe itself is the creator. I hold out a lot of possibilities here as far as what the guiding force behind our origin might be, if any.
  2. I do maintain with the deists that there is an order and complexity to the universe that imply a creator or creators of some kind.
  3. I agree that there is a limit to human knowledge and understanding that makes it hard; if not impossible, to understand the full nature of the divine.
  4. What ever divine power or powers exist have given man his faculties to both create and uphold his own ethical and moral principles.
  5. Human beings should indeed be free to find, know and worship these divine force or forces in their own way. All views of the divine are to be respected as long as they don’t violate the rights of others.
  6. All human beings are equal creations of this divine power. As such they are accorded rights based on that natural equality.  I do have some things I debate about rights at this point though. More on that at some other time.

Faith:

As far as faith in the divine goes, I have faith that something exists at the present.  I have an active faith in the existence of something divine. I must state for the record, that I can no longer dismiss the notion that the atheist might be right but at the same time I simply do not think humanity has achieved a level of knowledge that can say – “There is No God” with 100% confidence. I believe there is something out there that we cannot comprehend and that no religion can truly explain.

Religion:

I maintain that people have their right to any religion they like including the right to not have one at all.  I draw the line however with any religion whose followers want to impose their views, ethics and moral code on others.   If you use your religion to justify harming others or force them to take certain actions because of it; I would say that is wrong as well. Religion is very much like a penis, as one actress in a movie remarked, and should have the same societal limitations.

See the source imageTheology:

As a long time theologian ( yes, I have degrees in Biblical Studies and Theology), I used to rely on special revelation; namely the Holy Bible of Protestant Christianity, for my foundation for my work in theology.  Having come to recognize fully that the Bible is a fully human book and that the divine has little to do with, I have to look at how to understand the divine differently.

There is no such thing as special revelation in the sense any so-called holy book is a direct revelation of God. You might find the divine revealed in the human thoughts that are presented in such books; as the authors discuss and tell you what they think about the divine, but those thoughts are human not divine.  To do theology as a deist, I am left with my own reason as I observe the world around me.  I am left with my human facilities alone as I observe and think about the divine.  Part of that is perhaps looking at religions to find certain foundational beliefs common to all that can be helpful in this process, but no one stands the divine better than another.  They all may have some truth, but none of them have THE TRUTH.

Spirituality: 

Deism allows me to engage one other thing and that is to explore the possibility that there is more to humanity than the biochemistry we are left with, if we remove the divine from the equation.   That there is a possibility that man is more than body, mind and emotions but has a spiritual side and an immortal soul. I probably engage this with my more pagan side of my belief system, but it is deism that opens the door to it.

Conclusion: 

I have fully embraced the notion of pursuing the real divine that actually exists without special revelation.  Natural revelation makes things far more interesting and to be honest, more difficult.  But there is a greater honesty to deism as compared to religious pursuits of the divine that I used to embrace.  Only time will tell where this will lead me.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Odin’s Eye – Establishing a Pattern

/ Ed Raby Sr / 3 Comments

Happy Thor’s Day

I have a similar problem to the one I had in Of Wolves and Ravens in that I need to establish a pattern of posts for Odin’s Eye as well.  I have addressed my four main theological objections to Christianity and probably very soon they will have their own page so people can interact with them in a much more focused manner.  I walk along waiting for people to offer answers to my honest objections and this platform will be for that too as beyond my main four I have many other objections toward Christianity and the Bible being the ‘Word of God’.  Seems like a good discussion topic list for Odin’s Eye.

I will continue to discuss things regarding where I am spiritually. I will continue to discuss Deism, Humanism and Paganism here on Odin’s Eye. I also want to offer up a continuing critique of Christianity, the Bible and other religions.  Plus a general criticism of religion in general can be expected.  Part of my reason for this is to help refine what I am trying to discover, by eliminating what I think is false. So perhaps, the following pattern is good for starters:

Week 1 – Deism

Week 2 – Bible Problems

Week 3 – Humanism

Week 4 – Christianity Problems

Week 5 – Paganism

Week 6 – Religion Problems

Week 7 – The Wayfarer’s Spiritual Side

Week 8 – My Theological Objections to Christianity revisited.

It should be noted as well that for pagan holidays on the calendar I will interrupt this series and write about them.  I am going at pagan holidays from the Norse Viking point of view. The next one is on February 2nd and is called Disting.

What I want to make abundantly clear is this.  Like when I was a Christina theologian, I will always respect a counter argument.  I am not trying to be offensive in my criticism, merely asking a lot of honest questions that need answers, and if you think you have one as a reader, don’t hesitate to give them.  My interest here is not to bash people but to give reason to faith if it can be found.  If not that element of faith is just that – blind trust with no evidence.

I also will remind people at this point that I have degrees in Biblical and Theological Studies.  I don’t mind questions about whether I have considered something, but I do object to assumptions of ignorance.  I guess the problem a lot of Christian and former Christian friends have or might have is this simple point, that I am not just a normal Christian who left his faith.  I used to be a pastor and preacher. I am still knowledgeable about the bible and theology that Christianity employs.

I also have no tolerance for name calling, so if you want to get banned that’s a good way to do it. I work hard to not do it myself, so I expect the same courtesy in return.

I am on an honest search for spiritual truth if it can be found. If you can make me consider something that might lead me to that, I will welcome you with open arms. That would include returning to Christianity, if it could be proven past my theological objections.  My purpose is not to tear down, but to refine and discover. If you enjoy the walk with me as a reader and learn something? Bonus.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Odin’s Eye – Objections to Christianity – Part 4 – The Justice of the Biblical God – An Unbalanced Scale

/ Ed Raby Sr / 1 Comment

Happy Thor’s Day.  This is the 8th Night of Yuletide. this night is sacred to Skadi and Ullr – The goddess Skadi is a giantess associated with skiing, bow hunting, winter, and the mountains.  Ullr is the god of snowshoes, hunting, the bow, and the shield. The idea behind this night is hunting and being outdoors. It is also a day to remember those who provide our meals and sustenance. The Virtue remembered tonight is Truth. 

Introduction:

I am wrapping up my four main theological objections to Christianity with the simple but profound fact that the god of the Bible is very suspect in as far as whether or not he is just and acts with justice. I would go so far to say that the god of the Bible does not follow his own clearly stated guidelines for justice – 1) “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth” and 2) Restitution Included. Namely that the punishment should fit the crime and that restitution when merited should be offered.  This is the standard of justice found in the Torah or Law of Moses. Jesus of Nazareth takes this on in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 pointing out that the principles of justice were still valid and in fact because things should be done for the love of god, they were even more challenging.  God expects Christians to still be just and follow his principles of justice. The issue is: does the god of the Bible follow his own rules.  I would say not.

Faith:

From a standpoint of my own faith, the biblical god’s justice, and in particular the doctrine of Hell, has always been a problem.  My standard answer throughout my days as a pastor to others that asked was that the justice of god was a mystery.  That someday, we would know it all and see that this god was just to send people to hell.  Even if they were people who we loved and who this god claimed to love. But it was more than that as some of the stories of god executing justice were a little lacking in justice.  Job’s trial is a good example where God allows the Devil to kill all of Job’s children and servants save a few and does it simply to test Job to see if he will remain faithful.  The Biblical god’s answer of – “I am god, that’s why.” is a little lacking in reasoning for a supreme being for one and the whole situation is lacking in compassion not just for Job but for all the people slain for another.  They all lived and died simply to satisfy a bet between the Devil and the almighty is a little much to reconcile with the idea of God is love.  Stuff like this definitely tests your faith and it should.

Religion:

The thing is most religious responses to the justice of God dilemma either cite ‘mystery’ (read – I don’t have a  good answer, so I am going to punt) or our ignorance.  Simply put they both attempt to give a god a different standard of justice than we follow.  How convenient, but also telling that we cannot even use the standard of justice of ‘eye for eye’ with the biblical god. The very standard that this god gives, he does not follow.

The fact that I used to come up with this double standard for god myself bothered me for years when I realized that is what I was doing.  A standard of justice is only viable if it is evenly applied to all.  It should be logical and consistent enough that it CAN be applied to all without exception. We have learned not to tolerate double standards between those that lead and those that follow so why here?  Why does this god of the Bible get a free pass for being hypocritical?

Religion does its damnedest to keep us from seeing this, and it does it by trying to make God so high his different standard of justice is justified.  It sounds like a ruling religious class seeking to justify why they can impose rules on others that they don’t have to follow themselves.  After all, they are ‘men of god’ and so as Cardinal Richelieu points out in the Three Musketeers movie in 1993 – “The Cardinal is not subject to the laws of men”.  Easy to justify if you create a different standard of justice for your god and you then say you are subject to that standard, not the standard of men.

Theology:

But the Biblical God fails theologically and it comes out best in the doctrine of Hell and final judgment.  Everything we will do is in a short temporal time of existence but everything about the final judgment of the god of the Bible is eternal.  In short, this god is going to punish us in an eternal and permanent way for our behavior in temporal and non-permanent existence.  This includes annihilation and eternal punishment views.  The only thing that might save Christianity here as far as theology is actually the idea of purgatory where the punishment is redemptive and non-permanent.  But even here there is a postulate that punishment can last centuries compared to the shortness of life.

So being burned like the rich man is said to be burned is somehow eye for eye and tooth for tooth?  In that story, the rich man is burned not because he defied god but because he had a good life and Lazarus was rewarded because he had suffered in life.  Go look at the story (Luke 16) yourself, this is the rationale that is given.  So because a guy had it good he is punished with burning fire?  How is this eye for eye? Justice would have been to have the two trade places for a second life, not that he is burned for a long period of time.

There is little justice in this story, just a god who on the one hand in the Old Testament tells people who prosperity is a sign of God’s blessing and then turning around and saying though that if you do become prosperous, the biblical god is going to burn you as punishment for it.  In a full analysis of the biblical account not only are there many accounts where god’s justice is a little suspect but where he violates the very rules he sets forward because he gets jealous or angry. Like the other mythologies, the biblical god is very human and reflects probably more of the attitude of the author of that particular passage than the almighty that actually might exist.

Spirituality:

See the source image

For me personally, I come back to the quote I have used before.  If the god or gods are just then they will judge us based on the virtues we lived by.  If they are not just, then they do not deserve to be served.  If there are no gods then, we should live in such a way as to be fondly remembered. I worry less about an afterlife; because regardless, it is this life I must live either way.  I choose to live based on virtue because, in the end, it is all I really have.  My own personal responsibility for the life I live is mine alone. Cue Robert Heinlein.

See the source image

Conclusion:

I will revisit these objections in the future with other thoughts.  Odin’s Eye will continue to be a discussion point on faith, religion, spirituality, and theology. I will continue to use it to find a path to knowledge and wisdom. What you may see in the future is me actually deal with more specific Biblical passages and why they are problematic.  There will also be the continued discussions of deism, humanism, and paganism.  I probably will have a more detailed plan next Odin’s Eye.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard, and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Odin’s Eye – Objections to Christianity – Part 3 – The Cross and Empty Tomb – An Imaginary Solution to an Imaginary Problem.

/ Ed Raby Sr / 1 Comment

Happy Thor’s Day

Introduction:

I know I will probably get a reaction out of this one and I am not trying to be provocative.  I am simply trying to get people to see the logical problems of Salvation through Christ.  Once you dismiss sin as a made up concept, you could say that it is really unnecessary to go after ‘God’s’ solution to the problem, but the whole of Christianity revolves around Christ’s work on the cross and the resurrection to save people from sin and from eternal damnation. You might say it is the core doctrine no matter what flavor of Christianity you live by so it deserves some attention.

Faith:

Of course, the first thing each flavor of Christianity stakes out is how said salvation is achieved with Christ.  The faith versus works controversy starts right away in the first century. James and Paul go at it right in the Bible.  Now I heard multiple explanations from both Protestants and Catholics of why James and Paul are not arguing about the same thing really but they practically quote each other with only one variation.  One says salvation in Christ cannot be of works so no one can boast, and the other one says that without works it is impossible to show faith. No matter how you logically try to get them to be ‘defending the same salvation only from different directions”; it is contradictory.  One is saying that works have nothing to do with salvation, and the other is saying it does.

So what this really shows is that even in the Bible and among early Christians, they had disputes and disagreements about how this works and thus it points to the Bible not being inspired by God so much as it records those early debates among the faithful about how salvation worked.  That makes the Bible very human and also not the Word of God because if God had actually wanted to tell us how this works because it seems it would be the most important thing for us to know, he would have made it plain, straightforward and quite frankly non-contradictory.

Religion:

Of course, every flavor of Christianity goes even further with specifics and added on things to the doctrine of salvation in Christ.  The Catholic Church plain out tells you that you can only be saved from death through them and no one else.  Many Protestant denominations will tell you the same.  My former denomination would tell people that they had the whole gospel, not just part of it.  Salvation is complicated by religion because religion seeks to use these ideas to keep people grateful and faithful for telling those people their version of ‘the truth’.

Theology:

Religion aside though, my objections are theological – what kind of God do we have, who claims to be merciful and loving, but demands for his followers to be forgiving without condition but doesn’t do so himself?  It also brings up the question of the ability to forgive in that we are expected to forgive each other without condition because we can, even as sinners. Yet, a holy God can’t simply forgive without sacrificing his only begotten son in one of the cruelest ways ever devised by man.  He must have this sacrifice or he cannot forgive at all and I must have faith in it and the resurrection or he will not forgive me specifically.  Worse yet if I don’t forgive others as a Christian, he won’t forgive me. He can choose to not forgive others and still be a holy God, but if I don’t forgive, I cannot be saved?  So I as a ‘sinner’ have not only a greater expectation than my creator but also I am more capable because I can do this forgiveness without conditions, but he cannot?

This bit of ‘logic’ pales in comparison to the fact that in order to forgive us he must sacrifice himself to himself, to appease himself to save us from himself. See the problem? Well Ed, what if then the whole doctrine of salvation as it currently stands is man-made and that isn’t the real one?  My response – exactly and that is probably true from the start of Christianity to where it actually stands today.   It seems to me that this idea is just as man-made because a supreme being could have come up with the simple plan to just forgive people. As Jesus is praying in the garden “if it be possible, let this cup pass from me” we would see the opening up the heavens and God saying -“You know what, I have a better plan – let’s just forgive people like I expect them to forgive each other.” That would be just, logical and consistent.

There is also another theological side issue – How much of a sacrifice is it really for Jesus if he knows for certain (which he indicates three times in the gospels) that he will rise from the dead?  Honestly, if he knew that and most people who have faith believe he did and the text certainly seems to indicate he did, then it isn’t that big of a sacrifice? He knows he is not going to ultimately be dead in the end, so why not do it as there is no ultimate risk to him?  In the end, Jesus is risking nothing himself as God, just going through the inconvenience of temporal suffering.  Why? To make a point? What point would that be, when there is nothing actually sacrificed in the end?

Spirituality:

I guess this leaves me with the question from a spiritual point of view as to what salvation is? Or does it?  I mean, if there is no such thing as sin, there is no need to be saved from it. Of course, then I could be left with the question of what the real divine reality might expect from me?  I guess only thing then is to live a good life regardless of what that divine reality might be. Marcus Aurelius rightly observes, in my opinion, this in his famous quote on the good life.

See the source image

Of course, you are kind of left to things yourself as to define what virtues you will live by to attain that good life. In short, what is defined as a good life is left to you.

Conclusion:

So with number three down, I am left with my final objection to consider at the end of this month concerning Christianity and the Christian god. Namely that the justice of the God of the Bible is suspect, particularly when it comes to the doctrine of final destination – aka Hell.

The rest of the schedule for Odin’s Eye for 2018 is as follows:

December 13 – Why I Am A Pagan

December 21 – Yule

December 28 – Objections to Christianity – Part 4 – The Justice of the God (Hell)

Then it will be on to the New Year.

I want to note at this point that once mt last objection is laid bare, I will be putting all four of them in one page so that if anyone, want’s to attempt to answer them, I will gladly hear you out and respond at that point.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard, and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Odin’s Eye – Objections to Christianity – Part 2 – Sin: An Imaginary Man-Made Problem

/ Ed Raby Sr / 1 Comment

Happy Thor’s Day

Introduction:

My loss of faith really started here.  I can actually go back to a message I was preaching on sin and salvation through Christ and the fact this quote from Dan Barker from Losing Faith in Faith ( a book I still want to read) was rolling around in my head.  I was trying to think of something that would make his assertion wrong.  I got up preached the message and sat down.  I can site this moment as the time my crisis of faith began. I realized he was right.

I realized there is no proof that sin rationally exists.  I only believed that because that was what I was told by a preacher and read it in the Bible.  Unless the Bible was truly inspired, then I had no natural or logical proof that there was this thing called sin, a sinful nature or my actions were righteous or sinful. God Himself had never come down and told me I was a sinner, that was men either in the form of preachers or the men who wrote the Bible.  Over time, I began to realize that sin has the same problem as the inspiration of the Bible – the Bible asserts it but never proves it.

Going back to my pulpit moment, I sat there thinking and my faith started to unravel.  I sat there thinking: “I make a living by telling people they are sinners so they will feel guilty, then they accept the ‘gospel’ and feel better.  Out of gratitude they throw money in the basket and pay me. WTF.”  It was a bad moment for me and one that led to my eventual downfall over two years later.

Faith:

If you are a believer you take the existence of sin as purely a matter of faith.  Basically, if you believe that sin exists, you do it for the same reasons you believe the Bible is inspired.  You have faith it is true – you hope and believe it is true, but you do not have a proof or a rational argument to say it is true.  The Bible writers assume sin is real and a problem.  They never prove it, and the believer is left to take that sin exists as a reality and that God has solved it.  You believe all that without rational evidence.  It is purely a matter of faith.

Religion:

I now think that sin is a man-made concept.  It probably originally. like so many things might have had a good intention.  To keep people from making bad decisions given the cultural context.  I mean sex without birth control and modern medicine can lead to deadly diseases and unwanted pregnancies. So you tell people not to have sex except with people they are committed to and get married to so the child will be legitimate. The practical side of this is the lessened risk of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. It is a wise course of action.

When just showing the wisdom of this to others doesn’t work, you throw in the wrath of God to bring about a more forceful form of persuasion – tell them it’s a sin against God and He will bring down his wrath on the one who sins.  This is where you make up the concept that sexual sin is an affront to God and he will send you to hell if you don’t repent of it and stop doing it.  It is ultimately a fear tactic that uses guilt to prevent certain behaviors.

The dark side of this gets worse though as people genuinely think they’re taking the side of God when the punish sinners.  The real problem with sin is that some people think they have risen above the concept of it.  They feel qualified to judge others using their religious beliefs. It gets worse because the said concept can be held by people in power who wish to impose their views on people to create a ‘righteous society’.  To force others to follow your moral code of some behaviors being sin and thus outlawed. The problem is the difficulty using reason to prove something is a sin.  It’s not self-evident.

Theology:

I don’t believe in sin as a theological concept anymore. I think in large part it is a bad one because all it does is produce guilt and then in a guilt-ridden state people can be manipulated.  I haven’t looked at this fully but I have a theory a large part of religious people have a poor self-concept and that is because they have a large amount of guilt associated with their ‘sins’.  This leads them to think they are bad or even evil people and the cycle of self-destruction begins.  You spend a lot of time putting on masks at that point to protect yourself from the social wrath of being a sinner while at the same time being wracked with guilt because you can’t seem to escape your sin. If it sounds like I have been there – yep.  I would say a lot of my initial causes of depression came from this struggle.

My theology about mankind has certainly changed since I discarded man as a sinner.  I don’t think of myself as a sinner but simply a human being. I am not all-powerful, all-knowing or all-present; so I am going to make mistakes and there is really nothing I can do about it. I have needs that are normal.  Wants that are normal.  I have my reason and wisdom to guide me. I am not perfect and I make mistakes and have errors in judgment, but that doesn’t mean I am a sinner, just human. To me, life is no longer about overcoming sin and removing it from my life.  Rather, it is about discovering the virtue in me and causing it to grow. And there is a virtue in who I am as a human being if I look for it and develop it.  It about growing into the best human being I can be.

Spirituality:

This is why spiritually speaking I spend more time meditating on the Nine Noble Virtues as a way to learn where I need to grow. I am not trying to get rid of sin out of my life, praying that God is gracious, etc. I have come to see some things as normal and human, not sinful.  My goal now is to build character, not remove sin because I think sin is a made up imaginary concept.  I meditate on the good things, not the bad things.  I grow the good in me, rather than trying to deny my humanity by calling it sinful. I find it makes me much happier and far more at ease in this world.

Conclusion:

After concluding that the Bible is a human book with no proof of inspiration and the sin is a concept made up by the writers of the Bible.  There are only two things left on my four objections to Christianity.  The first is the other imaginary thing the Bible creates which is the solution to sin being Salvation in Christ and finally, the god of the Bible seems to have very suspect standards of justice.

You will have to hang on a while though as next week I will talk about how I can as a Deist, Humanist Pagan celebrate Thanksgiving.  The week after that I will talk about Why I am a Humanist.  Then I will get to my third theological objection to Christianity on the first Thursday of December. The remaining schedule for Odin’s Eye for the year looks like this:

November 22 – Why I Celebrate Thanksgiving (as a Deist, Humanist Pagan).

November 29 – Why I Am a Humanist

December 6 – Objections to Christianity – Part 3 – Salvation through Christ – An Imaginary Man Made Solution.

December 13 – Why I Am A Pagan

December 21 – Yule

December 28 – Objections to Christianity – Part 4 – The Justice of the God (Hell)

Then it will be on to the New Year.

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard, and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!