HOMILY FOR THE FIRST SUNDAY BEFORE HOLY ATHEISTS' DAY

MEDITATION FOR THE FIRST SUNDAY BEFORE HOLY ATHEISTS' DAY

I have again been invited by His Diabolical Grace, the Archbishop of the Holy Atheistic See of Babylon to give a further exhortation on the first Sunday before the Holy Atheists' Day of 1st April. I have written an short excerpt of my sermon which you, my gentle readers, are privileged to read:

"Your Diabolical Grace, prelates and priests of the Atheistic Church and to all atheists: I bring you greetings from God's Holy Church. We congratulate you on the celebrations of your holy day.

My Lord Jesus Christ when He was on earth did say that he would separate people into two groups - one on his right and one on his left. To the group on his right he will say to them that they have helped the poor, fed the hungry, visited the sick and imprisoned and He will say to them that what they have done to the least of human beings, they have done it to Him. And He welcomed them into His kingdom. You already know the rest of the story and what He obviously will say to the group on His left.

What is significant, my dear friends is that JESUS DID NOT MENTION A WORD ABOUT THEIR BELIEFS. He did not welcome the group on his right as people who BELIEVED in a particular dogma.

So, who are these people on his right who are welcomed by Jesus? They presumably would include people today who go to my church and other churches. They presumably should include people who go to other places of worship and presumably, they should include people who don't worship at all because they don't believe in the existence of God.

We may be separated here on earth. My holy days are Christmas and Easter and yours is celebrated on 1st April. But not all of us will be separated in the life to come even for those of you who do not believe in the afterlife.

Who are the people to the left of Jesus. They may be some of you and they may be some of my church folks too. All I know is my Lord separated them because of what they HAVE DONE and NOT WHAT THEY HAVE BELIEVED IN.

That is the crux of the matter and although on earth, we simply love divisions and we love to quarrel, the reality is we have divided people according to the WRONG CRITERIA that God Himself does not employ.

Your own Archbishop, His Diabolical Grace, is a man of great compassion and love. There is no doubt in my mind that he will be standing on that great day to the right of Jesus and he will be welcomed into the arms of Jesus together with many others of diverse faiths and no faith while multitudes of people of diverse faiths and no faith will be rejected by Christ.

I have enjoyed a tour of your lovely Hanging Garden of Babylon but I had to turn down your offer of carnal pleasures which are forbidden in my system of belief. I wish you great joy on your holy day.

Let us sing the atheistic Gloria Patri:

"Glory be to Emptiness and to Nothing and to the Holy Vacuum. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shalt be. World with an end, Amen, Amen."

HOMILY FOR THE SECOND SUNDAY BEFORE HOLY ATHEISTS' DAY

MEDITATION FOR THE SECOND SUNDAY BEFORE HOLY ATHEISTS' DAY

The Bible tells us that the fool says there is no God. The Bible is indisputably the greatest book on this planet. It is a bestseller like no other bestsellers. At any second of the day for the past 2000 years, no other book can come even close to its heels in sales.

Because of the supremacy of Scriptures, it has been said unfficially that 1st April is Holy Atheists' Day. It's a day for the telling of silly jokes, the playing of foolish pranks and a day to commemorate one's disbelief in God. It's a day for godlessness, un-Christian pranks and boundless folly - unchecked, unadulterated, undiluted FOLLY.

But do atheists deserve this description?

I have been invited by His Diabolical Grace, the Archbishop of the Holy Atheistic See of Babylon to give the homily tomorrow, the Second Sunday before the Holy Atheists' Day. I've prepared my exhortation and you, my dear folksies and blokesies, will get to read it in its entirety. Here goes:

"Thank you, Your Diabolical Grace, for the invitation to the Holy See of Babylon. I have been very much welcomed by Your Diabolical Grace and your flock of goats and although I was obliged to refuse your offer of carnal delights, I am touched by your hospitality.

I was recently very much annoyed by a horde of atheists in an atheistic forum which I have left. They admitted being very much wounded by my arguments and because they desperately needed succour, they sought the help of the moderators of the forum who decided to silence me. I was told that any mention of "God", "the Lord" or any mention of God's attributes would be deemed "preaching" and was a forum rules violation. Atheists are permitted to denigrate God but if a Christian so much as mentions God's name even in argument, he is guilty of "preaching". At the same time, I was told I was very much welcome to debate with atheists, as reason and logic were important to them!

Are all atheists cowards? Are all atheists so terrified of the name of God that they have to formulate rules to outlaw His name from being mentioned except in a way that is agreeable to atheistic ears? Are all atheists in trepidation every time a Christian seeks to debate with them? Do all atheists shake like a leaf when they engage a Christian in argument?

I am happy to say, my dear atheistic brothers that not all atheists are that yellow-bellied. His Diabolical Grace and I are the best of friends and although our two religions can never agree, he and I continue to argue and debate with fire and truth.

What are the faults of atheists? I will not say sin because that's the nomenclature of my religion. The faults of atheists are no different from the faults of Christians. Some atheists think they're brilliant (when they're not). Many people embrace atheism because they think it's the religion of most scientists and so that'd make them appear smart. But a fool does not become smart just because he adopts the religion of some scientists just as a chap does not become a grizzly bear because he eats salmon. I share the same religion with Francis Collins (the No. 1 genetics and genome scientist on this planet), Isaac Newton, Pascal, Alexander Bell, Fleming, Florence Nightingale, Albert Schweitzer and about a billion other scientists, philosophers and writers past and present but do I go round boasting that I believe in the GREATEST religion in the world? Do I tell the world that mine is the religion of the greatest artists, writers, musicians and dancers in the whole world? That the greatest music ever composed is all composed for my God and His Glory. No, I do not boast of these. If I were to boast, there would not be time enough for me to complete boasting if I started now and continued non-stop until I'm 100.

I see there is no singing and no music in this great Church of Atheism. I perfectly understand. Music and choral works are all in glory of God and you, naturally can have no part of it.

And now, let's rise for the benediction. May the blessings of Nought, the Emptiness, Nothing and Holy Vacuum be with you now and forever more. Amen."

YET IN MY FLESH SHALL I SEE GOD

I have been reading a great deal of Darwinism and evolution these few days and I'm quite entranced by our origin. Although there is no conflict between religion and evolution, I can't help thinking that God must be quite a bungling fool if everything seems to be done by trial and error. Genesis says God saw that whatever he created was good. But the more I understand evolution, the more I see the imperfections of all species. An intelligent Creator wouldn't have created humans the way we have evolved. Evolution makes do with the body that we have and builds on it. If there is a Creator and he employs such a means of "creation", he can't have given much thought to the whole thing. He is either not bothered about his creation or he is a bungling fool or he does not exist.

My mind tells me of course God does not exist. Tonight, I chanced on a shelf containing some of my old song books that I used to sing. The first few books were Bach's cantatas. Next to them, stood a thick volume of Handel's oratorios. It's amazing that I used to be able to sing all these and they're written for soprano voice. And it was not that long ago when I sang them - less than a year ago. I took out my clarinet and played one of Handel's pieces. It was in E major. Drat it! I'd have to mentally transpose it to F#. I played it once through and it was so beautiful I played it again, and again. I could remember every word as I played even though I looked only at the musical notation and not the words. Mozart said that the clarinet was the instrument that was closest to the human voice and he was spot on. It was amazing!!! I played my clarinet and it was really my voice (before it broke) - singing soprano. The words were loud and clear - it was quite surreal. I heard my old voice again and every word uttered distinctly.

Those of you who have sung oratorios will know that lines are often repeated many times. I used to think the repetitions of lines that were so common in Baroque and Classical singing were meant to fill up the space for the music.
When I played the line "And though worms destroy this body, Yet in my flesh shall I see God / Yet in my flesh shall I see God", I just knew I was in communion with God. The scales fell from my eyes when I sang it with my clarinet. The first "Yet in my flesh shall I see God" is intended to sound doubtful and tentative. When it is repeated, it becomes definite and emphatic. That's precisely it!!! We are always assailed and buffeted by doubts but Handel through his music is telling us in an emphatic voice "YET IN MY FLESH SHALL I SEE GOD".

I felt I had communed with God and all I had with me were my clarinet, the music stand and Handel's score. Those were all I needed to hear the voice of God and to chase away the clouds of doubt. I have lost my voice for good. I will never sing soprano again - and thank God for that!!! But my voice will always remain in my clarinet even when I'm 100 years old.

I always find Handel more meningful than Bach and the other composers, possibly because Handel wrote in English and it's easier to understand him. When I was in Dresden last December, I heard Handel sung in German. The Germans wanted to claim Handel as their own, but I think they're wrong. Handel loved England and he became English and wrote all his oratorios in English and wrote pieces for the English King. He lived, worked, died and was buried in England.

Whenever I feel God to be distant and unreal, I know what to do. Get my clarinet and Handel's music. Yet in my flesh shall I see God.

THE NATURE OF REALITIES

The beamishboy has thought long and hard about life and God. In my earlier blog entry, I spoke with some asperity about the total lack of evidence for God's existence. That is true and I can say nothing to correct that statement.

But does anybody expect evidence for God's existence?

I now have an answer for all this. To understand where God stands, we need to understand the nature of reality. No, I'm wrong; we have to understand the nature of realities. There are as many realities as there are different beliefs.

Most people, particularly atheists, can only think of one form of reality. We shall call this common reality. That Obama is the 44th President of the US is in the realm of common reality. No sane person would dispute that. The facts, as we know them, I mean those that are not disputed are a part of common reality. Whales are mammals, water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen molecules - these are all real.

Most of science falls within common reality. However, some aspects of science remain speculative. For example, the String Theory is not believed by all scientists. Neither is the multi-verse theory for the origin of the universe. All speculative aspects of science are not a part of common reality. They are speculative and once they have been proved to be correct, they enter the realm of common reality. Sometimes, science undergoes some changes. What was THOUGHT to be common reality may be found to be erroneous and it gets booted out. But that does not mean that science is inaccurate.

For most people, there are OTHER REALITIES. I'm not saying that everyone should force himself to believe in other realities. It's just that some people do. Those of us who believe in realities that are not a part of common reality should be honest about this. We should not pretend that it's real to everyone. It's only real to us because we CHOOSE to believe in it.

How many forms of realities are there? There are as many of these realities as there are beliefs in the world. Some beliefs have died but their realities are still there - locked mysteriously in the realm of the supernatural. What about religions that conflict with one another. There's no problem. The different realities are very different indeed. There are different realities within even the same religion.

Can any of these realities (which are not common reality) be proved in any way? Absolutely not. If they can be proved, they would immediately form a part of common reality.

Wouldn't that make religion extremely personal because its reality depends on what individuals believe in? Of course, religion is absolutely personal. Attempts to convert others are definitely wrong. People who try to convert others have mistakenly assumed that their religion comes under common reality and that's plainly wrong.

THE GOD ELUSION

The beamishboy has come to a crossroads. Should I continue to hold on to a belief in God?

The Facts

First, God is highly elusive. So elusive is he that there is absolutely no trace of God anywhere. Like the abominable snowman and the Loch Ness monster, God has left no footprint behind. He has left no evidence, answered no prayer, done no miracle, appeared to nobody and he has made no sound at all. Those who claim that God has answered prayers or has done any of the things I've stated are just not thinking right. We know God cannot heal people beyond what doctors with their current medical knowledge can or beyond what nature's healing powers are capable of doing. God will then muscle himself in and say "I healed you!!! Praise me!!!" but any objective guy can see that that's rubbish. It's the doctors who healed me, you may say. But God will insist that it's because he blessed the hands of the surgeons!!! Oh for crying out loud!!!

The same goes with miracles. They don't happen and those who claim they do are just, again, not thinking right. God closed the mouths of the lions in the Book of Daniel you may say. But we also know that when Christian martyrs together with whole families were thrown into the lions' cage, there was not a single case of God shutting the mouths of the lions. We know that the cruel Romans even went to the extent of throwing infants to the lions so that their mothers would put up a fight with the lions and that would give greater entertainment to the crowds who were watching the feeding of Christians in large amphitheatres. We know there was no record of any miracle either by the Roman historians or the early Church Fathers. If there had been even a hint of a single miracle, you can be sure the Church Fathers would have written volumes about the mercy of God and his wondrous miracles. There was none. The Book of Daniel is at best not independent reporting.

If God answers prayers, in the area of healing alone, there should be clear statistics that Christians generally heal better, live longer and fall sick less. Even if only 10% of prayers on healing are answered, there should be a significant and appreciable difference statistically. Not only is there no evidence for such a favourable position for Christians but the fact is most Christians don't even BELIEVE that they have any advantage however small a percentage over non-believers or people at whom no prayers are directed. And yet they believe in the efficacy of prayer. That's internally contradictory. Now, clearly, they are not thinking right.

Then there is the rubbish about the need for a creator. This idea is so demonstrably primitive. From the earliest childhood, everyone knows that building blocks do not arrange themselves into beautiful castles. There's got to be a designer or maker. It's natural for the human mind to extrapolate. So they say there must be a creator for the Earth, nay, for the whole universe. So they say, "Let there be God" and there was God and men saw that God was good and they blessed Him. After that, they decreed that you can't go behind God. He's after all been defined. He's the ultimate. To go behind him would be illogical and invalid. Yes, there are co-religionists of mine who DARE to use the word "logic" in their religion and I assure you they're so hardened they really don't blush as they say it.

So you start with a decree that God is the ultimate Creator behind whom you cannot go. And you decree that since a watch that I've found while walking on a road must have a creator, everything else must have a Creator except for the first rule ie God is the ultimate and only He has no Creator. God exists by human decree.

I'm only speaking of God in general; not the Christian God in particular. Let's say we now pick my God, the triune God of Christianity. We have to look at the Bible, the source book of my religion.

Anyone who thinks the Bible is inerrant and flawless is clearly not thinking right. For as long as I have been a Christian with consciousness (I'm talking about the time I was too young to consciously understand the faith), I have been cooking up excuses for the obvious errors of the Bible. There are books galore that supply excuses for the sometimes shocking errors of the Bible. They are called "apparent errors" because no devout Christian likes to say that the Bible is full of errors.

Recently, I decided to go into the origin of the Bible. I studied the Canon of Scriptures and my Vicar told me that I should have a good balance and since I was reading books written by liberal Christians, I should balance that with evangelical Christian writers. He knew I could not take fundie nonsense and I could not abide Josh McDowell's write-up on the Canon which is so frightfully inaccurate and skewed and so unscholastic. I can counter that guy any time and expose his errors. So he recommended me a REAL scholar (not an apologetist like McDowell who allows his primary function as an apologetist to cloud the evidence) and he suggested FF Bruce - his book The Canon of Scripture. I also read Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament.

All fundies should read those books. It's IMPOSSIBLE for anyone who fully understands the Canon of Scriptures to defend inerrancy. There is no magic in the Canon. It's as flawed as you would expect any collection of ancient literature to be.

I also read other books on paleography and serious textual criticism and I found that even if there are no problems with the Canon, there are huge problems with the transmission of the books as well as the origin of the books. Most of these books are anonymous and we don't know if our version is indeed the correct version. For example, Papias said in the 1st century that he HEARD that Matthew wrote a gospel in THE HEBREW TONGUE. He also heard that it'd been translated into Greek by different translators. In the ancient world, that's how copying was done. You read the text and you do your own translation. They didn't have official translators. Papias says Matthew was originally in Hebrew. Scholars have confirmed that - if my memory is right, even Leon Morris has confirmed that or at least he says that is one possibility. Who translated OUR Greek version? Was ours the best translation? What if a madman did it? Nobody knows. Oh but the Spirit of God is supposed to hover over the translation and ensure only truth is printed. But rubbish!! We know that some quotations of Jesus from Matthew could not have been said by Jesus because they were meant to be a pun that could only work in Koine Greek and not Aramaic which was what Jesus spoke. We also know that the many Old Testament prophecies mentioned by Matthew were only prophecies because of a mistranslation of the Hebrew OT into the Greek Septuagint.

The more we know, the less likely it is for the Bible to be accurate and I'm not even talking about it being divine.

What am I to do? The human brain is good at dichotomies which is why we are able to multi-task. I accept that religion is very much an integral part of humanity. It's a bequest to us by our genes which, after aeons of evolution, encoded God in us so that we are hardwired to be religious. There are some uses for God in the survival of the human species. For one thing, it takes away our terror for death. Every gene strives to survive. Every living thing strives for survival. But for the human being, there is a further problem. He understands futurity and he has self-consciousness. He KNOWS he's going to die. He's constantly in a fight-or-flight state and the adrenalin pump into his blood tells him he must act. But he IS going to die, whatever he does. Religion affords an outlet. It gives dignity to him even in death. He accepts that he will trust God with his death and afterlife.

I have decided that it's silly to pretend to have knowledge that God exists. Of course I don't know that God exists. In fact, all knowledge points to his non-existence. In other words, I KNOW God does not exist. But my heart tells me I can depend on God. Tennyson expresses this most beautifully in his poem - I can only remember a bit of it - he hopes that knowledge and heart may make one music. I will let knowledge and my heart make one music in my mind - I know there is no God and yet will I believe in Him and when someone I love dies, I will seek God for comfort. I will not spurn what my genes have bequeathed on me. I accept my humanity and I accept my God.

That's the best way I can express my religion. I will never again seek this elusive God for evidence of his existence because I know he doesn't exist. But my heart will cherish the faith I've inherited from my ancestors.