The Bible: Commentary and Controversy

…is there a devil?

One of the oldest truths we know is that there are two sides to everything. An equal and opposite reaction to every action. Can’t have hills without valleys, sadness without happiness, good without evil. Yin without Yang. Else how could we recognize anything for what it is? If everything was good, there would be no “good.” So without a “devil” there could be no God? I’m not a logician or theorist, so I can’t say for certain, but it seems if you believe in one, you must believe in the other. That is not an affirmation of God’s existence, just an apparent truth that – like the old song says – you can’t have one without the other.

…did he create us?

It seems to me that just because there is a god (if there is one) it doesn’t necessarily follow that he created us, and the zebras, and light, and mosquitoes, and all the flora and fauna. Or that he didn’t. Personally, I find no inconsistencies between Darwinism and Creationism – when considered rationally. Certainly an omniscient, all-powerful God could create a universe any way he wanted to: in 5,235 years or 5 trillion years. He could grab a handful of mud and make a living man, or he could set up a system in such a way that evolution would eventually produce one. Why do the creationists limit the power of God? Scientists who believe in God have made a significant leap of faith; can’t the creationists make a similar one – to the other side?

…what’s his purpose?

Why would a God make man, anyway? The only similar act I can think of is a child making toys – objects of amusement. I learned in Catholic schools that we were made to love, honor and obey God. Why, for heavens’ sake? Why would he create a bunch of human ants? Is he so narcissistic that he had to create a realm of vastly inferior creatures in hopes that they would love him?

That sounds sick to me. Are we simply the equivalent of house pets? I’m quite sure I’ve bored people on earth into unconsciousness. What in the frick am I going to say to God that he finds interesting for the next trillion years or so?

…where did he come from?

I know “God is now, always has been, and always will be” is the standard answer, but to me it’s just a dopey escape hatch because we can’t explain God any other way. Things have to have a beginning. And if they have a beginning they must have an end. Which is why, of course, those who believe in God must believe and protest that God “always has been.” It’s a similar answer in my under-educated opinion to the one the scientists give about the beginning of the universe.

The big bang theory, as I understand it, was an explosion that sent matter flying through space. The matter, still in motion, is the universe as we know it today. Of course, the theory has a few niggling problems, such as “What exploded?” and “Why did it explode?” and “Where did ‘space’ come from?” Certainly I believe the possibility of concepts beyond the present scope of the human mind.

Do I believe it is possible for something to exist with no beginning and no end? Not exactly. I do not believe it is impossible. Though I have trouble even spelling space-time-continuum, much less understanding it, I can dimly perceive that – if time is a closed infinity – something could exist in it “forever.” In fact it would have to, since time itself would have no beginning and no end.

…why doesn’t he/she show him/herself any more?

I’m puzzled by all the leaps of faith we have to make to accommodate the god in the bible. Not because of the miracles, or the creation of the universe, or any of those “unbelievable” things, because if he’s god, after all, no problem. I just don’t understand how or why his persona changes so dramatically with the passage of time. He starts off by creating man and woman, putting them into a perfect universe, and giving them a test they must pass in order to stay there – a test he knows they’ll fail.

What’s his point? Is it simply a test of his own ability to make things? If they pass, he pats himself on the back? If they fail, does he try again? Not on this earth, anyway. All through the old testament he’s pretty consistent – an eye for an eye, etc.

Then along comes his son Jesus to absolve man of his original sin (the one god set man up for) proclaiming that love is the only way. Instead of eye for an eye we have turn the other cheek. What prompted that change? And if Jesus really was the son of God, that’s the only solid evidence we’ve had of His existence in over 2,000 years. Yet he was popping in and out of people’s lives in person all through the old testament. Where has he gone? Why doesn’t he (or obviously she) show him/herself anymore? And if he did really show himself with such abandon in the early days, how in the world did anyone not believe in him? Do you believe in god? Heck, yes, I just saw him over there by the fishpond.

…what does he mean by “sin?”

I really don’t understand all this business about sin being so bad. After all, god created it. He was the one who set Adam and Eve up to commit the first sin – setting them down in paradise, telling them only one thing was forbidden, then siccing the serpent on them. Of course the bible doesn’t say exactly what “sin” they committed other than being disobedient. (I explained that to my own satisfaction in the “Genesis” chapters.) In the old testament god defines sin very specifically for us. In the new testament everything gets hazy again.

Jesus basically tells us to treat others as we would want to be treated, which also seems fraught with problems because it assumes a society in which there are no aberrant individuals. For example, if Hitler believed so strongly that Jews should be eliminated in order to purify the Aryan race that he would have freely entered the gas chambers had he been Jewish, then according to Jesus he committed no sin by murdering millions of human beings. Surely there’s a flaw in that logic; I just haven’t been able to uncover it yet.

Also, what constitutes sin in one society is completely acceptable in another. Cannibalism is an obvious example. Jesus speaks the words “sin” and “sinner” often in the new testament, but never defines them.

…is he “our” God? Or everything’s?

Is he the god of Mars, and Alpha Centauri, and whatever else is out there in the trillions and trillions of hunks of rock and metal and gas scooting around the universe? It seems we’re pretty solipsistic in our view of him. Of course that’s the way we view pretty much everything, except for all those nutty exogenists, Trekkies, and other eccentrics. It’s “our” universe, after all. Irrelevantly, I wonder how all of us who rely on going to heaven are going to feel about sharing “god” with Vulcans, Tribbles, Ferengi, and whatever else is out there. If, of course, anything is.

…did we invent him/her/them/it?

Inexplicable things happen in life. One caveman rounds a corner and is eaten by a sabretooth tiger. Another rounds a different corner and finds a wild pig (or whatever its equivalent was a million years ago) trapped in a quagmire, so he kills it and brings it home for dinner. Was one just luckier than the other? Or was there a “god” responsible?

Every day the sun comes up and goes down, as does the moon. Is there a “god” making it happen? Or… wait a minute – maybe those big round things in the sky really are gods. Someone (I’m too lazy to look up the quotation) said “If God didn’t exist we would have to invent Him.” I think there’s a very good case for just that happening. How else could we explain all the eccentricities of the world?

Of course back in those days (when god was invented) they didn’t have the same problems we have now. The gods themselves were eccentric, sometimes charitable, sometimes malevolent, often quirky, just like life itself. Today it’s more difficult, because god is supposed to be more dependable – a loving, caring, much more predictable god.

Which means we have to compensate somehow. With the devil, with good and bad luck, whatever. After all, how could a loving, compassionate god let “bad things happen to good people?” Or, for that matter, good things happen to bad people.

Here’s the thing. All through the existence of man there have been really, really good reasons for people to believe in the existence of God.

• It explained all those things we can’t explain any other way.
• It gave us a power outside ourselves (We are weak, but He is strong).
• It provided an excuse for many of our actions.
• With the invention of heaven, or the happy hunting ground, or nirvana, or whatever, it gave us something to look forward to after we’d slaved our lives away on this mortal coil. In other words, it gave us hope when there was none.
• It gave us a moral code, and a reason to follow it. “Do what God tells you to do, or you’ll go to hell.”
• Then, with the introduction of Jesus, it gave us the example of a perfect being after whom we could try to pattern our lives.

…is He omniscient?

Does He know everything there is to know? About everything? Past, present and future? I’m sorry, Sister Ruth; I don’t remember my catechism very well. But I seem to recall things like “God always has been, is now, and ever shall be,” and “God is all powerful,” “God is all knowing,” and so forth.

I guess that kind of statement doesn’t bother you if you don’t think about it too deeply, or if you’ve taken the leap of faith. Of course if you’ve taken that leap, you can accept anything. I’m not criticizing, or trying to put anyone down – just stating an obvious fact. Which means we can dismiss as biased all books written about religion by those who believe. “The Case for Christ” is a pertinent example. I started it as part of the “what do I believe” process and quickly found the author relying on circular logic. If you’re preaching to the choir you can say just about anything and they’ll sing “amen.”

So how do the concepts of “free will” and an “omniscient, all-powerful God” mesh? Certainly can’t figure it out myself, but as I said, I’m no theologian – or philosopher, for that matter. If I have free will, I can do what I want, but God already knows what I’m going to do. Hmmm. Well, it’s not a big problem for me; let the pedants hack that one out. I’m much more interested in the “is now, always was, and always will be” part.

I seem to remember my catechism saying we were made in the image and likeness of God, and that we were put here to love, honor and obey Him. I also remember the feeling, if not the words, that God needed something to love Him, so he made a bunch of inferior beings and sat around hoping they’d love, honor and obey Him. Not much of a God for a kid to have faith in.

…is there some of Him in everyone?

Certainly, as we said a little while ago, the concept of a “good” God, and Heaven, and so on, was extraordinarily constructive, because it gave us a reason to behave ourselves. But nowadays, since we’re relying more and more on our “consciences,” we’ve kind of kicked God out the window. “Act according to your conscience” is a pretty dangerous mantra, letting Hitler, and Attila the Hun, Stalin, Mao, and just about everyone else into the good guy fold.

A few more questions to ponder in the future

• Why would he want to have a son
• Why would he care about us
• Is he all-powerful
• Does he know what we’re thinking
• Can he make us do things
• Can he talk to us
• Can we talk to him
• Is he a god of earth or of the universe
• Why would he want a bunch of human ants with him in heaven
• Is there a heaven
• Is there a hell
• Why would he require me to believe in him
• Why would he require me to believe in his son
• Why would he let his son be crucified
• Why would he help one person against another
• Would he require us to go to church
• Is he bible really talking about god, or about what we should do to be healthy people
• Why would he destroy the world
• Why would he let awful things happen
• Is he so petty that he gives us free will, then sends us to hell when we use it
• Is he just our desire to be immortal

All pretty good questions, for more understanding, for curiosity’s sake, for your next Bible discussion group, for theologians to stroke their beards and ponder. Too deep for me, but I figure as we go along I’ll tackle one or two of them. Over to you.

I’m exhausted from reading all the reasons the atheists (humanists) have for not believing in God, and all the reasons the theists have for believing in one. None of it makes any sense, of course. The atheists say there’s no proof. “By golly, I’m not going to believe in any dratted thing I can’t feel, touch, see, or have scientific evidence of.” Bad grammar, I know, but that’s the way they are. The theists say you’ve got all the proof you need — the perfect earth, the oceans, the human brain, the fact that you can feel God calling you, whatever.” But there’s only one answer, and that’s faith. Which covers a heck of a lot of ground.

Is the big bang theory proven beyond a doubt? If so, why do they still call it a theory? Where’s the proof of the string theory? Where’s the real proof of evolution? The problem is, much of what we “know” today we take on faith. Faith founded on the belief that our science is exact and complete, perhaps, but faith nevertheless. Of course, the theists really don’t have anything that comes close to evidence of God’s existence, so they’re behind the 8-ball right from the git-go.

We all grow up one way or another, believing in God or not. Many, many, many of us believe in God in our youth, then, when we get smart as teenagers and up, we reject that belief, usually as a kind of backlash against some kind of religion, religious practice, or religious authority or morality. Then, ‘way down the road somewhere, many of us turn back to the belief of our youth. Is that any proof that God exists? Of course not.

One of the great things about living in America is the luxury of doubting. I can put up a sign that says God doesn’t exist, and receive no ill effects other than theists scolding me. If I put that same sign up in, let’s say, Iran, I might have a more serious problem. The point is, Iranians and many other people are brought up in a society that literally does not allow disbelief, on pain of death in some extreme cases. Ask an American teenager if he/she believes in God and you might get a philosophical discussion. Ask an Iranian teenager the same question and you might get reported to the secret police.

So who’s to say who or what God is, really? Can the world be, in effect, the physical manifestation of God? That might be what quantum physics is trying to teach us. Bohr’s experiments on the existence of quarks and their relationship to each other recalls a few phrases in my ancient catechism — God is everywhere, always has been, always, will be, etc., etc. Which of course would mean that we ourselves are God, as well as everyone and everything else.

Wow, that’s a mystery. Gotta go. I’ll get back to this later.

While we’re at it, sort of, let’s talk about all the Jesus Christ theories, who and what Christ was, and where He came from.

1. Jesus was an alien. (Aside from just being from Galilee, that is.) Extraterrestrials came down from their ship, gave Mary a whiff of something that kept her asleep during the procedure, and impregnated her, then went back to the ship. Maybe came back down a while later and told her she was pregnant, and what to name the baby.
2. Jesus was the actual son of God. Thinking he may have been a little too hard for too long on his creations, God decided to send His son to earth for 33 years, to relieve mankind of its original sin, show the world that God is good and all powerful, and explain that all earthlings are in fact children of God, with unbounded powers. And then be tortured, crucified, and killed only to arise from the dead and ascend into heaven, with a few return visits to pump up the apostles.
3. Jesus was just a guy. A pretty terrific guy, to be sure, and a moral philosopher of some note, but just a guy. However, he caused such a stir with his words and works that he was blown into someone with super powers – perhaps an actual descendant of God – by his followers.
4. There actually was no Jesus, or if there was, he had nothing to do with the founding of Christianity. (Not kidding. That’s an actual theory called “The Christ Myth.”)
5. If there was a Jesus, he was just an amalgam of dozens of pagan gods whose supposed birth, works, and existence were the basis for Jesus’ life and times. Birthdate, resurrection, ascent into heaven, etc., etc.
6. Jesus was really Jesus, but he was not a true prophet, because some of the events he prophesized didn’t come true. If he wasn’t a true prophet, then he certainly wasn’t the son of God, who would be expected to know all these things. After all, the way you can tell whether a prophet is a true prophet or not is by whether or not his prophecies come true. (Duh)

Scientists, of course, deny the existence of Jesus, and God, and just about everything else in the bible, because there’s no real proof of their existence or their works (aside from the creation of the world, but that’s definitely not proof for the science guys.) In fact, the belief in God is simply a way of closing the door to further research in any area. If the answer is “God did it,” why look any farther?

Except, of course, the scientific world that created phlogiston, and the luminiferous ether, now firmly uses dark matter, and string theory, and parallel universes to explain the mysteries of the universe. Except, of course, there’s no real proof that those things exist. They simply have faith that it does. And faith, as we know, is belief in things unseen.

All that said, I have a completely new and original explanation (at least as far as I know) for His existence, one that will undoubtedly be reviled by just about everyone – religionists and scientists alike – because it has nothing to do with religion, and because scientists won’t even consider the possibility of it being true (oh ye of little faith.)

Let’s start at the beginning, with the biblical description of the creation of the world. Note I didn’t say simply “the creation of the world.” I said “the biblical description.” Is that actually the way the world was created? I have no idea. Nor does anyone else.

To me, the bible is a long, wonderful collection of parables and life lessons that you can appreciate whether or not you believe in the existence of God.

So how did the creation of the world happen according to the bible?

God brought it into being.

The bible says: “And God saith, ‘Let light be,’ and light is.”

Is that an accurate description? I don’t think so. Why would he say it, if there was no one to talk to? According to Genesis, “the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters.” In other words, God is all alone in the chaos of the world.

So forgive me, Moses and the many biblical scholars who have missed this simple fact, but God did not say “Let there be light.” He thought it.

In fact, He did not say anything; He thought everything.

According to Ellicot’s commentaries: “And God said: Voice and sound there could be none, nor was there any person to whom God addressed this word of power. The phrase, then, is metaphorical.” And as Benson says in his commentaries: “God said: Not by an articulate voice; for to whom should he speak? but in his own eternal mind. He willed that the effect here mentioned should be produced, and it was produced.”

Exactly. But it goes a step further. He began to bring order out of chaos not by thinking it, or by willing it, but by having faith that his thoughts would be made reality. No, the bible doesn’t read that way, primarily because “said” would have made a lot more sense to the originators and keepers of the old testament.

God thought it, and believed it would happen. No. To correct myself again, He knew it would happen. Think about it this way: you’re on a cliff a thousand feet above the ground. It’s pitch dark. You believe there is a set of stairs in front of you that leads to the bottom. Would you step off the cliff? Probably not. But if you know there is a set of stairs in front of you, no problem.

But how can you know something if you can’t touch it or see it or smell it? You must believe so completely that your belief becomes knowledge. You can believe there is a God, or you can know there is a God. You can believe God will deliver your enemies into your hands, or you can know it. You can believe you can kill a giant with a slingshot, or you can know it. You can believe there is a child in your womb, or you can know it.

So the truer interpretation of Genesis is that faith, which is defined as “belief in things unseen,” was responsible for the creation of the universe, and of everything in it. Only in God’s case it was the knowledge of things unseen. In other words, He knew these things, and by that knowledge brought them into existence.

Note I’m not trying to make you believe in Genesis, or the bible, but simply laying some foundation for what is basically a total reinterpretation of the events described in the bible, and of Jesus himself.

Consider all the miracles, and other improbable things that happen in the old testament. Whether or not they actually happened is irrelevant. How they happened is what’s important.

• Joshua and the destruction of Jericho.
• The many times the people of Israel defeated much larger forces.
• David and Goliath.
• The seven plagues of Egypt.
• The parting of the Red Sea.
• Manna in the wilderness.
• Daniel in the lion’s den.
• Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
• And many others.

The thread that ties them all together? Faith. But not just the belief that God will make it happen: the knowledge that God will make it happen. Is it possible their faith was so strong that it affected reality? Quantum theory says that’s a distinct possibility.

Wait. What? Yup. Here’s a crash course on the subject.

According to quantum theory:

1. The world is made of some kind of weird stuff we know practically nothing about, except it defies all existing laws for “stuff.” (Remember the luminiferous ether?”)
2. This “stuff” acts like it’s alive. Wow! But wait. It gets better.
3. This stuff the world is made of is constantly aware of what is happening in and to all of its parts. When something happens to some of this stuff, all of this stuff knows about it instantly, even though part of this stuff is the planet Mars, or Jupiter, and some is the planet Earth. Wait a minute, you say, along with everyone else who’s heard about this. That means this knowledge has to travel faster than the speed of light. Just one of those niggling problems scientists run into from time to time when trying to explain how the universe works.
4. But wait, there’s more. This stuff doesn’t just know what’s happening to its parts. Whatever happens to some of this stuff affects all of it at once. If one tiny part changes, all of it changes in a corresponding way.
5. But here’s the best part. This stuff is influenced by our thoughts, our expectations, even by our very presence.
6. When we measure it, it changes itself to fit our expectations.
7. In other words, this “stuff” relies on our expectations for its shape, or form.

Let’s say that again. This “stuff” the whole world is made of shapes itself according to our expectations.

To put it another way, our thoughts shape the universe.

It may sound dumb, and it may sound like science fiction, but it’s proven, validated, dependable, verifiable, indisputable, scientific fact. Does that mean I can say to that mountain over there “be moved,” and it will be? Well, Jesus said I could, and you could, and anyone else could who had a sufficient amount of faith – not because of how good or holy we are, but of how strong our belief is. In other words, if we can get from belief to knowledge.

Now about the new testament.

There were hundreds of prophesies described in the bible pertaining to the coming of Christ. Hundreds of prophesies that were believed by thousands of Jews.

Here’s the proposition.

Could all those prophesies, and all that sincere belief, actually have brought Jesus into existence? Remember, faith was much different then from what it is today. It was much more intense, and was founded on very detailed prophesies such as:

• The Messiah would be born of woman
• He would be born in Bethlehem
• He would be born of a virgin
• He would come from the line of Abraham
• He would spend a season in Egypt
• A massacre would happen at His birthplace
• He would be called a Nazarene
• He would be betrayed.
• His hands and feet would be pierced.
• He would be resurrected and ascend into heaven.
• And many, many others.

Could it be that these prophesies were so profuse, and so detailed, and so intensely believed, that they actually brought Jesus into existence? Quantum theory suggests that possibility. If so, it’s obvious he could have formed in a virgin womb, because he was not brought into the world in the normal way – by the reproductive act between a man and a woman – but as the result of thousands of people believing that his appearance was inevitable.

If that is true – if Jesus was the living result of a people’s faith – he would not have been bound by the laws that bind ordinary mortals. If he was subject to those laws he could not have, for example, survived 40 days and 40 nights without food or water. How did he do that? And how did he accomplish all the other miracles in the new testament?

By faith. In every case, he pronounced the miracle in advance of it happening. The water into wine, the healings, the centurion’s child, Lazarus, all happened as he said they would, because he had utter faith that they would. In fact, He knew that they would, because he was the manifestation of prophesy.

The key phrase that proves this theory?

“And the word was made flesh.”

Not “God sent His only son to walk among us.” Even though in a sense that’s what actually happened. But that requires a definition of God.

So here we go.

Is God an old white-haired old man who created everything and watches over us?

I think not.

Do I know what God is? Of course not. Do I think I’m smarter than all the thousands of minds that have tried to define God over the years? Maybe. But that doesn’t mean I know what God is. However, who or what he is isn’t relevant to this version of reality, because God doesn’t decide whether or not you get what you want.

That’s up to you.

Okay, it’s actually not God’s problem; it’s ours. But first, a little background. Since the beginning of their history, as far as I know, Jews have been cautioned not to speak the name of God. Why? Maimonides, the great Jewish codifier, says “Our caution is founded on an understanding of the third of the Ten Commandments, ‘You shall not take His name in vain.’ Although this verse is classically interpreted as referring to a senseless oath using God’s name, the avoidance of saying God’s name extends to all expressions, except prayer and Torah study.

I’m light years away from being a Jewish scholar, but I say “twaddle” to that explanation. Not that he isn’t being sincere; he just doesn’t understand the interdiction. Here’s the real deal. At or before the beginning of their history, some really, really smart person (maybe God) made the rule because he/she/it knew what the result would be. And he/she/it was right.

If you read my Genesis, part one, you may be able to guess where I’m going with this. As I said back then, by “eating” the fruit of the forbidden tree, Adam and Eve brought mortality into their souls. Not just the fact of death, but a completely new perspective – that reality was only what you could touch and feel: the “reality” that keeps us from believing in God and that we are God’s creations, and therefore godlike ourselves.

The only “sin” they committed (except for the obvious disobedience and lack of gratitude) was that they were henceforth barred from full exercise of their spiritual powers. The stuff about sweat of their brow, labor, dust to dust, etc., wasn’t punishment; it was simple fact. God obviously knew that by diminution or complete absence of their godly powers, Adam and Eve and all their descendants were going to have a tough time in the world.

In other words, god made Adam and Eve in His image, and then Adam and Eve returned the favor, re-creating God in their own image, humanizing him. Thereby losing their immortality and other God-like qualities. By removing them from God, they removed them from themselves.

If you’re following along, you can make the next jump. Giving God a name is the first step in humanizing Him. From there it’s not a big jump to give God a gender. Or to start thinking of God as an old white-haired Caucasian, and putting him/her/it in the same category as the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. Which gives militant atheists like Bill Maher and others a perfect way to ridicule anyone who believes.

The thing is, we have no idea what God is. I know, I should stop calling him/her/it God, because that word has so many problematic associations. As I’ve said before, we’ve humanized God since the beginning. “God walked in the garden.” Really? “Among all the trees in the Garden of Eden, God identified two special trees: of life, and of the knowledge of good and evil.” Please.

Here’s what happened: Somehow the universe was created, and earth was formed, and life happened, and eventually man appeared. Those are the facts. How did that happen? No one knows. Scientists talk about the big bang, and string theory, and all kinds of other explanations. Theists talk about God creating everything. As far as I’m concerned, everyone can have their theories, even evolution, because none of them rules out the possibility of “god.”

The bible, to me, is a big book filled with anecdotes and parables that try to show us how to live. Is it all the word of God? No. Is it divinely inspired? Much of it, I believe, is. But how do we define that divinity?

Who or what that inspiring deity is I have no clue. What I do believe is, whether it was inspired or not, it was filtered through human boundaries and concepts. Did angels come down, move among us, and talk to people? Did God appear to Moses as a talking, burning bush? Don’t know, but it certainly makes a good story.

How could the stories in the bible have been told, and had meaning, if “God” was a vapor of some kind? A life force, like “The Force” in Star Wars? Wouldn’t have worked. Never really has worked. Not for any “religions” I know of. From the cave men who might have worshiped the moon, or a polar bear, to the Egyptians, Romans, and up to present day. All had some sort of physical representation of their god or gods, mostly human. With all the human characteristics, good and bad. Like the God in the bible.

The point is, if there is a point in this rambling discussion, that you can believe in God without calling him by name, and without anthropomorphizing him/her/it. God, to me, is more and more the stuff the universe is made of, and that made the universe. A constructive intelligence of some kind that is accessible to us, and that cares about us in both an individual and cosmic way.

Without getting into whether he was the son of God, etc., etc., (we’ll get into that later) I believe that’s what Jesus was trying to tell us. I do believe he existed, and that he did some wonderful things. Are the miracles accurate, or are they exaggerations used by the storytellers to impress on us his godliness? Don’t know. His message, however, is clear. We can all be in touch with God/The Force/cosmic intelligence/etc. But first we must believe that’s a possibility. Must surrender our worldliness and, as Jesus said, be born again with the faith of a child.

I’m not talking religion in the usual sense. But I still pray in the usual way, except for the new version of the Lord’s prayer I wrote a while ago. I’ll share that with you when I think you’re ready for it.

If you’ve followed along, you know (or more likely already knew) that it isn’t the quantity or quality of the sacrifice that counts; it’s the spirit in which it is given. There’s a little “give till it hurts” in there, but that really means “give something you value.” Pretty obvious. Hey, I’ll just give my trash instead of letting the city pick it up. Not a sacrifice. Not a proper “offering.”

So what is all this sacrifice stuff that starts in Genesis 31:54? Does God really require sacrifice? If so, why? And why all the focus on burnt animal flesh? I can understand the “burning” part: the animal turns into smoke, which rises to the heavens, eventually reaching God. Or at least that’s the way the sacrificers might have imagined it was happening. Pretty pagan, really.

Anyway, it’s pretty commonplace. I can’t count the numbers of times it appears in the old testament. And speaking of Numbers, how about: “…ye shall offer a burnt offering, a sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord: one bullock, one ram, seven lambs of the first year without blemish.” Wow. That probably would have hurt.

So frequently the quality and quantity of the offering is proscribed. And when that happens, it’s usually designed to affect the offer-or’s heart through his or her pocketbook. “Seven lambs of the first year without blemish.” In other words, the best you’ve got, and a lot of it. What’s happening here is the big shots have missed the point. When they tell someone they have to pony up bigtime, they’re trying to test their faith by making the offering hurt big time.  Obviously missing the point.

A sacrifice isn’t a sacrifice unless it hurts. Or it wouldn’t be called a sacrifice, which at least in one definition, is: “the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.” Of course that definition totally obscures the “why.” For example, I might “sacrifice” a thousand dollars in the hope of hitting the lottery. I might “sacrifice” smoking cigarettes in the hope of living longer. Both of which I’m doing for my sake, not someone or something else’s. So sacrifice really isn’t the right word to describe what the Bible is trying to tell us, in its archaic, clumsy way.

Which is: the only sacrifice that counts is one done out of love. Not out of respect or fear, which appear in most of the biblical sacrifices to be the primary motivating forces, but out of love. Of course there’s always a “me” component in any kind of sacrifice. There used to be a campaign slogan (maybe for United Way, don’t remember) that ordered you to “Give till it hurts.” That’s the biblical sacrifice. It was later modified to “Give till it helps.” Which takes it in an entirely different direction. Then another one popped up: “Give till it feels good.” Which is a lot closer to what the Bible was actually trying to tell us.

The truth is everyone’s life is fraught with “sacrifice.” I can’t find the reference, but I remember a quote from a sultan who long, long ago was king of everything he surveyed – basically ruler of his part of the world. It went something like “For lo these past 30 years I have had every pleasure the world could afford – treasure, women, dominion over my enemies. I have counted the days I have been happy and they number seven.”

Obviously that sultan’s life was filled with sacrifice. Like, maybe, having to wear rubies instead of diamonds. Not quite the same as giving a kidney to your daughter, but a “sacrifice” nevertheless.

What the Bible is actually telling us is to “sacrifice” ourselves in order to become all that we can be. This is obviously made much more clear in the New Testament, with the penultimate sacrifice of Jesus dying on the cross to atone for our sin.

It’s also made clear in His statement: “Ye must be born again.” Think about what that truly means. Here’s a hint: it’s like wiping your hard drive. Becoming an empty vessel so you can be filled with the holy spirit.

No, that doesn’t mean retrograde amnesia. It means letting go of the beliefs, and prejudices, and anything else that will interfere with the process. “Come as a child.” Make the sacrifice of yourself so you can become much more. That’s way too big a step for a lot of people. Especially those, like Bill Maher, who believe only in those things they can see, feel, hear, touch, smell, or deduce, so they demonize and make fun of those who make that leap of faith. It’s a paradox, you probably already noticed.

Before you can believe in God you kind of have to believe in God.

I’m not getting into the “word of God/allegory/fairy tale/divine inspiration” controversy; not my purview. The point is not what and how something was put into the Bible; the point is what you get out of it, and quite possibly what you were meant to get out of it. I believe it’s possible that the entire Bible has one goal: to tell us we must re-connect with a higher power.

In the old days (i.e., old testament) we have God as a real being who walks around and talks to people. Then in the new testament He disappears and we never see Him again (at least there are no documented accounts of His appearance that I find compelling.) So where did He go?

Well, quite obviously He went inside us. Except, of course, He was already there. But as I’ve said before in these posts, He needed to be visible in the early days to establish His presence as a reality and to give His chosen people (Moses, Joshua, etc., etc.) credibility.

But I digress. Let’s get to Cain and Abel. Everything seems to have been going along peachily until it’s time for the brothers to bring God an offering. Abel brings some of the firstborn of his flock; Cain brings some of his harvest. God checks out both offerings and decides Abel’s is acceptable, and Cain’s is not. Setting aside the obvious possibility that God doesn’t like tomatoes, or that He’s a capricious narcissist, why did He not find Cain’s offering as acceptable as Abel’s?

That seems to be another mystery no one can solve, because the Bible really doesn’t give us any clues. Note this is an “offering.” The word “zabach,” which means “to slaughter, kill, sacrifice, slaughter for sacrifice,” evidently doesn’t appear until Genesis 31:54, when Jacob offers “sacrifice upon the mount.” This “offering/sacrifice” seems to be pleasing to God, because Jacob isn’t struck by lightning as a result, and God doesn’t appear to him and tell him it’s unacceptable.

You might draw the conclusion that God’s a committed carnivore; that Abel’s “offering” gave him a taste for meat, which I personally find quite reasonable considering my limited appreciation of vegetables. (I’ll take bacon over zucchini any day.) And I see a seed of truth in it, because as far as I can tell, nowhere else in the Bible does anyone try to offer God a salad. From Abel on, it’s meat, meat, meat — even if that meat comes from your own son.

Oh, wait a minute. Just spitballing, here, but was Abel’s offering more pleasing to God because it was more of a sacrifice in the more modern sense? In other words, was it harder for Abel to part with some of his firstborn baby lambs than for Cain to come up with a basket of corn? That must be undeniably true.

So here we come to the point. Perhaps God liked Abel’s “offering” more because it meant more to Abel, not to God. Of course we can’t see into Cain’s heart the way God could, but it does make sense that we get more attached to a sentient being than to a carrot, no matter how tenderly we might have nursed it from seed to stalk.

This runs all the way through the Bible, as we know, even into the New Testament, where Jesus applauds the widow lady who gives her “two mites” while the rich men “cast their gifts into the treasury.” And Jesus says “this poor widow hath cast in more than they all… for she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.” She gave all she had, which the rich guys just threw something in from their wealth. Which meant more?

So obviously it’s not the size of the thing offered, or the type, or the quality, or the quantity; it’s the spirit in which it is given, and the degree of difficulty the giver has in parting with it. Remember Abraham?

So Abel brought something that he loved, and had nurtured, and was loath to part with, and Cain brought some really nice groceries. And God looked into Abel’s heart, and into Cain’s heart, and it was no contest.

Now, you can argue that it wasn’t really Cain’s fault. That he just wasn’t the kind of guy who understood what was really at stake. Of course we also don’t know what the rules were — what God had told them to do when “the appointed time” came. Or why there was an appointed time. Or what the occasion was.

So maybe God didn’t explain it properly to Cain, or maybe Cain wasn’t paying attention. Or maybe Abel was just a more sensitive person. Or maybe — and this has the ring of truth to it — he simply loved God more. Thought of Him more as a father than as a boss. Maybe Cain’s response was “Uh-oh. It’s the appointed time. I’ll get a basket of fruit together.” While Abel’s was “What is the most wonderful thing I can offer? Which of my possessions do I treasure the most?” Like my wife would have, Abel had probably been fretting about “the appointed time” for years, wondering what he could offer that would please Him most.

There’s no mystery to what happened next; it’s happening with appalling frequency today. A guy gets fired, finds a gun, goes back to the office and kills the guy who fired him, plus a bunch of other people — particularly, if he can find him or her, the person who took his place. Cain’s feelings are hurt, he gets jealous, flies into a rage, and kills Abel, primarily because he doesn’t see himself as the real source of his anger, and he can’t kill God.

And now you know… the rest of the story.

What about the creation of the universe, anyway? We’re pretty sure no one was there to record it, so where did the steps come from? Why those exact steps? Is it just a story made up to explain how the world came to be, or is it something more? I certainly don’t know, but I can draw some comparisons.

For example:

Let’s assume the Big Bang theory is correct. Does that rule out the biblical creation? I don’t think so. According to popular science, the only part of the universe that existed was a black hole; there was nothing else. The bible says “In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth — the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters.” In other words, there is nothing. If you want to take it a step further, you can take the words “In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth” to mean He was assembling all that went before into the form of a black hole, preparing the Big Bang.

“And God saith, ‘Let light be;’ and light is.”

And science says “During the first three minutes of the universe, the light elements were born during a process known as Big Bang nucleosynthesis. This set loose the initial flash of light created during the Big Bang.” Wow! That works!

“And God saith, ‘Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.’”

I know I’m stretching a point here, but substitute dark matter, or quarks, or whatever particles were originally part of the Big Bang, and you can see it as a sea of unbounded material.

“And God saith, ‘Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen’ and it is so.” In the simplest terms, this is exactly what the scientists say happened during the Big Bang – particles became attracted to each other, clung to each other, and formed objects, separating the “dry land” from the “waters.”

“And God saith, ‘Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed [is] in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth.’”

And the scientists say “Cells resembling prokaryotes appear. These first organisms are chemoautotrophs: they use carbon dioxide as a carbon source and oxidize inorganic materials to extract energy. Later, prokaryotes evolve glycolysis, a set of chemical reactions that free the energy of organic molecules such as glucose and store it in the chemical bonds of ATP. Glycolysis (and ATP) continue to be used in almost all organisms, unchanged, to this day.” And later ”Photosynthesizing cyanobacteria evolved; they used water as a reducing agent, thereby producing oxygen as a waste product.”

Sounds a lot like plants, doesn’t it?

On the fourth day “God saith, ‘Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years, and they have been for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth’ and it is so.”

That’s pretty simple. Because science says “The Earth is thought to have been formed about 4.6 billion years ago by collisions in the giant disc-shaped cloud of material that also formed the Sun. Gravity slowly gathered this gas and dust together into clumps that became asteroids and small early planets called planetesimals.” No conflict there.

Then God said “Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.”

”And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good.”

And science says “Like the plants, animals evolved in the sea. And that is where they remained for at least 600 million years.” Catch the “waters teeming with living creatures” reference?

On the sixth day, God said “‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind’ and it is so. And God maketh the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good.”

And science says over hundreds of millions of years the oxygen generating organisms in the seas produced enough oxygen for animals to survive on the land, so they began to come out – as simple organisms, obviously.

And here’s an interesting scientific factoid: “Biologists reason that all living organisms on Earth must share a single last universal ancestor.” Wait. Was that one-celled organism named Adam?

Lastly, of course, God said “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” And over the next few hundred million years, that happened.

So there you are. As far as I’m concerned, the biblical description, simple as it is, jibes exactly with the scientific version. A pretty substantial argument, if you’re so inclined, for the veracity (and therefore divinity) of the Bible.

Are we sure there wasn’t someone writing this all down?

I’m probably the farthest thing from a “scientist,” leaning more toward the “creative.” But I have some pretty simple questions about the Big Bang theory for which I can find no satisfactory answer from the scientific community. Like “What was there before the Big Bang?” I mean, if the Big Bang was the result of a singularity expanding, or blowing up, where did the singularity come from? The one that exploded into trillions of stars, and an immeasurable amount of matter? No one seems to be able to answer that question, at least to my satisfaction. Steven Hawking obviously thinks that’s a frivolous question; he says it’s irrelevant. Time began with the Big Bang. Okay, I’ll accept that time as we know it began then, but that’s begging the question.

And if that was the beginning of the universe — If nothing else existed at that time, If there was no “space” – where was the “big bang” located when it went bang? What did it “bang” into? And if it did bang (scientists don’t like the word “explode” to describe it, because it “wasn’t an explosion in the usual sense”) how did it bang into nothingness? The simplest answer, and the one that makes most sense, is the universe was “created.” But that requires belief in a God, or Person, or Consciousness, or Thing that existed before the universe, and that’s incredibly difficult for some folks to believe. So they have to invent something else,

Many years ago, “scientists” invented the “luminiferous ether” to explain how light moved through the air. Seems like they’re doing the same kind of thing with the Big Bang. Either they completely disregard it, or they invent some wild theory to “fit” the circumstances.

Recently scientists have found an anomaly with the balance of microwave activity in the universe. From this has come a theory that there are many universes banging around out there, on levels we can’t see, and that one of them somehow came in contact with our empty one and that’s where the Big Bang came from. Of course it’s much more detailed and complicated than that, but that’s it in essence.

If you tell a scientist that God created the universe, or created DNA, or did any of a dozen other things, the scientist will probably put his fingers in his/her ears and cry “God gap, God gap, God gap. When you can’t find any other answer you just throw God in there.” Well, yeah.  And when scientists can’t find an answer for a set of circumstances they just seem to throw whatever’s handy in there.

I think perhaps it was Dawkins who talked about the origin of life, saying with the billions of planets out there, things got just right, and with a little luck, life appeared.  That’s miles from the real quote, but it’s substantive enough. (Actually, I never thought “luck” was an essential part of scientific equations.)  But if I say “I think it was caused by an intelligent agent” I’m laughed out of the building. They can have their “science” gaps, but deny me my “God” gap.

They throw the Creationists in my face and say the world is obviously older than 5,000 years. Well, I’m not a fundamental Creationist, so that rebuttal doesn’t apply. So I say to them, “What was there before the big bang?” And they give me stuff about parallel universes. Which really, in my humble opinion, is a whole lot harder to believe in than creation by an intelligent agent (God).

Which brings up a point. Data is data. It doesn’t propose or deny theories or hypotheses; it simply exists. Data, at least accurate data, is simply information. From that information we can draw theories or hypotheses, but when we do, we leave science behind and become philosophers. Science researches, discovers, organizes, and presents the data. Theorists (philosophers) interpret it. Someone once said “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Because the only limit to a theory based on data is that it must somehow fit the data (circumstances).

Big Bang? Let’s see. Multiple universes. Collision. Yeah, that’s it. (applause).

Big Bang? Let’s see. God. What? Get off the stage, moron. (Vegetables thrown).

The “scientists” say because you can’t prove or disprove the existence of God, you might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and leprechauns, because you can’t prove or disprove their existence, either. A dopey argument in my estimation, but one that would make a lot more sense if they could prove the existence of multiple universes. Which they can’t. Any more than they could prove the existence of luminiferous ether.

I understand it’s hard to accept an intelligent agent if you equate its existence with belief in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.  But science is supposed to be even-handed and unprejudiced. So why not accept the existence of God as a theory at least as plausible as multiple universes? And one more niggling question. If there are multiple universes, where did they come from? One problem, of course, is that existence of an intelligent agent might also mean the existence of a set of moral standards to live by. And we certainly don’t want that, do we?