Oh, religious arguments, hello my old friend?

Never discuss religion or politics at the dinner table. Right? That is the old saying, I believe, or at least something like that. The purpose of this has to be because, everyone is an idiot and when arguing with idiots, you do not want to have food on the table, because this will just confuse them into throwing their food, and your wife will not want to clean up the mess. No? Ok. Fine. It is probably because religion and politics are two topics that rely little on fact and largely reside in the realm of opinion. And we all know "opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one, and everyone thinks theirs don't stink." Further to justify why you shouldn't argue religion or politics (potentially anywhere) is that it is not like arguing who the best NFL Quarterback is. My point being, if I think the best QB is Colt McCoy, I at least understand why you have left the conversation laughing at me. There is not a lot of evidence to back up my claim. However, if you walk away laughing a person who tells you that their religion believes that god is a mystical hippopotamus, with magical tusks of fury, you are likely to get slugged in the back of the head with a magical hippopotamus tusk.

People take religion and politics seriously. Extremely so.

I never argue politics. Mostly because I do not argue things that I choose of my free will to be ignorant to. I am a cynic. I tend to think that in our government, both Republicans and Democrats are trying to screw over the citizens they have sworn to serve. Like I said, I am a cynic. I accept that this is a clear generalization, there are probably many politicians with good hearts and good intentions. I simply choose to ignore them, because I am tired of finding out about the ones who do not have good hearts and do not have good intentions. This is my choice, and mostly, I run into no opposition when I bow out of political conversation, or when I sit quietly listening to other people argue, simply inputting when I think a fact here or there may be potentially misinterpreted or interesting.

Religion on the other hand, being ever more explosive, I can't seem to keep out of.

I do not know why, either. I simply cannot ignore a religious debate. Perhaps my education is at fault. I attended a Jesuit Catholic high school, and forever have been burdened with having an inquisitive mind when it comes to religion. However, often, I am on the side of not believing.

Good to know I am at least consistent. I am a cynic.

I used to take issue with many things regarding religion.. but let us just shake this whole thing down and get to the crux of most religious arguments between people who believe and those who tend to believe a little less. THE BIBLE.

Is it true? Is it the word of God? Is it likely that Jesus was born of a virgin Mary, etc, etc, etc.

Three words. I. Don't. Know.

Of course, that is where belief kicks in. Obviously, it takes a leap of faith, that as a human being you must be willing to take in order to believe.

Honestly, it's a leap of faith I once took, but no longer can.

Because.

I am a cynic.

Let us assume that God sent his word in the form of the Old Testament, which was written many (many, many, many) years ago by the early Jews. Why don't Christians follow these rules? Sure, pork is delicious (Bacon in particular).. but if it is unclean and God has ordained that we do not touch it, why do Christians choose to not follow that rule, but Jews do? Does this mean we can, as Christians, pick and choose what rules to follow? However, Jews cannot.

The Christian church has been a shining example that "power corrupts, but absolute power, corrupts absolutely." The early history of the Christian church is fraught with examples of leaders abusing power. Who is to say that they guarded the Word of God with reverence, when they often were clearly corrupted and interested in only themselves? As a cynic, I have a hard time with this. I find it extremely hard to believe that the Bible has remained the true word of God over centuries and millennia of cultural distress and upheaval.

The Bible is a collection of many stories, written by many different people, all of whom claimed to be inspired by God. However, there are many more writing which are ignored, despite the same claims of divine inspiration. How was it determined which should be added to the Holy Canon? A group of priests got together and after long hours of prayer and thought and deliberation, they determined whose word was in fact the act of divination and whose was not. That's right, more HUMAN BEINGS claiming to be messengers of the will of God.

It all just smells. It smells bad. And I cannot stomach it.

But like I said, I am a cynic.

Most things in this world are possible, however, few are probable. An immaculate conception for instance, is possible, if simply because there is so much about our bodies that we STILL do not understand. However, it is not probable. Of course, if such an event were to be guided or aided by the hand of a supernatural being, I suppose it becomes increasingly possible, however no more probable. The Bible seems to consist of many possibilities which are not quite probable. It almost seems like it was set up to be something that could not be proven, and equally could not be disproved.

I know that is simply speculation, but it is how I have interpreted it all. I welcome anyone to challenge any of it. However, I will not believe, simply because you say "it is the word of God".. Clearly I am too cynical to jump into that pool.

Is it logic, or just pessimism? That I do not know, but it is what I think. In no way am I trying to belittle believers for believing what they believe, they are willing to take a leap of faith that I cannot. That is all, nothing more, nothing less.

Facebook De-Friend?

Another innocent has been claimed by the Penn State University scandal. Me. I have been de-friended on Facebook because I didn't share a harsh view of the situation. Now, I'm not one for counting up all of my FB friends and taking pride in a number or anything of that sort, however, I think that to take the effort to de-friend someone simply because they don't share your opinion, is a bit much. Though, who am I to question someone who thinks I'm "annoying, and an idiot?".. I think that pretty much sums it up.

Basically it went down like this.

Ex-friend posts status that says (to paraphrase, because I can no longer see the post, as I have been de-friended, blocked, divorced, erased from memory, hard deleted, etc)..

"Penn State University should lose all of their games, because they should not be allowed any happiness after the things that Sandusky did."

or at least, something like that, and so I responded, disagreeing, on the simple principle that such a sentiment punishes MORE innocents. The student athletes who have worked VERY hard for much of their life to get a scholarship and a chance to play for a D-1 football team, do not deserve to suffer the repercussions of the evil, despicable things that Sandusky did to those innocent boys. They deserve every opportunity to succeed, and to wish ill upon them for their coach's crimes is like blaming a son to bare the sins of his father.

He responded with an inane argument about how "if I had kids, I would understand."

As if the concept that pedophilia is the WORST crime a person can commit can only be comprehended by those who have sired children.

I countered his argument with something along these lines.

"Don't give me that 'if you had kids' bull simply because you don't have a compelling argument. How different your opinion would be if you were the father of one of the athletes playing for PSU"

Anyway.. shortly after that I was de-friended, end of story, end of relationship...

Now, don't get me wrong. Joe and I were never the greatest of friends, with many rocky moments. We simply played a club sport together at the university we both attended. In fact, I hardly call this a loss. Though, clearly, it irks me on some level, otherwise I wouldn't be blogging about it, would I?

I guess it begs the question, "how close are we, or were we to our friends on our friendslist on social networking sites?".. To be honest, I have "friended" basically anyone I have had a conversation with. I am not that shallow am I? I suppose, if I'm honest with myself, I probably am. Or certainly, it's nice to have lots of status updates to read. Certainly, there are friends who I am close to, or at least was close enough to in the past, that keeping up with them vaguely through a social network is preferable to actually keeping in touch with them on a phone or by letter.. or *gasp* by getting together with them in person.

Have social networking sites actually skewed our view on what friends are? I have to think that people don't expect or think that they have as many friends as their FaceBook friends list indicates. I mean.. I was friends with this Joe, even though he essentially is a person that I disagree with on most issues. Even though when I took over for him as president for the aforementioned club team, he A) stole the team's digital camera and B) left us with a bank account consisting of negative numbers.. he also bailed on me and his friend when looking for a third roommate. Maybe I was just naive enough to think we should be friends. Clearly, while maybe we were friendly at times, we were never actually friends. I know what a friend is, I have only a few, but I cherish their friendship as much as I cherish my relationship with my wife.

I think it's clear that social networks have given us the illusion that we are friendly with more people than we would actually tolerate in reality. I challenge anyone to look at their friends list and count the people from the list you would actually like to have a conversation with. I bet the number is less than 50. I bet my number could be smaller than that (out of 550+ friends on FB.. that is.. well, sad). Though, in general, I hate people, so my response should be ignored. I am sure there are cheery people who would number more along the lines of 100%, but who could stand them anyway? I guess it just suggests that maybe we don't know what "being a friend" means anymore. I think I know, but sometimes it seems that other people do not. What do you think?

Ok, that was sappy, and for that I apologize. This was supposed to be edgy and clever, but whatever, sometimes you just gotta say what you gotta say and that's that.

Until next time.

Remember, use some common sense. There isn't enough of it out there.