Morality and Thomas Aquinas' - Five Ways (His proof for the existence of God

Morality:

I have spent most of my recent downtime after work in the late hours of the day and early morning reading books or watching debates and discussions by atheists and theists. I have always found it important to listen to both sides of an argument that I have questions about. You learn much more this way than if you are closed off to half of the questions or solutions.

Along these lines I have found that I can not stand on the side of religion on the topic of morality. I think that the argument is a none issue. Since I have started this journey, I have come to realize that religion has no moral ground to stand on. More then just the obvious problem of genocide, rape, torture, and incest God does or allows, but then tells us its wrong, there are many other morally shameful acts against His chosen creation in the doctrine, but there are other reasons to second guess any religions claim on morality.

No religion can be called a moral code. A simple reason for this idea is that these beliefs were developed thousands of years ago and morality is an ever evolving subject of study. Things that are morally reprehensible today, have often been common practice for the last 3000 years, like marriage at an early age (and with that idea, teenage sex, and condoms).

In the time of Jesus' mother, Mary, women were often married off in their early teenage years (12-14), while men averaged mid-twenties for their first marriage. Imagine a 25 year old marrying a 14 year old today. It is thought that Mary would have been between 12 and 14 when Jesus was born, but Joseph was much older. Today, if someone is married before the age of 20 they are looked at as if they are rushing into it, and told to slow down, take some time and think about it.

More importantly, I would think, morality is a subject of right and wrong. Religion is a subject of “my” right equals reward and “my” wrong equals punishment. Morality, as a guideline, has to be free of reward and punishment, and while evolving, it must also seek to reveal good and bad universally. Once you start to give external and eternal spiritual rewards for certain behaviors, you are no longer talking about morality. Instead you are talking about training people.

I have and love dogs. If I trained one to attack intruders entering my house by feeding them bacon every time they got aggressive at the front door, and another to sit and wait patiently to receive its reward ,which one would be doing a good thing? If you came to my door and my dog seriously hurt you, it would think it was doing a good thing, the same as the dog that sat and watched, because the “good” I “commanded” them to do for their reward was observed by each, respectively

While I would think that this kind of training is morally wrong without justification for the attack dog being needed, the dog still thinks that it is doing good work in my name, so to speak. (I would think that a dog would be a theist, they look at me like I am a perfect being, and I can not do any wrong in their eyes, but my cat is an atheist (maybe a deist) because he looks at me like he knows better, and only needs me for a clean place to poop.)

“...In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments, there are consequences...”

- Robert G. Ingersoll

It is impossible to say that biblical laws are the same as a moral code; because religion is simply trying to train people to do right, instead of expecting people to know right and wrong (shown in Genesis when God denied man the knowledge of good and evil) and helping them live accordingly. In fact, I would argue that religion, even faith, or belief in any righteous and revealed moral code is the reason that so many evil people find justification for their malicious actions. Good people will do good things whenever they can, and I think it is fair to say that evil begets evil whenever it can. However, religion seems to, in many ways, deem us as sick from the start, giving truly sick people absolution from their moral responsibility to humanity. It is up to religion to cure us of our illnesses, like sin or immorality. I don't like the idea that God created me (personally) abject, inferior, or naturally/morally sick from the start; and then through worship and adoration to Him, I can be cured, but only if it is His will.

How does this play into the thought that we are created in God's image, as almost every religion claims? What does it say about the creative power God has? Did God's creator make Him impure and He found purity? (Given that a creator would have to have a creator as well, same thought as to what was before the big bang?) Or is it just placating our need to create God from our image? I find it hard to have faith in either belief or doctrine. In fact, I would find it wonderful and exciting to discover that God had revealed Themselves, and Their purpose, to us with supporting and irrefutable evidence of His existence or His great plan.

• Side-note: What happens to personal responsibility when someone has come to relieve you of any sins? If I were to rape and murder for the rest of my life but find and believe in Jesus on my death bed I am allowed into heaven, but if I were to be good, just, and charitable to everyone around me but reject God or Jesus then I would go to hell. This seems wholly unrealistic in my eyes.

The doctrine, in fact, is the biggest problem. The doctrine can not be changed without excruciating pain to the faith. For example, the catholic doctrine on condoms. This is a belief that is killing hundreds of thousands of people every year in undeveloped, AIDS infested countries worldwide. It is a death sentence for these people All in the name of an outdated religious idea that has no real presents in scripture. It all comes out of the Catholic Church, and the Papacy, not the Bible. Not to restrain myself to Christianity, Islam has an offensive history when it comes to vaccination in similar countries. Polio could have been eradication worldwide if religious doctrine hadn't gotten in the way. The spread of containable diseases should be condemned by all humanity regardless of religious conviction.

• Rufus: Mankind got it all wrong. Taking a good idea and building a belief structure around it.

Bethany: Are you saying having beliefs is a bad thing?

Rufus: I just think it’s better to have ideas. I mean you can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier.
- Dogma (1999), Kevin Smith

Moving on...

I feel a need to assert that if there is an all powerful creator, then He would stop evil acts done in His name. How can any all powerful, all seeing, ever present being let any evil act happen in His name, unless – (1) it was part of his greater plan, or (2) the creator isn't concerned with the day to day activities of His creation. If you are willing to say that God has a plan, then you must be willing to accept the “evil” allowed because of the plan, as well as the good done. Especially when God can circumvent natural laws to enact His will through miracles.

Also, it is always confusing to hear a person of faith claim that God is only love and compassion, and in the next breath forward all the worlds evil to the devil or mans inferior nature. How do you reconcile that God would have to have created the devil and mans nature, so must have created evil, or at least the ability for evil acts, on purpose and for a specific reason.

How is God of the Old Testament all loving and compassionate to any people living at the time, even selling His chosen people to the Philistines (Judges 13:1). This would mean that the Philistines were not an evil people, even though being called a Philistine became a derogatory term. They were just doing Gods will, right? Same with the Egyptians in the Exodus, and Judas in the New Testament.

You have to believe that Judas was necessary to the story. He wasn't doing an evil act, but helping fulfill destiny. He was sacrificing himself. Someone had to do it, and I didn't read anything about Jesus turning himself in. Judas took the step that he thought was needed to fulfill Jesus' teachings. But instead of looking at this man with some sort of acceptance or empathy for his situation, he is called evil.

What does this say about the morality of the Bible or Christianity? I see a book that tells you what to think. I see people in this book doing what God makes them do, and it being called evil. What is the difference between the Israelites doing what God tells them to do, and the same God forcing the Egyptians to do His will. How is it moral to call them or their actions evil? When you use force, you remove choice, and you move the burden of guilt to the one using force to enact their will.

Don't get me wrong, there are good things to learn in this book. There are great philosophical ideas. The problem comes with the idea of forced obedience, or the thought of reward and punishment as a moral code. And I'm not so ignorant of human nature to know that some people need rules to live by or at the very least guidelines for a community, but laws are different then morality.

So call it Gods law, or rules of the Bible, but don't tell me it is a moral code to live by.

On Thomas Aquinas “Five ways”

The first proof says, roughly, that God exists because things change. It implies that, in the beginning, the universe was still and unchanging until God set things in motion. I don't see in his argument a need for the first mover in the way he describes it. He says that everything is moving from a potentiality to an actuality, and to do so there has to be a being of only actuality. Fire is actually hot and makes wood, which is potentially hot, actually hot; but the fire had to be put in motion by some other motion, is his example.

The reason that I don't need God to explain the first movement has to do with modern astrophysics and cosmology. Now science has not yet been able to discover experimentally what happened at the origin of the universe, but they have theories that describe the universe back to a point that is less then a split second after this bang. I think William of Ockham would agree that placing a supernatural event before this moment and saying that everything came from this supernatural event is going to far.

Why confuse the facts with unprovable wishing? There is no need to add to the complexity of the beginning of the universe by saying that everything was created by God and set into motion when he decided to let it go. Now, I bring up these ideas of cosmology because one thing that Aquinas didn't know about in his time was gravity. After the bang that created mass and matter, the weakest of the four fundamental forces began the construction of the beautiful galaxies we see in the night sky. I think this is more astounding then any miracle described in the bible. I think that looking at images of the Hubble telescope, like the Carina Nebula, are simply breath taking, but if someone came up to me tomorrow and said that his father was God and his mother gave birth to him while still a virgin, I would think that they were crazy not amazing.

I challenge you to look upon modern people that say they speak to God with the same reverence that you would give Abraham, Noah, Moses, or Jesus. I'm not talking about your priest, or traditional people of faith, but the people outside your normal existence. Those four people I mentioned stood outside their norm and tried to change things, against the odds, and told those of the local traditional faith, that they were wrong. So too you must stand with those that say God speaks to them today, like He did thousands of years ago; and if you can “know” who is actually speaking to God and “know” who is just talking to themselves, then you have an obligation to tell the world who is right.

Also, I want to speak on the idea of the potential and the actual. To say that God is only actuality and not potentiality implies that God only exists in the now, and does not have a presents in the past nor knowledge of the future because he would have to have a linear existence to only be actuality. If God doesn't have potentiality, as Aquinas says, then God doesn't know the potential existence to come. Without knowledge or ability of potentiality, then God can not be omniscient. God and His creation would have to be both actual and potential.

In the second proof I can not find any reason for dispute, except to again speak of Ockham's Razor. If you want to imply a supernatural necessity for the first cause, then your adding complexity where none is needed. The origin of all existence is confusing enough for the average person, but attaching the existence of a supreme being only adds to the turmoil. I am looking for clarity in this origin, not imposed complexity. There is nothing wrong with saying “I don't know” and I would want more people to embrace this idea.

The third proof is basically a rehash of the first. He has exchanged the terms first mover with the idea of a necessary being. A first mover is the same as a necessary being so any argument in this proof should be similar to the argument in the first proof. Also, in this proof, is the idea that given enough time, everything in existence would cease to be. This is exactly what modern science says will happen; but Aquinas wants to make the argument that an infinite possibility of existences would lead to non-existence. While it is true that non-existence is a possibility, it doesn't have to come before or during existence to be true. We could exist within one of many possible lives before non-existence happens. On a side-note, the way Aquinas wrote his third proof is exactly the way science says the universe will end. We are in a period of existence and life, but, given enough time the universe will move into a dead zone.

The fourth proof states that because there are differences between beings, that there must be a supreme being at one end of the spectrum. There must be a perfect being because of the very idea of its existence. But this does not imply that this perfect being created us. If you want to argue that our existence implies the actuality of another superior being, fine, but you must also find a reason that this being would create humans. Which would include a need for this superior being to create us. Also, this idea implies that God sees us as better then the rest of His creation. I would like to think that if God loved all of what He created, and saw that it was good, even the AIDS virus, then all of existence would be equal in His eyes. In the end, the existence of a supreme being does not give raise to our creation. Also, the existence of one being does not limit the amount of other similar beings in existence. So, one end of the spectrum, limited to a perfect being does not confine that existence to one perfect being. It could be many.

What about the other end of this idea? If you are to reason that because there are differences, there must be a perfect being, then there must also be some wholly imperfect being. I would think that it is more reasonable to say that just because something is possible doesn't mean it has to be. Just because this line of thought leads to a possible perfect being doesn't mean a perfect being has to exist.

The fifth proof describes a reality that would preclude freewill, as it is written by Aquinas. He argues that things that lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act as if they have intelligence, so intelligence must have been given to us by some other being. Now, it is obvious that intelligence varies in all existence, and this variability would mean that I have only been given enough intellect to do/understand as much as God wants me to. So I wouldn't have the ability or choice to understand anything God doesn't want me to.

But his argument also implies that the motion of the natural body, you growing from a child to an adult, is also directed by God. This idea is what we would recognize today as intelligent design. This proof has been completely ruined by the amazing work of evolutionary biologists, like Kenneth Miller, who is a Christian that is not afraid to say that intelligent design is not good science. He has a perfect lecture on how evolution can explain reducible complexity of advanced organism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

(This video was suppose to be a debate on intelligent design/evolution, but the ID side didn't show up)

Now, a lecture that I listened to on the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, has an idea that needs to be examined. Since God is perfect, did God create the best of all possible worlds? The professor in the lecture says that the very idea of a best possible world is self contradictory. It is to say that you can always add some new attribute to this world to make it better, but can't the same be said about the best possible being? If the idea of a perfect world is self contradictory, then so is the idea of a perfect being.

I think that most people use the wrong definition of perfect. Is perfect an absolute, or pure, or complete, or correct in every detail? I think that most people want it to be these things, but in the end, it is “the exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose” that people really mean. People will change and adapt their view of God to be whatever they want or need for the situation. As much as philosophers have tried over the centuries, there is not a universal definition of what God is.

Leviticus - You will do what I say or else...

Leviticus:

The first chapters of Leviticus describe the many offerings God expects from His people. There are burnt, grain, peace, sin, and trespass offerings. That covers the first five chapters, and chapter six and seven lay down the laws of each offering. After you read through the procedures for each type of offering, I want you to think of the word scapegoating. Scapegoating, in the bible, is when the sins of the people are placed upon a goat and the goat is driven out into the desert to die.

• Leviticus 16:8-10 - “...Then Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats: one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the scapegoat. And Aaron shall bring the goat on which the Lord's lot fell, and offer it as a sin offering. But the goat on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make atonement upon it, and to let it go as the scapegoat into the wilderness.

I find this whole concept interesting. They weren't the first to use this technique to make atonement, or clean a villages dirty closest. It was first recorded in Syria, in the 24^th century B.C.E. It was a common practice to use animals or even humans to wash away the evils of the local community. The idea of sacrificing something for atonement is part of almost every culture that has existed, and certainly was around in places God did not reveal himself. I can understand how this concept made it into the Bible.

If you are making a personal or community sacrifice of virgin girls, or of your food/wealth, then maybe the gods will look favorably upon your offering, and reward you with gifts. This is the same offering or sacrifice of the New Testament, but instead of an animal, Jesus became the sin offering or the scapegoat for all mankind.

Look at chapter 6:24-30. This is the law of the sin offering, and it strikes a remarkable resemblance to the New Testament communion. The Old Testament has little tolerance for the use of blood for any reason. However, there is eating of the flesh. The main difference is that in Leviticus the offering is a young bull or lamb, and the New Testament the offering is Jesus, or the Lamb of God, but in the end both where simply a sin offering.

These chapters are intriguing to read. It is all very precisely laid out. Where and what to cut, and what to take. I don't want to sound anti Semitic, but it is no wonder that the Jewish people learned how to make money when you read all of the laws of offering. You would either be wealthy enough to afford the livestock to offer or you would be extremely devout and live within the law. So, one might infer that they made offerings instead of being devout, but I have digressed. It is amazing how specific they get.

Chapter 11 is all about what you're allowed to eat. I found a good article on this once, but I can't seem to find it again. (I like to have valid references.) But if I remember the gist of it, pork was hard to keep for long periods of time, and could easily develop maggots or a whole host of other problems, so it was considered unclean to many cultures of that time. Only after better cooking methods where developed, did pork become a standard food source. But again there is a lot of detail as to what is ok and what is unclean.

I don't like chapter 12 at all. It talks about the ritual after childbirth. It says that a woman is unclean for seven days if she gives birth to a boy, or fourteen days if she gives birth to a girl. This makes me think of what I have already written on the creation of women and I am puzzled why they believed women were so unclean. It also brings up circumcision again. The origins of circumcision is not with the Jewish people. It is thought that they got the custom from the Egyptians. Wherever it originated, it is a wholly barbaric act of butchery, even now, in modern times. I am going to give you two website links, so that you may better understand what this ritual defacing really is.

History of Circumcision

http://www.d.umn.edu/~mcco0322/history.htm

Penn & Teller's – Bullshit: S3 E1 – Circumcision

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b73FmTuGk9w

Please watch the Penn & Teller with a bit of parental discretion. It makes me a little sick to watch them actually cut off the foreskin. So be prepared for a little blood and a lot of screaming. This is such an outdated idea. If you can watch that video without a sense of compassion , or if you think that an ancient people had a better understanding of what was good for us as an infant then we do know, then please explain to me why you believe this on religious grounds.

I think Hitchens says it best.

“...If you have kids, imagine the first time you held them. You probably thought the same as me. What a perfect creature? And you loved them straight away. But before we start being parents, first lets get a sharp stone or knife and start hacking away at the genitals. Because apparently the design wasn't perfect...”

“...religion makes morally normal people, say and do, disgusting and wicked things...”

- Christopher Hitchens

If you think that male circumcision for religious reasons is ok, then I would like for you to also state that female circumcision for religious reasons is ok. So lets either give it up, because there is not one good medical reason for it, or wish Muslims a good day with their daughters, and be on our way.

I will leave this subject with a simple thought, these are the unsophisticated ideas that religious people say they agree with, but I doubt that must of them have ever read it, and certainly they have not witnessed this “tradition” personally or would be willing to preform it themselves.

Chapter 13 & 14 deal with lepers, which is obviously a problem of their day and not a universal “need to know”. Chapter 15 talks about bodily discharges, and it makes me wonder how these people were living before this was revealed to them. Did they defecate wherever they wanted? Maybe, they were nomadic. Did they not have a social community established? Did they really need this kind of help to live a good life? Were they so backwards that they needed advice on where to shit, piss, or cum within their own living environment. Whoever you believe wrote this book, they did not think very highly of their own people.

Moving on...

There are plenty of talking points in chapters 16 &17, but I would like to move on to chapter 18. Let us begin with the “Laws of Sexual Morality”. There is so much I have to talk about within this topic that it will be hard to get it all in. (That's what she said)

First is a simple idea of divorce, Verse 7 says that you will not uncover your mothers nakedness, but verse 8 says that you shall not uncover your father's wife. If this are the same people then God is being redundant, but it seems more likely that it is saying that you shouldn't see your own mother naked, nor your father's wife. The distinction is on purpose, and speaking of different people. So, the assumption has to be that God gave two different rules to cover His basis' on some form of divorce.

There is a lot of nakedness in this chapter, like that of your sister, your daughter, or your son's daughter, or your daughter's daughter, or your father's wife's daughter (which I think is your sister, I'm so confused). So many rules... I find it hard to believe that these people were breaking all of these “rules” before this time. Don't sleep with your aunt, or your uncle, or your daughter-in-law, or your brothers wife... If these people were living this type of life, then it is a good thing that someone intervened, weather godly or not.

Now, there are specific sexual rules for men and rules for women, and there is a review of these in chapter 20. So, after reading through this and trying to decipher the prohibited relationships, I realized a couple of things. First, it says that a man shouldn't lay with another man like he would with a woman. Personally, I don't think a man/man sexual relationship is the same as a man/woman sexual relationship, if nothing else, the plumbing is wrong, but this is the basis for the churches stances on homosexuality.

This is the basis for the churches stances on homosexuality. If you analyze it closely, then lesbians are ok because there are different rules for men and women, and there is nothing about two women being together, but I'm sorry to say that the Bible definitely says male homosexuality is a sin and they should be put to death... Sorry guys, I'd like to find a simple way around this but it is right there in the word. You'll just have to decide for yourself if God actually wants you to die for how you behave. Personally, I don't care what people do, as long as it is consensual with everyone involved.

I think George Carlin said it best, “...we're not going to bother consenting adults who like to dress up in leather boy scout uniforms and smash each other in the head with ball-peen hammers while they take turns blowing their cat. There's certainly nothing wrong with that. It's a victimless hobby. And think of how good the cat must feel...”

In the end, I say, do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else.

Moving on...

Chapter 19 is all over the place. Much of it is just review, don't steal or lie, don't cheat with your neighbor's wife. As well, you can't eat of a fruit tree until it is five years old, because the fruit is uncircumcised, and you should not prostitute your daughter or seek out mediums. Really, it's all over the place.

The next couple of chapters deal with regulation and laws for the people and priests. A lot of rules, too many rules, and the punishments tend to be replacement of property or death. It's pretty strict.

Chapter 26 is all about what will happen if you stand against God. Honestly, the first time I read through this chapter, it brought to mind the Holocaust.

Leviticus 26:16 - “...I will even appoint terror over you, wasting disease and fever which shall consume the eyes and cause sorrow of heart...”

Leviticus 26:22 - “...I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, destroy your livestock, and make you few in number...”

This is not the work of an all loving, compassionate God. This chapter shows the difficulty of saying all good things come from God, or even if we don't understand it, that things we think are evil, are still good to God. If you really believe that God knows best, then this chapter is for you and your faith. I can't reconcile the ideas of a loving God and an angry, jealous God.

I do not see any greatness or godliness in the book of Leviticus. If you think that this was written by God, then God needs a lot of stuff given to Him when we break His laws. We have to suffer to make atonement. To expand this idea beyond the scope of stuff, I have heard sermons on how God is hurt when we sin or move away from His grace, and this would dictate an underlying condition in Leviticus. Although, God isn't sad when we sin, He is angry.

Let us have a simple discussion about my own temperament. When I do something wrong, and someone yells at me for it, I don't feel very bad about what I did, in the end. If they get angry at me, I usually finish the discussion of what went wrong, with a feeling of anger as well. But when I do something wrong and the other person shows disappointment or a sense of empathy, then I tend to do whatever I can to make atonement for my wrong doings.

So, the more I read about an angry God, the more I feel a reason to rail against Him.

Also, what does this say about God's freedom? Has God placed control of His pleasure and pain in my willingness to adhere to His laws? When you give up control of your own happiness, and place it in the hands of another person, then you become vested in the well being of that other person, and I think that most Christians would believe that God is personally vested in the lives of all creation. But if God's happiness, or pain, is dependent on my choice to ask for forgiveness, then that means I have some small amount of control over His existence. I, and everyone else on the planet, would have control over God's emotional state, or at the very least, influence on His desired interaction with humanity.

I think that there is no way an all powerful being would allow itself to be hurt. In fact, the notion that an all powerful being could be hurt, even emotionally, would necessitate an imperfect creature. Besides, what arrogance to think that a created being could ever have the power to harm its creator.

I have come to a point, in my interpretation of the Bible, in which a fundamental change has occurred. I began this with a hope of becoming more religious, and finding a better connection with my own spirituality. But after reading Leviticus, I have found myself fully believing that all of these laws and punishments are man made. Whoever wrote this book only wanted power over his people. He claimed that these were Gods laws to frighten his people into compliance, and unfortunately it is the same story today.

Religious people cherry pick the verses that they agree with and simply don't mention the ones they feel uneasy about. We all manipulate the writings to be whatever we need them to be. There is not any universal religious idea, but a different one for every person who has ever existed. The fracturing of Christianity was the best thing that ever happened to it. It allowed a broader range of acceptance, and pushed for a need of inclusion. If everyone did what the Bible said we are suppose to do for punishment of sin, our society would be completely different.

Some people will say that our legal system is built off of the Judah-Christian religion, and I would say that your half right. We do basis laws off of our beliefs and dominate religious base. But we only basis the laws off of it, and not the punishment. Capital punishment is mandatory in this ancient book. It is a must, not an option.

Exodus - The Israelites escape from Eqypt... (with a little help)

Exodus:

I think it is interesting that, in the first chapter, the pharaoh doesn't talk about the people of Israel like they are slaves, which they weren't really. They where more like a serf, living on the land they worked, but being bound to the land and its owner. This is different then being considered property and having no rights, like the Africans were here in America. This is a medieval idea of lordship and serfdom, but they certainly weren't treated like property, This isn't to say that they weren't persecuted or at least mistreated by the Egyptian people.

• Side-note: Genesis 47:24 - “...And it shall come to pass in the harvest that you shall give one-fifth to Pharaoh. Four-fifths shall be your own, as seed for the field and for your food, for those of your households and as food for your little ones...” - This is where I get the idea of serfdom, when do slaves keep anything they cultivate? Plus, on a lighter note, they only have to give the Pharaoh 20% of what they grow. Hell, I'd love to only give 20% to the people in charge of my lands.

Anyway, the story of the exodus is a common one,and an important one to read often, so I'll move on to the first thing I caught that troubled me.

• Exodus 6:20 - “...Now Amram took for himself Jochebed, his father’s sister, as wife; and she bore him Aaron and Moses...”

So, if I'm reading this right, Moses' mom is also his aunt... I guess that isn't to bad when you consider that 21 states allow first cousins to marry, more if you count the ones where you can't get married in, but they recognize out of state weddings. It's a shame that only 20 states allow/recognize same sex marriage or civil unions. The problem I see with these numbers is that same sex marriage is a hot topic issue, where as first cousin marriage is just something that has been allowed for years. How stupid does this sound? You can marry your dads sisters daughter, but not the cute guy down the street... Not to jump to far ahead but in the next book, Leviticus, Chapter 18, Verse 12, has a little something to say about this, and many other sexual acts.

• Leviticus 18:12 - “...You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is near of kin to your father...”

How is it that the sins of Amram, Moses' father, didn't fall unto Moses? Later in Exodus I will point out that the sins of the father are suppose to fall on his descendants.

Moving on...

• Exodus 7:3,4 - “...And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh will not heed you, so that I may lay My hand on Egypt and bring My armies and My people, the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments...”

When you read this story, remember that God hardened the Pharaoh's heart. So no matter what, no matter how much the Pharaoh wants to, and his does want to after awhile, no matter how many wonders Moses shows him, Pharaoh can't let them go until God decides to let him let them go. This seems fundamental wrong in every sense. Why would God torment the Egyptians like this? True that the Egyptian king had not been good to the Israelites, but does it really warrant all of these plagues? Especially the last one, killing all the first born children and livestock.

Of all the activities that happen in the beginning of the book of Exodus, this is the worst. What did the Egyptians do to deserve this type of retribution? At the worst, the Egyptians made the Israelites build things through hard labor, but building anything back then would have been hard labor. The Pharaoh also tried to get the midwives to kill the just born males, but they didn't. So what did the Egyptians do to deserve the ten plagues? Every time I read this story, I picture a child pulling the legs off a grasshopper. It's that level of puerileness that God would need to prove himself to the Egyptians.

Chapter seven is where the plagues begin. I thought it was curious that the first two plagues didn't phase the Pharaoh. His magicians could change the rivers to blood and make frogs appear, not a problem for them. But when the plague of lice came around, the magicians saw the finger of God at work. However, God hardened Pharaoh's heart and that was that. Then the plague of flies, and Pharaoh promise to let them go, but along comes the hardened heart. Then diseased livestock, leading to dead Egyptian livestock, and another hardened heart. The sixth plague is boils, and another hardened heart. The seventh is hail, and there is a part in this story where the Pharaoh repents and claims God as the almighty, but God still hardened the Pharaoh's heart and punished him.

Exodus 9:27,28 - “...And Pharaoh sent and called for Moses and Aaron, and said to them, “I have sinned this time. The Lord is righteous, and my people and I are wicked. Entreat the Lord, that there may be no more mighty thundering and hail, for it is enough. I will let you go, and you shall stay no longer.” If I repent will God listen to me, or just continue on with the punishments?

There are three more plagues just like this one, until God has had enough fun, apparently, and after He has killed all of the first born, from Pharaoh's son to even the livestock, God lets Pharaoh let the children of Israel leave Egypt. If you remove God hardening Pharaoh's heart from this story, then the Egyptians look really bad, but in the end the Pharaoh couldn't do anything about it, and he loses his son because God has to make a point. What all powerful, all loving, god does this to make a point. What perfect being has to torture His creation to show power? I don't understand this story as allegory, or a moral tale, or as anything helpful in exploring the existence of God. It's just makes me sad.

Moving on...

• Side-note: Exodus 15:11- “...Who is like You, O Lord, among the gods...” Here, they are singing to the lord, but again, God allows or at least doesn't dispute that there are other gods. I would be interested in what these people believed before God came to them; they were nomads and obviously they were polytheist of some sort.

• Also: Exodus 16:29 - “... See! For the Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you on the sixth day bread for two days. Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day...” How are you suppose to go to church on the sabbath, if God doesn't want you to leave your place? Just a little food for though, some denominations worship on Saturday and literally do nothing on Sunday.

• Exodus 19:5 - “...Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, than you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine...”

This is a simple idea, outside of the creation story, there is no point at which God claims to have created all existence. Even in the creation story, God never speaks about the act of creation, the narrator simply attributes the creation to God. I only bring this up as an idea because of the plural gods of the Old Testament. Maybe He has all of the earth, but other gods rule other worlds. Also, and probable the best example of this idea is in Exodus 20:3 which says “...you shall have no other gods before Me...” This is leading into the first commandment, but God doesn't say that there aren't other gods, just that you shouldn't worship any other god before Him.

Also, there are a few points like this one in the Old Testament. This verse (19:5) is a request. It is not a law, order, or commandment, but just a simple request. I like that. Of all the anger, jealousy, or vengeance of the Old Testament God, it is refreshing to see that God is willing to ask of us obedience, instead of demanding it, like everywhere else in this book.

Alright, we have arrived at Exodus 20, better known as the ten commandments, and right off the bat, we have a bit of a quandary. The first commandment, like I just said, doesn't remove the idea of multiple gods existing. I have developed a thought on this that I will but into another writing I have done on the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas.

The second commandment is quite detailed. You can't even carve an image of a fish or dolphin, or anything else that is in the water. It is also the time when God says “...for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God...” There are people, including the greats, like Thomas Aquinas, that say you can't put human emotions on God, but there are numerous times in the Bible that speak of Gods emotions, so I would say it is ok to think that God has similar emotional states than humans. The second commandment also says the the iniquities of the fathers will follow the children to the third and forth generations. This is the punishment of the Old Testament. It isn't hell or any type of ever lasting damnation, but passing your sins on to your children for four generations

The rest are self explanatory, so I'll skip to number ten, do not covet. The only thing I want to say about this one is that it is good that no one observes it. This is the basis of our free market. I'm not sure how Bible thumping, free market, conservatives reconcile their political view with their religious view on this one. Keeping up with the Jones' is what runs our economy.

Now, allow me to change directions for just a minute. These commandments are a bit of a sticking point between atheists and Christians. Christians use the ten commandments as a basis for morality, and atheists suggest that the main ideas of do not murder, commit adultery, steal, or lie are more self evident. I think the atheists have a point. As Christopher Hitchens says, If these people where living against these commandments up to this point, then they wouldn't have survived. If they had freely murdered or had no idea of a sacred relationship, or stole from each other freely, or lied without consequences, then these people wouldn't have been creating social groups, or lived in close proximity to each other. Again, I will have an expanded blog on morality to come soon. But in the end I see morality as something that has evolved and changed with our culture. Socially except able behavior is driven by group think and less by religious conviction. I justify this because of moral questions outside of the ten commandments or religious doctrine. Things like slavery, woman’s rights, or teenage marriage. These three are just a few examples of moral changes within our culture, that have differing outdated views within the Bible.

Moving on...

From the end of chapter 20 (the law of the alter) to chapter 22 (responsibility for property) is very interesting to read. Here are a few of my favorites.

• 21:4 - “...if his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself...” So if a servant was given a wife by his master then God says that the wife and their children belong to the master. But don't worry, if the servant doesn't want to leave, than the next verse states how the servant can serve the master forever to stay with his wife and children. Not become free, or set his wife and children free, but become a slave forever. That's compassionate isn't it?

• 21:15 - “...and he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death...” Like that would be a plausible defense in court today. Yeah, my son struck his mother so I killed him. Do you agree with that?

In chapter 22, verse 16, it talks about what should happen if a man has sex with a virgin, who is not betrothed. Is it stoning, or death, or a sin like modern culture would suggest? No, just pay to make her your wife, and if her father refuses the man, then just pay the money and forget about the marriage part. So where does this whole idea of teen age sex being immoral come from?

Next is the all important witchcraft verse, kill them all, right??? What about the commandment not to murder? I guess killing a witch isn't murder because they were worshiping other gods, right? I guess I'm a little confused about what murder is and what killing is? When God lays down a rule, like 21:17, “...he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death...”, then I have to assume that being put to death is different then murder. Not to mention the strictness of such an idea. If you curse your father, or strike him then you should be put to death. So much for the timeout chair Super Nanny.

In chapter 23 there is a verse (22) that talks about God being an enemy to your enemies. Isn't all of creation His? Why choose one people over another? Why not lift up all of his creation?

The rest of Exodus deals, in large part, with the details of the Tabernacle and other such constructions. Who decided that the exact construction of the tabernacle was important to the understanding of God? Or that the garments of the priesthood would make for interesting reading?

Anyway, I will end this with a sobering thought. This is stated many times in the Exodus. Over and over again, God says that he will kill you for working of the Sabbath. So, do you take the Bible literally? Do you work on the Sabbath? I can only assume three answers to this question. (Trilemmas are fun)

No, I don't take the Bible literally.

No, I don't work on the Sabbath.

Or your not reading this because your dead already...

Next time will be the book of Leviticus.