Religion. What is it all about? It seems to inspire massive amounts of meaning to various people's lives, none at all to others. And inevitably, I think whatever you believe is what you believe and no matter what is written here or what I think won't change that. However, I think it is only fair that given the amount of promotion given to, say Christianity, gives me the right to voice my own beliefs. I am not out to convert people - believe in whatever the hell you want if it makes you happy. But at the same time I think it is important to make such life influencing decisions from a balanced viewpoint, which means recognising criticisms and accepting that whatever religion you believe in may well not be perfect. Even assuming the god (s) in question are perfect, then realise the interests of the people running the show from the top, whether it's today or a thousand years ago. Total blind acceptance without question is sheer stupidity. I am not necessarily saying you are questioning god, but rather questioning the ways in which god is represented by the religious leaders through time in order to serve personal interests. I doubt many people would object to the statement that misrepresentation of religion has been used as a manipulative tool through history, but less would consider the possibility of such manipulation in the formation of the basic tenets of their religion. If you're already saying I must be possessed by Satan here, you might want to just consider this first. If your religion (and I will be referring to Christianity here because that’s what I know), is what it says it is, then you should be able to confidently respond to any point I bring up. If that is going to require you to constantly just say you're wrong because god (or the bible) says so, then fuck off now. You're no better than a stubborn child. All I would ask if you were going to continue reading here is that you approach it with an open mind, and even if you are steadfast in your belief, at least allow hypothetical points that I may raise to be considered. Not necessarily to destroy faith, although that tone may appear to be taken at points, but also to understand the mechanisms at work within the religious organisation through history. To think for yourself, rather than parroting everything you are told by other people. People who can make mistakes and misinterpretations. These have been through history, what makes them so sure they have it right now? If you could decide what you believe through an informed, inquisitive analysis of the evidence rather than what you have been simply told to believe, then the conclusion of your belief is in my view of lesser importance.

I am not an atheist. I would consider myself an agnostic. I am not confused about whether there is a god or not, I am not a fence sitter per se. I do consider it impossible to confirm or deny either viewpoint however. I am rather skeptical of the likelihood of there being a god, but at the same time I am wary of the human pretensions to far greater knowledge than we possess. This has not always been the case. I have been raised in a religious family, all but myself are involved in the Anglican church to an extent greater than attendance, such as running bible study groups. My extended family are similar. Until 15 or 16 I had to attend church every Sunday, only able to stop because I started a job that required working weekends. Despite my dislike for church, mostly because I didn't like the people my own age there (I always hung out with the adults which wasn't great either), I did used to have religious belief. I also attended a Christian school and whether it was at school or earlier on in Sunday school, I generally was top of the class in biblical knowledge. Of course, I'm a bit rusty now, but the point I am trying to make is that I am not hating that which is unfamiliar to me because I am intolerant. I was very much a part of the belief system which now I seek to condemn. In fact at this point of my life I have been Christian far longer than I have been agnostic, probably losing faith from about 18 through to 19 or 20 (I am now 22). And I have no intention of ever going back.

Such, in my view, is religion. At least certain aspects of it are. Where there is no explanation, god is the answer. He is a convenient means of not admitting that we don't know everything. Well, deferring that responsibility to the hands of a greater power for whom there is good reason not to let us know. Why are we here? It is true that science can't give a sufficiently adequate explanation with absolute proof. Yet. I doubt it ever will, but that does not mean there isn't one. Religious types will point to this lack of satisfactory explanations for how life began, or for the complexities of the human mind, of the complexity of life itself. They will say that stuff like this can’t just happen by itself. And most certainly, with our current knowledge it isn't possible. But the logical argument that it must then be the work of god does not in the slightest bit hold.

A couple of thousand years ago, a lot of things were unknown. Mental disorders, physical illnesses, natural phenomena which struck at random, all these created an unpredictable environment of which there was no control and no understanding. Religion held answers to this and made life more bearable, regardless of how valid or invalid these answers may have been. I don't think anyone could, in total honesty, say that there would not have been many cases of disorders now known and treated by medical science that would have been in the past explained as demonic possession, or the wrath of god. Even if there were real cases of possession or whatever, biologically or environmentally determined pathologies would certainly have been prevalent. And in some cases the miraculous healing (if indeed it did happen at all) can also be explained rationally.

Just to consider a few things which may have been unknown at the time the Bible was written, and so which may have been misrepresented. Schizophrenia as demonic possession. Conversion disorder as a readily treatable form of paralysis. For those who don't know, conversion disorder is a form of physical pain or dysfunction that has no biological cause. Freud theorised that painful psychological experiences were repressed by converting the mental pain into an identifiable, and therefore more easily dealt with, physical problem. Hence, conversion disorder. Anyhow, with appropriate therapy, the physical symptoms have been shown to disappear - with no medical intervention. These symptoms can include just about anything, even paralysis, of a limb or whole sections of the body. Now, consider someone who has immense faith in god and all that. Jesus comes along and touches them, saying they are healed. The power of that suggestion may be all that is needed to remove the mental blocks which are causing the disorder in the first place. Some of the things the mind is capable of are quite extraordinary, both in creating physical problems, and also in correcting them. We all know about these things called placebos. And yes, some of them do show results, simply because of the power of belief. And herein lies my assertion - belief is not always truth, reality, or anywhere close to it. Who can say what is. But in the uncertain times of Jesus and before, belief most probably wielded a lot more power than it does today. I guess what I'm saying is that in many respects Jesus was just a placebo. Oh, no, I'm not about to deny the existence of Jesus. But I wouldn't say he was the son of god any more than I'd say Elvis was. Incidentally, both have had numerous reports of being seen alive after their deaths. In fact I think Elvis has probably had more. Does that mean Elvis has risen from the dead, or that he never died? If not, why should it for Jesus either?

Speaking of rising from the dead (with respect to other instances, such as Lazarus), there have been cases where people have 'come back from the dead' so to speak. With respect to hanging of the slow strangulation kind, in much earlier days it has been known for people assumed dead to have recovered, simply because the unconscious state they were throttled into didn't actually kill them. Sometimes a subsequent autopsy found a still beating heart, other times the jolting of the cart as relatives took away the body for burial was sufficient to wake them. That is just hanging, but I think it makes my point. Pronunciation of death in days of lesser medical knowledge didn't always mean death. Even today there's still debate about what actually constitutes death, since the heart or breathing stopping isn't necessarily always the end (although it generally does tend to cause death if they don't resume fairly soon) Oh, and just quickly, this whole 'seeing the light' stuff from people with near death experiences can be explained by looking at the neurochemicals released near death, basically as the body's means of controlling pain, which give a bit of a euphoric sensation. And the tunnel vision thing which gives the light at the end of the tunnel effect I forget just how that works but apparently experiencing certain g-forces can bring about the same effect before you black out, including a rush, hallucinations and all that stuff which makes you think you're going to a wonderful place. Only pilots in high g manoeuvres aren't popping in and out of heaven mid flight.

Which brings me to the point of credibility. Urban myths today can be at times difficult to separate from the truth sometimes, especially when they are based on actual people and events, or just embellish the truth a little to make it seem bigger, grander. And we have TV, video, telephones, internet, satellite, news, police, investigations, inquiries and all sorts of shit around to record and confirm events. So, if in today's world where communications and records are much more widespread and advanced than they have ever been, fiction can still at times be blurred with fact - what was happening thousands of years ago when word of mouth was an even more popular (and unreliable) means of spreading information?

An argument that has been presented to promote the validity of the bible is that many different original copies all confirming what the others say have been found all over the place. In fact the standard which historians typically accept for document verification has been exceeded many, many times. But does that necessarily make them accurate? If I run a search for a particular story I happen to know to be an urban myth, but which is often recorded as truth, through the net, and come up with 1000 hits 'verifying' it, does that make it so? Often the same story will make it's way into papers or magazines as well, often recorded by less than thorough reporters as truth. If way back then a story got out by word of mouth (as much information at the time would have been), possibly based on actual events but embellished a little for effect and religious purpose, and spread around several ancient cities, and then got recorded, it may very well be relatively consistent in several sources at the same time. This does not make it valid. Yet many people seem to think that for some reason it does. And unfortunately they will often refer to the documents themselves, ie the bible, to validate itself. It is a horribly circular argument that is terribly frustrating to be presented with as 'proof' of their point of view. For example: "Why do I know this to be true? Because the bible says so. How do I know the bible to be true? Because it is god's word. How do I know it is god's word? Because the bible tells me so." There is little reference to the fact that despite it supposedly being god's word it is written by men at a time when myth was very popular. Just look at any other culture at the time. The Aboriginals have a belief system going back 40,000 odd years. It has remained relatively consistent, there is pictorial documentation of these beliefs that is extremely old. That doesn't make them so. The beginning of Genesis certainly didn't have any witnesses at all. Even if 7 days did literally mean 7 days as we know it (unlikely but hey it's god so who knows), people weren't around for the first 5. And I don't think they began recording the bible until after Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden, I don't know exactly when the accepted date is for the first lot, but a fair bit of time would have elapsed. Of course, all this has been told to someone by god, but whose word do we have for that? The person who wrote it. Because at that stage it was pretty well up to them. If someone can adequately explain to me how that has any more credibility than the Aboriginal Dreaming, or Greek or Roman mythology, or Hindu, or Muslim or Islamic religions, then I'd love to hear it.

Other things I would also like explained is how the entire world is descended from Noah's family and all the animals on the ark. While evolution is poo pooed at the same time. How the hell do we have Caucasians, Asians, Negroes, Arabs, Indians, and whatever else there is if we all descended from the one family after all else was wiped out in this huge flood? Yeah, the tower of Babel got a heap of languages happening, but a different language doesn't alter skin color, bone and muscle structure etc now does it? And, for that matter, how did all the animals of the world, which one day I intend to count up along with how much feed would likely have been required (oh wait, god took care of that) get off the boat and then find their various ways to the ends of the earth, while wiping themselves out with no trace from the one spot from which they all came. Not to mention that Noah was supposedly 600 years old at the time. Which is just one more thing. I think the people living to several hundred years old is more in keeping with mythology in times of short life spans rather than fact. Anyway, the animals all getting to this one place, and fitting in this boat which wasn't that huge, with enough food for 150 days at least. How is that possible? Or did god somehow just take care of that before anyone had to think about it too hard? Or is it possible that perhaps some guy called Noah had a big boat, had the presence of mind to get his flock of sheep and cows on board when a large flood hit wherever he lived, while most other people in the area drowned? Then he floated around for a bit, even out to sea possibly, eventually returning to land and sparking off some story about the guy who saved the town from total annihilation by preserving a few animals and some people too. Over time, some becomes two of every, the town becomes the world, a moral around god's power gets thrown in to maintain social order, and before you know it we have a bible story based on a myth based on an event that was pretty big for the people experiencing it but nothing like what ended up being told. Oh yeah, and a convenient way of explaining the light refraction which occurs after rain, which was of course something of a mystery at the time. So of course the argument likely becomes that ok, god doesn't actually create a rainbow out of nothing like they thought he did, but he designed it so that after rainfall the moisture in the air would allow for refraction to occur such that a rainbow would be seen. That is, it was a part of his creation. Which brings me to another question - did the refractive properties of water not exist before Noah?

It seems like a fairly insignificant point really, to argue over the validity of a story which takes up a relatively tiny part of the Bible. But the point that needs to be stressed is that the Bible is constantly presented as infallible and 100% accurate. Because it is god's word. In my view even one such mistake places it's credibility in question. Perhaps if common sense were to prevail, people could accept that perhaps there is error - in Genesis. I doubt they'd accept it much further than that, although there is plenty more wrong with the whole lot in my view. Of course proving that is a bit harder, but then again I also think it is impossible to prove that it is true. And it is in my view just as easy to account for the lot as myth based around fact as it is to just accept it as true. In fact I think it is much easier to fit it into a model of myth than it does to fit it into one of fact, unless the world the Bible talks about is not the one we live in today (in a literal, basic fundamental physical sense) Especially if it is accepted that the basis for the beginning of the bible, or as it were the beginnings of the religions which follow the idea of the god who did all the stuff in the bible, were myth. And I really don't think that when you think about it properly, you can accept that the story of Noah's ark isn't majorly screwed up on several points. Unfortunately, belief tends to implant strong denial systems where people simply just won't listen if anything contradicts their beliefs. Which is understandable, especially if you've lived your whole life according to these beliefs. But doesn't make them right.

Other stories which perhaps have not as much wow factor as they seem to be given, even if you accept them to be true (excepting the cause of course, ie god's doing). Jonah and the whale - where a few years ago a diver was swallowed by I think it was a whale shark actually, stuck in there for a couple of days before getting out. Unfortunately I can't substantiate that much because it was a while ago, but I certainly remember it. Of course, all Jesus' miracles which we need only look to the faith healers and David Copperfield's of today to know that what you see isn't always what you get. Look at the amazing power of the mind, and what simple psychological belief can achieve, as well as the horrible things it can do when it goes wrong. Sure, we don't know quite how it all works, but we can show that the psyche of the individual has enormous influence not just over our thoughts and actions, but our physical health as well. All that spiritual crap, talking to the dead and all that which occurs not just in the bible but is prevalent today, just breaking into the tv scene. Look up something called cold reading. It's just manipulation using simple psychological and statistically based techniques. I don't doubt Jesus was fairly adept at manipulating people in a similar fashion in order to have them bow to his every word.

I don't doubt stuff approximating what happened in terms of military action occurred. The force behind it of course was no doubt bullshit though. Doubtless just after the Israelites had just been run off the land into the desert by whoever, as they saw the horrid sinful things they must have done to deserve it, so the enemy was praising their god for giving them victory. Then, as the Israelites came back later and won, so while they praised their god for forgiving them and giving them victory, so their enemies did exactly what the Israelites had done years before. And thousands of years later the conflict continues worldwide.

Often there are events which seem to defy all human explanation, that must be supernatural, must be the work of god, whatever. Admittedly there is a lot we can still explain. But that does not mean that because we do not understand something, it must be god! That attitude places enormous importance on the human condition. It is a tool of a collective ego, the same one which says we are made in the image of god. Is our self importance that great that we need to create a fictional entity to cover our faults? I think at the time most of the bible was written, this was perhaps less of a driving force as the need for some sort of rationalisation for the pretty poor life that would have been experienced at the time for most people.

Moving on from the validity of the events though is what I like to consider the hypocrisy of Christianity. Firstly, the idea that they are the one right religion because of this and that, denying other religions the right to exist in effect. Yes, tolerance is preached today, but the practice doesn't seem to match up so well. Missionaries may not be quite so bloodthirsty as those who participated in the Crusades, or into the torture exercised by Catholics to correct non believers, but they're still out there showing people who have beliefs the 'right way'. They are not respecting or tolerating. Within the Western world it's evangelism. Yeah, we (including many Christians) bag out the Jehovah's witnesses and all that for their attempts to convert us all, but the reality as I see it is Christians are no different. The methodology is a little , and also accepted by a sufficient majority that it is reasonable behaviour to 'educate' people but the basic tenets remain the same. Go out and recruit, whether it's from here or overseas. Of course under the misconception that somehow they are all so terribly wrong and misguided souls who need our help to save them from hell. Because we are better than them and have the right idea. Sorry, the right belief.

I think in this respect the claim of Christianity to persecution through the ages is bullshit, simply because they've dished it out just as much. It's not just medieval either, and while the violence has perhaps toned down a bit recently, missionaries and evangelists still try to effectively conquer the world. I think pre 200, there was actually a campaign to spread Christianity to the whole world by the year 2000. Now, Hitler had similar ideas with his beliefs. I will admit that the slaughter of Jews and gypsies and whoever else was a bit extreme, but just as bad atrocities have been committed in the name of god earlier in history. One could even argue that stuff like the white Australian policy was not much better than Nazism, but based in ideas of what the proper god fearing person was, and aimed to not just make Aboriginals adopt a white lifestyle, but white beliefs. And of course, the Roman Catholic church in the middle ages, torturing people who did not follow their beliefs, probably as much because they threatened their power as for religious reasons. But the reformation happened anyway and the Catholics did lose a lot of power as a result. But to say that today Christianity has taken a sideline is also bullshit. Thankfully it has lost the influence it did use to have within the western world, but a lot of the history of the west is founded in Christianity. And I think the church still has political influence for sure.

What I find interesting is to note how biblical portrayals of what is right and wrong, what is a victory, defeat, persecution etc are portrayed. To me it reads much like propaganda for the people of the time. If the Israelites are wandering the desert, attacked by various other tribes, well it's persecution and hardship. If the Israelites go off and slaughter an entire city of people, and we're often talking women and children and everything else here it's a victory and glory to god. Essentially because they do not share the same beliefs and are thus evil pagan bastards (of course a political power agenda of some sort comes into it too I'm sure). And this is what the bible is saying here. Ultimately, in attacking the Israelites, any other of their enemies are doing exactly what they do in return. It’s just the point of view is obviously sympathetic to Israelite beliefs. Similarly, often people are blessed with servants or slaves or whatever. The story is written considering god's great works more from the point of view of the guy at the top than the poor sods at the bottom fetching his dinner. Propaganda deferring the tyranny from the human ruler to a greater power who can be as kind and caring as they want because he doesn't exist. If their ruler is a horrid guy who doesn't care for them, they still obey him for one because of the whole being scared shitless of reprisal thing, and secondly because the good caring god will just let them suffer more if they do anything nasty which might go against his teachings.

There is a kind of feeling I think that somehow the New Testament is what Christianity is more about though. That is, that this olden day type slaughter is now wrong. Jesus brought along a whole new set of rules which set out a whole new morality. In the old testament days, lots of wives and concubines was acceptable. Slaughtering women and children was fine if they were pagan bastards. Yet the rules changed. Now, excuse my ignorance if there's some bleeding obvious point I'm missing, but god being god, why would he change his mind about what is right and wrong? I thought god was perfect? Infallible? And apparently he has flexible morals, since stuff that used to be condoned, even ordered by himself, all of a sudden became very bad. Now either Jesus was not the son of god, the people around in the old testament got some serious mix ups in their communications with god and what he liked and didn't like, or perhaps what god wanted and desired was simply a product of people's imaginations. Or perhaps god just isn't all he's cracked up to be. Because going from having several wives and several concubines whilst slaughtering essentially innocent people to the complete condemnation of both is just a little bit of a leap. Was god wrong the first time around with the killing and the sleeping around? Or did the people in charge make the rules? Until Jesus came along and screwed things up by toppling their power and equalising things a bit. I'm sure Jesus believed in the god he served as something in existence outside of the minds of the people who created him to explain the world to themselves, and gain control of their subjects. And by that stage god certainly had become something that was well enough established to be able to be taken as completely independent of man by those who believed in him, and thus able to assert ideas contrary to those being put forth by the corrupt representatives. The man at the bottom of the social hierarchy does not want to believe in the god that is given to him by leaders who use it as a means of exerting their authority, he wants that presented by Jesus, which gives equal power to both the common man and the king. Of course the rulers of the time were pissed. He was causing a religious revolution which usurped their power as men of god. No wonder they had him crucified.

I will here draw an analogy which springs to mind in looking at the Christian revolution. That of the communist one in Russia. What is communism but the principle of equality for all? Shared resources, everyone treated the same, no rich bastards at the top running the show for their own benefit. Communism as Lenin proposed, did not offer much more to the common man than just an equal share. Which is what Christianity did, it put everyone on a level playing field. Why would the previously discussed rules around wives and slaughter change then? Because if there's 50 guys and 50 girls, and one guy has a right to 40 of the girls, then 39 guys miss out. And the do unto others rule works similarly. You be nice to me, I'll be nice you to only works if you're nice. And also works better for the average guy likely to be copping the beating than from the guy up top who's dishing it out. So obviously it's much more interest of the average guy to follow this more communist approach, but totally against the interests of the guys in power. But in Russia, Lenin died and more fat bastards took over, and the power got to their heads. They simply took what started out as a good idea and manipulated it in exactly the same way the original system had been manipulated to feed the few at the top. And that’s what happened to Christianity, although the belief system has stayed a lot more intact because it has a lot more history and is a lot more ingrained for starters, and also takes ultimate power out of the hands of any person no matter what. Which is not a failsafe for rampant corruption by any means, but it does mean the lower levels feel as though they do possess power even if the top levels do go corrupt. Although history has shown that the church has managed to exert a lot more power politically than has been healthy, to the point of being able to wage wars or torture people if they disagree with what the church says. All in the name of god of course.

And you know, that is just about all I am going to go on about for now, simply because I think I am wasting my words. If you happened to read this and you don't believe, it won't have changed anything. If you read this and you do believe, well my guess is it won't either simply because you've likely been brainwashed too much to have a single essay change your way of thinking. Maybe at least it will get you think rather than just nodding your head to everything you are told by the bible and the religion which follows it. Or, if you follow another religion, while I can't say I know much about it, consider the forces which would have been at work moulding your religion, much the same as those which would have shaped Christianity. Yes, the morals and principles of how to live (bits praising god or whatever aside) may be good, maybe they are needed for some sort of social cohesion, and are better to follow than not. But they can be found by simple common sense, and no matter who says it, I think do to others what you'd want them to do to you is probably one of the best bits of advice for moral guidance there is. But that conclusion has been made by others, non religious philosophers amongst them (what the hell was his name?? Kant, Descartes, I forget who)

However on another note, lets us consider that perhaps god does exist. In addressing this possibility, I want to look beyond the god represented in the Bible, and by Christianity. If god did exist, would that necessarily mean he was that version? To leave it on that note and hopefully inspire something which the religious would no doubt consider Satan at work (as no doubt will the rest of this writing), here I will quote Nietzsche, from "From the Dawn of Day" Think about it, along with the many likely errors in the Bible, before you next go off to tell everyone about how perfect your god is…

p.s I know the 'g' in 'god' is meant to be in capitals. As is the h when talking about 'him', or 'he'. I choose not to follow convention in this sense because while generally I would capitalise god, because it is after all a name, I decided I would deliberately disrespect the myth and the belief because of it's disrespect for my life over the years. Yes I am bitter and twisted, why the hell do you think I wrote this?