Experts say religious texts are not wholly asinine, say experts

All of these ancient religious texts so many of us subscribe to today were written by men (and some women) as wisdom to be carried down through the ages. They didn't have the "noise" that the vast majority of us have grown up with today, in this age. There was no television, no Internet, no video games nor movies and movie stars. No news, no publicized violence, and very little distraction. It isn't the authors' faults for having their words mistranslated, misused and misunderstood. 

There is wisdom in the Bible, if you know how to read it. For instance, the "sin" of sex outside of marriage was a fundamentally pragmatic decision. Sex caused pregnancy and disease back then, as often as not. And women had at least a 30% chance of dying during childbirth. A pregnancy without an income to support the child was seen as a terrible burden. Disease was rampant, as there were no treatments or cures. Sex itself was not the sin. Irresponsible sex, even then, was viewed as terribly impractical. And therefore, from a philosophical perspective, immoral, i.e., sin.

Some people need to believe these words were directly from God. I tend to think they were, if not in the way that most people do. But those words simplify things for them because, let's face it, most people are simple. It was a way to govern the ignorant. The problem we face today is that even though most of us can read, we still do not truly comprehend what we read. For most of us, reading and writing are simply forms of communication. For others, they are the ultimate transference of thought and mind. Reading and understanding are not even remotely the same animal.

One can imply much in a sentence that is seemingly innocuous and banal. But to a scrupulous reader, there is much more information that goes unsaid, literally. One has to have the capacity to gather that implied information without prompting or explanation. This is very often - if not always - the case with religious texts.


That said, religious leaders - who only questionably understand the texts from which they teach - have no business dictating policy. That isn't to say that science and faith cannot collude and comingle. Quite the opposite. I can verifiably say that I have seen this work - faith coexisting with reason. Scientists, however, seem unable to admit they cannot yet understand a thing, despite their insistence otherwise; and religionists (I coined that term and now use it liberally) seem to think that anything that is perceived as against faith is somehow unholy. The very basis for both their faiths . . . is preposterous. Both of these institutions should be working toward meeting in the middle, yet they both seem determined to destroy one another. What neither of them seem to understand is that knowledge nor faith are going anywhere, anytime soon. If ever. 

We are creatures of both reason and non-reason. We are intellectual and emotional beings, and I would daresay equally so. And to try and separate the two is madness. Faith is emotion-based. Intellect is mind-based. Keeping that in mind, there was a time not too long ago that if you told someone in the U.S. they could communicate with someone in China and have that communication translated instantaneously, without the aid of another human being, they would have called you a fool. And rightly so. If you had said 50 years ago that most of us would possess devices that would make the "communicators" on Star Trek look simple by comparison, you would likely think they were daydreaming, at the very least. And now we're on a very clear path to real androids (Sorry, Data), bio-mechanics, and - don't laugh - faster than light (FTL) travel. Whether or not you think it is possible, it is being actively studied, with big bucks backing it. And human beings have a tendency to do precisely what they set out to do. Say I'm wrong. I dare ya.   😉