I love the bible more than before – 10

This one is a “two-cuppa post” – lots of words.  I hope you see why at the end.

>>>  this one is for you and Tildeb – and no “scan/skipping Ark

Dear Tildeb, in between Prison Break, Series 2 and a great night’s sleep, your comment has been rolling around my brain. I woke up this morning with one word in my head:


And, I think, that explains – finally – my intuitive discontent in the last few posts.

Modelling is where you and Ark go.  You live and die by your modelling: a set of criteria, a set of data, a set of rules, a set of prior evidence, a set of this and set of that – all verifiable and all catalogued.  All controllable and all answerable to your “box of reference”.  And I applaud you.  I wasn’t joking when I said Ark’s insistence that a yes/no answer is really helpful.

I think where I struggle is that, having accepted the value of all of that, it becomes too limiting. It is your “box” created and defined to suit another (worthy) agenda. An agenda of survival of the planet and all of us on it.  My problem is not the model and acceptance / rejection of the model.  It is the “application” of your model to everything.

Like “love”.

Your model is a chemical cocktail of physical changes brought about by neural receptors doing their job.  The dataset of profound experiences becomes part of the model of prediction for the future.  But science also says that one negative experience wipes out ten positive experiences.  Which also changes the dataset. And that changes the probability of future experiences. Or as I call it :

My worldview.

What I do with what I believe will happen based upon what has already happened (and not just to me – but to others I see, hear and read about). A “belief structure” composed of both observable identifiable evidence and the filtering by my worldview / belief structure. (which includes non-verifiable data).  And which will “tamper with” my dataset – and with it my worldview / belief structure – and my current and future behaviour.

And that is observable evidence data.

Neuro Linguistic Programming: avoiding all the boring science of “proper psychology” (but birthed from “proper science”).  Its application is the fiddling with your dataset in a way that is good for you or not (and just what does “good for you” mean?)

Do I – as a practitioner or recipient – have choice in “fiddling” by another?  Ethics is the usual answer.  And ethics – like belief structures – change.

Which – for me – is where the unconditional love model is useful.  A love that holds me and you (and all others) as equally deserving of a consequence. That if an action / decision tips the balance of consequence in your favour to my detriment – is that an action I should or shouldn’t do?

And then Climate Change.  You mentioned that as an example of “religion v science”.

I call upon my intuitive “love is the answer dataset” – which goes way back beyond the “current dataset” – and therefore becomes anecdotal (my worldview) because of that.

That if I have so many children that I cannot afford to feed them, clothe them, house them, play with them, keep them safe, and have to work every hour of the day to try and do all of that … Then my absence means the very reason for family is missing with my absence.

Now multiply that imagery the world over – and for generation after generation – and we are asking the planet to foot the bill.  And I know (my world-view dataset) that if I ask my small plot of land to keep on giving without putting anything back – then I am changing my future.

And I see that we have been doing that to this planet even before – and ever since – we became top predator. And as science and technological advances understand better how to extract more and faster – we have been living in a model that said (and still does say) that is okay. So – for me – religion is not the problem (or the solution).

The problem is “us”.

If we do this today will we get that tomorrow? Yes we will. Let’s test the model. It works. Let’s apply the model on an industrial scale. Look at the benefit it brings. So what if we tweeked the model – what advances would that bring? Let’s test the model.  It works.  But what about these by-products we didn’t want?  Don’t tell anyone.  Why not?  We are making too much money to stop!

In others words – we all model.

And my dataset says that a large percentage of the population seek answers that are “bigger than just me” – that are “what’s it all about” – and which have involved “gods” and superstition since time began. My model does not see a future without that.

And I hope it never does. Because good does come from that. The “bigger than just me” is a powerful motivator.  To science and creativity – and to greed and power – and in choice of word, thought or deed.  My dataset says that none are immune from all these models and motivators.

You said that if I replace “God” with “Harvey” in Ark’s little rant, it would make sense of Ark’s little rant.

I say that if you replace “God” with “Love” in Ark’s little rant – it makes no sense at all:

“Perhaps it would have been more truthful had you responded: ”Jesus LOVE is my bestist, invisible 2000 year old smelly little make believe friend in the whole wide world and I talk to him LOVE. Even while I am on the toilet .. An’ he LOVE listens…. honest. And answers prayers. But he LOVE doesn’t look while I pee. He LOVE can be your best friend too, if you just confess you are dirty rotten sinner NON LOVER and say he LOVE made the entire universe and was crucified for all our sins REJECTION OF LOVE, including yours too. And then I’ll give you one of these Jammie Dodgers and a can of coke. How about it? Are you really ready to confess to Jesus LOVE?”

It makes no sense because it is external.   And my world view, my belief structure, my data set is all internal. And I tamper with it, I test it, and change my future because of it.

So it is “how will I change my current and future behaviour” that interests me.

If it is in a way that allows you and me and all to be part of the consequence – then it (by default) becomes “bigger than me”. And “we” have always found a god to fill that vacuum – which is observable evidence.

Which needs a structure of a sacred text (written or oral). And that provides another model some will see as an opportunity for more riches and power.  And that is observable evidence of the god model as well.

But not for all.  Nothing is ever for all.  Other than, perhaps, love and a bigger “something” (at some point in our lives).

So why nor harness “god” by whatever name (or Unconditional Love)?  Why not influence my dataset and future behaviour in a way which achieves exactly what you wish to achieve as well?  Because the consequences of atheism and religion … ?

My “model and prediction” is of infinite division and strife – because it disallows my model and my data set and my world view / belief structure in favour of yours (and vice versa).

The consequences of a “god” called Unconditional Love?

My model says a much better outcome awaits.


24 thoughts on “I love the bible more than before – 10

  1. Because you’re not going to bring forth solutions to correct pernicious human behaviour that causes radical climate change with what you call love. That’s magical thinking.

    We have a hard enough time with facts, with real world demonstrations, with real people undergoing real suffering. When people think their beliefs to be equivalent to facts, then we have neutered all real world solutions. Calling this substitution an equivalent ‘worldview’ and offering a new term called ‘love’ or ‘the soft hands of Jesus’ is just a palaver. It’s an avoidance technique. The factual problems trying to be addressed by the grown-ups in the room remain unattended because too many people pretend an alternate set of facts based on their beliefs is a legitimate excuse to do too little too late, a means to continue to bring about the right conditions to kill the planet in the name of ‘love’ or ‘god’ or ‘yet another benefit of religious thinking.’ Its batshit crazy.


    • So your “solution” is to convince those who see a bigger something there is no bigger something (when history says the human race will seek some “god” as it has down the ages). And to do that you remain stuck in “your fault not ours – you believe we don’t – we won’t talk to you until you believe what we believe”. And that is your “grown up” solution?

      Because (if I have read your words correctly) you say that climate change solutions are being only delayed because those “of faith” say there is no climate change. The post I wrote above (unless I am nuts) says there is. And I am not unique. No one “of faith” I see and read and speak with says anything other than climate change is already a runaway train and we had all better pull the brake and why are the vested interests refusing to pull too. Vested interests seem to be profit driven rather than faith driven. If – perhaps – we could stop finding reason to disagree, then perhaps we could change the vested interests.

      So “batshit crazy” is a nice soundbite – but hardly “evidence”. And definitely not a solution either.

      (and a personal note: I am disappointed – from your initial writing I had thought you more open-minded that perhaps I should have done)


  2. Whatever floats your, Ark.

    The Bible is a disgusting collection of ancient texts that champions genocide and slavery. It has no relevance and no moral baring, (other than as a sound lesson on how not to live one’s life) and its main characters are ridiculous works of fiction.

    Moses and Jesus of Nazareth are , respectively, a murderous barbarian and a dithering, ignorant, egotistical halfwit.

    Anyone who is stupid enough to believe there really is anything uniquely of worth within its forged, fraudulent covers to base one’s life upon is simply willfully ignorant, and no amount of airy-fairy, ethereal hand waving is going to change a ridiculous collection of nonsense based on supernatural garbage that have been used … and still is …. to corrupt millions upon millions of people.

    Time to admit it is simply a grotty old midden , and ditch it.


            • Ark, three comments here:

              “Excellent! Now if only we could every other god-believer to behave likewise?”
              First, the above quote was your response to my answer of your question: Do I proselytize? I said, “no.” Why do you? Yes, I know you say are attempting to prevent child abuse, so why not go directly to the sources of such abuse rather than aim at all those who identify themselves with Jesus?

              The second is to the first sentence in your comment directly above. Was this sarcasm? From my perspective, you are of course attempting to change the world. Am I wrong?

              Third, you and I have established a respectful and accepting relationship. I don’t believe we outright reject each other or our ideas; in fact, we seem to treat each other with care and dignity. Why not do so with Paul who, I think, believes the same as I do?


            • Why do you? (”proselytize”)

              Would you not at least want the opportunity to hear the truth concerning Christianity based on evidence?
              No one ever told me the characters Moses and Jesus of Nazareth were fictional, I discovered this by myself.
              I was fortunate I was not suffering from indoctrination so it was a relatively simple matter for me to absorb the information then make the necessary mental adjustment.
              Source of such abuse?
              Christianity is the source!
              Christianity ( church) compiled the bible…. the erroneous
              text where we find the character Jesus of Nazareth.

              Try to imagine if those with their hands upon the reins had confessed up front to the lies they were pushing and people realised they were being conned how different the world would be today?
              No Judaism, no Islam. And of course no Christianity. How truly wonderful it would be to live in a world where religious garbage simply did not feature on the radar.

              Was this sarcasm?

              A little bit of irreverent humour.
              Based on confessionals, my writing has been responsible for a grand total of three individuals who have cited me as at least part of the reason for them deconverting.
              But I write about religion because I find it fascinating.
              I certainly am not a paid atheist or speaker such as Chris Hitchens or Richard Dawkins etc.
              And I thoroughly enjoy blogging.

              Why not do so with Paul ….

              Mostly because am a very straightforward sort of bloke and when he refuses to answer direct questions, I consider his behaviour disingenuous and it annoys the Gehenna out of me.
              Therefore, while he continues to behave in this manner then I will treat his replies with the respect … or complete lack thereof I consider they deserve … and he will continue to send me to the ”Sin Bin” when he feels I touch a raw nerve and he finds himself squirming when having to deal with the truth.



            • Well, I admit it would be wonderful if there was no religion (Imagine: to quote John Lennon), and if that would truly bring unity to the world. And I also admit religion has done some truly horrendous things in the name of “God.” Which is why I do not subscribe to religious law, doctrine or dogma. And why I do not proselytize.

              As I read your comments and Paul’s comments, I see that you both tend to push each others’ buttons, making it difficult to truly hear each other’s point of view. (BTW, “annoys the Gehenna out of me” – very funny!)

              I reiterate; I do not find the Old Testament to be a work of non-fiction. As I have said before, we can each find solid, scientific evidence to support our divergent positions about Jesus; I will leave it at that.

              I hope you also write in advocacy against the many forms of child abuse, for certainly Christianity is not responsible for all of it – just as I write about ways we need to care for all of humanity – not just unborn humanity. And that, for me, is the “good” part of the Bible – those words of Jesus in which he admonishes us to love our neighbors, the strangers, the immigrants, the refugees – those words many in Christendom hypocritically want to ignore.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Sadly … or thankfully depending on one’s perspective, I cannot be a martyr to all causes.
              There are a million and one problems that need sorting out and I would need a million and one lifetimes to even make a dent.
              And my lawn needs mowing and I think the pool has a leak.

              We fight the battles we can.

              The removal of religion from the landscape would not suddenly end wars, make happy families of us all and solve the problem of World Peace.

              But what it would do is open the doors to a bit more common sense and basic human decency.
              It would also go a ways to increase tolerance toward homosexuals and another step along the road to removing discrimination against women. Yay! Sistas … No more stupid burkas!
              You probably wouldn’t hear some politician say such banalities as ”God is with us!” or ”God bless ….. (fill in country of choice)
              There would be reason to continue fighting in much of the Middle East.
              The Syrian War would lose much of the reason for fighting. As would Afganistan etc.

              The Palestinian issue might be sorted out amicably, and Jerusalem would have no religious significance at all.

              Moses, Jesus and Mohammed would be reduced to ancient (ignorant ) prophets, at best, and fictional characters if those responsible wanted to be completely honest.

              When you thoroughly examine and research all the areas of human interaction that religion and god/s belief form part of and taints you will begin to appreciate how much a breath of fresh air for all of us if it simply went away.
              And the way to start is to say:
              ”I am not going to check out all these claims for myself and thoroughly research and study as much as can and not listen to the ”Arks” of the world or Pastor so and so. ”

              This is why so many people deconvert, because when they truly apply critical thinking and match it against what the bible and the local pastor tells us it becomes completely untenable.

              As I said previously, for me it was an eye-opener but there was no violent emotional reaction as experienced by some who realise they have been lied to for decades of their lives.
              I simply rearranged my perspective and took it from there, even though I was initially flabbergasted upon realising most of it was all nonsense, there was no emotional upheaval.

              Genuine, open investigation is also what led to people like archaeologist William Devers to deconvert. His father was a church minister so you can imagine his upbringing?

              The biblical claims just did not line up with the physical evidence at all.

              And at some point, like it or not, we all have to face this fact head on.
              You can’t hide from it or run from it. It is inevitable, even if not in our lifetime.

              Remember what Twain wrote?
              ”Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.”


            • “But what it would do is open the doors to a bit more common sense and basic human decency.
              It would also go a ways to increase tolerance toward homosexuals and another step along the road to removing discrimination against women. Yay! Sistas …” Amen! Oops, I mean, I agree with you 100% 😀


            • Smile Get back to me when you have done a bit of research and let me know how you see the bible afterwards!
              If you want a few pointers, let me know.?


            • Ark, please don’t assume that because I disagree with you, or because I find positive notes that I haven’t done research. I have.

              You see, like Paul, I can find the positive in the book, just like other books. And, like Paul, I use this book and other books to edify and uplift. I do not judge, and even though I am often vilified for it, encourage others not to judge and base my foundation on unconditional love. When I find music, poetry, authors or the words of Jesus to back up my writing, I quote them. Because inclusion, love, grace and acceptance are a stronger and more accurate worldview to me than the opposite.


            • Ark, please don’t assume that because I disagree with you, or because I find positive notes that I haven’t done research. I have.

              In that case, I am impressed, and a little curious what areas you have tackled.
              Fancy sharing … a bit of ”name dropping”, so to speak? 🙂


            • Let me just say that I took a two-year course of study in the Bible by a man who was actually kicked out of the church I had been attending at the time (part of the reason I don’t attend church now). I was seeking honesty, transparency and truth, not the religious party line. This was at least eight years ago (btw, I’m 66). Lots of books and research went along with this. Suffice it to say I’ve done research on “both sides,” and after all the dust settled, have come away with my own internal compass.


            • Then may I ask how you arrived at the belief that the Pentateuch was ”not fiction” and the character Jesus of Nazareth was not a narrative construct?


            • Ah! Well.we make progress.
              An interesting discussion for the next time for sure …
              Thank you, Susan. Has been fun.
              Have a super weekend. Try not to scoff all the kiddies Easter eggs!

              Liked by 1 person

            • Oh – and my research never ends. I continue to be open, a lifelong learner, I guess you could say. I’ve never placed my feet in cement – just measure what I read against my own past research and my own compass.

              Liked by 1 person

            • I wold like to add that I do not consider my blog interactions proselytizing, certainly not in the way certain religions understand and practice the term:
              I write the occasional post, far less than I used to, usually as a response to some religious nonsense or another I came across, and I will interact on a few religious (mostly christian) blogs.

              For the record, some of the more fundamental bloggers have banned me from commenting (surprise hey? 😉 )
              James over at Isaiah is one. He is simply despicable, to be honest.

              Chicagoja is another. And a chap called Unklee. Colorstorm moderates every most atheists and sometimes tampers with comments.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.