God created man in his image.

We live in thin skinned, soft and fragile bodies that are susceptible to a multitude of disease and assorted ailments. Our eyesight is poor in comparison to birds and unlike Icarus, we can not fly. We can’t breathe underwater nor swim as well as an overfished cod. We are physically weaker than most great apes and lack the agility of smaller apes. Even the fastest of us would be outrun by a grizzly bear. But the writers of the bible show great pride to believe that we are a fitting image of a god species. That or perhaps the man upstairs is just not a very good designer.

My point is that it is far more plausible that we created a god in our image, rather than the arrogant supposition that we are in his/hers. After all, we are capable of great love, but are also selfish,  jealous, cruel and vengeful – very much like the God of the Old Testament?
The bible and its cousin scripts claim to be irrefutably correct and all knowing – the unadulterated word of an omniscient god. Yet does it ever exceed knowledge at the time of writing?*

(*Incidentally, let’s not forget that the time of writing in the case of Jesus was – agreed by bible scholars – to have been written decades after his death. Some gospels were even written from second hand information [sigh].
I often have a ropey recollection of what happened last week, so well done to those that can write with such clarity and authority decades after the supposed events.

Furthermore, if you read a current news story written at the time of the event and you’ll still see bias and inaccuracy. Then we have multiple Chinese whispers style translations and calculated editing at the whim of an obvious agenda. God’s word indeed.

So is it not flirting with the edge of reason to put so much blind faith in text that was written decades after purported events?)

(That was a big bracketed section.)

Does the bible speak at length about the dinosaurs that predated Adam & Eve? Did it tell us about photosynthesis, electricity or gravity? Does it talk about the sun or the universe with any breadth or accuracy? Does it tell us anything that men at the time didn’t already think they knew? At times, it prefers instead to allocate precious space to the intricate and mundane.

“If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.”

This would be apt in any decent ‘how to treat your slave and brutally murder livestock’ handbook, but it actually appears in Exodus Chapter 21, verse 32.

And in any case, why does the good book deal with any matters of slavery, rather than condemn it for the inhumane industry that it surely is.

Here’s another gem from the bible:

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Seems fair enough… right?

Rather strangely, Mr God also loves animal sacrifices and is very particular about the whole unnecessarily gruesome procedure.

Leviticus Chapter 5:

‘If a person sins because he does not speak up when he hears a public charge to testify regarding something he has seen or learned about, he will be held responsible.

‘Or if a person touches anything ceremonially unclean-whether the carcasses of unclean wild animals or of unclean livestock or of unclean creatures that move along the ground-even though he is unaware of it, he has become unclean and is guilty.

‘Or if he touches human uncleanness-anything that would make him unclean-even though he is unaware of it, when he learns of it he will be guilty.

‘Or if a person thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil-in any matter one might carelessly swear about-even though he is unaware of it, in any case when he learns of it he will be guilty.

‘When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

‘If he cannot afford a lamb, he is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the Lord as a penalty for his sin-one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. He is to bring them to the priest, who shall first offer the one for the sin offering. He is to wring its head from its neck, not severing it completely, and is to sprinkle some of the blood of the sin offering against the side of the altar; the rest of the blood must be drained out at the base of the altar. It is a sin offering. The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for him for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven.

That’s just plain weird.

Similarly, God does a lot of unusual things as is apparently his inimitable way. Many are documented in the website whywontgodhealamputees.com, which is a very good read. Another interesting point concerns the charming Jesus birth story, read more about it here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god16.htm, but basically the story goes that Herod ordered the death of every child under the age of two in Bethlehem and nearby villages. It was because of the King’s beef with Jesus and God knew this would happen, but did nothing to stop it. That’s a bit cruel isn’t it?

While I’m on a rant, I came across some anti-evolution, pro-creationist Christians at a London underground. They were handing out propaganda in the form of leaflets that described evolution as a lie and creationism as fact.

Of course, evolution is ‘just a theory’. But it is one that is based on science and a lot of thinking and research, whereas creationism is based on an ancient and questionable text.

Evolution is the best theory we have about the origin of life. It certainly beats the whole Adam and Eve farce and the earth being several thousand years old, with man appearing on it a handful of days after.
Even IF the theory of evolution is wrong (and I don’t think it is), creationism obviously shouldn’t be used to plug the gap. If evolution is wrong, then give us a more credible theory, please!

With creationism, as with most aspects of religion, you are given the conclusion in a handy contradictory laden book and forced to search and scrounge for the evidence to support it.
With evolution and other forms of sensible thinking, conclusions are formed based on evidence. There’s a crucial back to front difference.

Besides, I find it hard to see why evolution isn’t feasible, even for the most devout. For example, man’s best friend – the dog, has been domesticated up to 30,000 years. More accelerated selective breeding has happened more recently and in (relatively) so few generations, you can easily see huge amounts of variation – from the lithe greyhound to the stout bulldog. Before this, they were wolves. Is it really so hard to believe that over so many more years and generations, humans evolved from something else?

And finally (phew), if evolution is not credible because life is too complex for it to have happened via evolution, you can use the same reverse argument about God. Presumably the creator – a being that must be infinitely more complex – must also have been created – something like a God could not possibly have evolved? Unfortunately, this raises more questions than answers. Questions that creationists do not answer.

Advertisement