[158] Benny Hin

I apologize in advance if part or all of this sounds redundant, but after watching a documentary on Benny Hin, I just got these overwhelming feelings of pity and fear.

One of the main things that bothers me about the religion and faith issue, is that no matter how hard I try to find the “good” that people keep talking about, I walk away feeling so troubled and frankly uneasy with what I see. Every time I try to offer the benefit of the doubt or grant a point for the sake of continuing a conversation, I feel like a massive train wreck is taking place. In my mind, religion is so absolutely alienated in its ignorance, corruption, hypocrisy, and outright delusion that I really do feel bad for people are apart of it. Most of these people have to pretend they hear a god talking to them, they have to wait, anxiety ridden, for some miracle to change their life. They have to deny and confuse the science that keeps them healthy. They have to feel guilty about how sinful they think they are. They feel obligated to contribute money, which they may not have. They get the same answers, use the same arguments, and experience the same roadblocks enlightened people overcame hundreds of years ago. Watching the faces of these people waving their arms together, struggling to get out of their wheelchairs (this one fat lady's face was gut wrenching), the retarded people getting petted and kissed by their families, all waiting for God's plan to include them getting better. This ridiculous notion of miracles. You know, miracles, the things that can range from surviving a surgery to being able to paint a house during the rainy season. Next time I get the toy I want in my happy meal, I suppose I should call that a miracle too.

Wouldn't you know that on the follow ups of the people falling to the ground after having been miraculously healed, they still had their illnesses, some alleged problems were contrived, and many just end up dieing like the doctors said they would. I mean to watch a mass of people, frankly pathetic people, all wishing and hoping and inciting is scary. And when I say pathetic, its for the multitude of reasons that brought them to where they are. I can understand wanting to believe in something, but your just plain fucking stupid, I don't care where your from or what you believe in, your plain fucking stupid if your being told one thing and irrefutably experiencing another. If your son dying of massive brain tumors, despite your last hope going to Benny Hin for a pat on the head, and you still trust the man and give him 2 grand a month that you don't have, your fucking stupid. People wonder why I say their feelings don't matter. It is situations like this that illustrate my view.

Your preachers, usually had troubled upbringing and had a knack for being creative or feeling certain things. They implement well known strategies to suggestible audiences which you can compare to both the Nuremberg rallies or football games. When questioned about their experiences they can openly admit to doubting whether its really God or just them. When questioned about specific evidences or history, a left turn is taken and they start to affirm everything they believe in conveniently losing the topic on some tirade. I guess it still doesn't matter that everything you induce at some rally or prayer meeting can be flicked on and off in a lab. Every last feeling can be produced with machines that understand you and trigger you, because it was made by people who cared to be smarter than you.

I guess, other than simply making another desperate plea to get informed, what I would ask you to do is to ignore whatever your hearing if you watch either the debates I've posted or some apologetic speech, and just watch their faces. If that can't convey to you more than all the bullshit they constantly push, and the information you readily ignore from me, then I'm out ideas.   

[126] Clearly Colloquial

Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 5:46am

What do people mean when they say “religion?” It could be a body of people all meeting up for the sole purpose of indiscriminate worship. It could mean an organization motivated by faith. It could be ta body that studies its origins, authors, and history. Just in this one word alone, it can have an elusive meaning depending on the person using it and the person hearing it. Now take that and add the word faith. Faith can be blind, ignorant, just a happy feeling, a hugely motivating force, a unifying center, or any number of personalized definitions. The last word I'll go with is science. Science, in particular the evidence supporting science, is understood differently in light of whatever is being studied. The same kind of evidence for the historicity of a historical figure, is obviously not the mathematical proof needed to identify dark matter. When you take vague definitions of religion, faith, and science and metaphorically throw them to dogs of our modern discourse, the complications become overwhelming. I try to stay as clear as possible when addressing either or all three, but I'm going to try and depict how complicated a seemingly simple discussion about one of them can get.

If I say something along the lines of “faith is one of the most destructive forces we've ever concocted” immediately you start thinking about church organizations, volunteers, the smiles on the old womens faces on Sunday, and the many people you may have met and become friends with for the sole reason of going to church. Immediately there is a problem. Your thoughts do not address what I said. Not only do they not address what I said, the reason you began to think those thoughts rests in other complicated areas of understanding. If we break it down word by word, my favorite way, when you take church festivals and volunteers, your talking about acts that people do for purely social reasons and not necessarily, if even frequently, because of faith. If you regale at the thought of smiling old ladies and friendships you've made, again, if the only reason you call someone a friend is that they nod in a booth next to you, your simply lying to yourself. To add even more icing on the cake, people frequently rebut a statement like “faith is one of the most destructive....” with something like, “How can you not see all the good religion or God is doing?” So not only would the conversation start off wrong from how the sentence is received, but it would take a left turn, and then would maliciously beat itself to death trying to squeeze in the various meanings of the words religion and God. This is my immediate frustration.

Let's say we're on the the lucky side of conversations where all the terms are wholly defined. What is the next problem? Context. The main charge many religious people will levy against me is that I'm not understanding their context, be it “religious, faithful, God's will,” and I retort that they do not understand a specific scientific context. I try to quell this by explaining my past with Christianity, and even have old embarrassing blogs if they want further reinforcement that I fully appreciate where they are coming from. That, and the context hasn't changed for thousands of years, it isn't exactly a secret from where and why your saying things. When it comes to science, it obviously goes towards evolution, the origin of life, and the origin of the universe. To put it simply, to say there is much to be said on any one of those topics is an understatement. Despite this, I get retorts and questions that mash all three together, and then sprinkle on biblical confusion and Godly speculation as well. It is impossible to carry on a discussion like this if you don't keep it specific.

I just watched a lecture from Bart Ehrman about how the bible explains suffering, and in the question and answer period Ehrman states that he doesn't like how the “neo-atheist” literature seems to know nothing about religion, and in particular, Sam Harris makes sophomoric assertions about how religion has been the cause of all the evil. It's statements like these the illustrate to me just how big the conversation, and confusion, gets. Neither Sam nor Bart are ignorant of the topics they write about. And yes, I've read books from both of them. Sam talks explicitly about faith, not religion, and I personally feel he conveys his worries and deductions clearer than any of the so-called new atheists. You'd have to watch some of his debates to get a real sense of how articulate and to the point he is. Ehrman is a biblical scholar and has written at least 5 or 6 books about textual criticism, Judas, Mary Magdalen, and early Christianity. So essentially, you have two very well educated men who specialize in one aspect of the “religion debate,” and at least one can hint at his personal confusion with the context and specific issue the other is contending. Basically, if it can happen to them, it will happen to us.

With all of that in mind, sentences like, “the fossil record isn't reliable and disproves evolution which obviously doesn't happen given this condition during the big bang” should disappear. The Youtube links I provide give you someone specializing in biology, another in paleontology, another in astronomy, another in chemistry, so on and so forth. When I suggest a book long answer to “what came before the big bang” it is because it requires a book long answer. If someone tells me how some bible passage predicted such and such, it requires not only an appreciation for the significance and relevance of any piece of historical evidence, but also a grasp on the context the author was writing in and the history he was drawing from. After all that, you can begin to speculate on the little nuances or reasons behind the person in question giving you the answer. It is completely backwards to think that “just because he's an atheist” or “just because this is coming from someone labeled scientist” that something is credible or not. The whole point of evidence and rational discourse is to give you an ability to understand and judge the facts for what they are, not come in with prima facie conjectures about someone's motivation.

Say I make a stab at the corruption in religion by pointing to someone like Benny Hinn. An example of a pointless and empty response would be, “You know Nick, not all religious people are like that.” If I discuss the historical context and origin of a specific passage that say Joel Osteen recites, the useless response, “Don't you see that it's just making them happy and isn't harming anyone,” is not only wrong, but would completely miss the point. If you want to discuss fossils, we'll discuss fossils. If you think you have the one-two punch prophecy, we'll tackle prophecy. I'll even struggle through my meager understanding of space science if that's where your questions lie. Or, call me a dreamer, say you read and retain anything from a book I suggest, we can focus on one or more of the themes of that book. Not only will keeping things clear keep me sane, but it will aide you in your understanding. I'm quick to point to videos and books because I don't want to risk me confusing things, when I know the better source who laid it out in clearer terms I could grasp. It can, and does, get overwhelming if your not prepared.

4 comments

Updated about 2 months ago

Cara Zimmerman (Chicago, IL) wroteat 2:22pm on August 28th, 2008 Let me see them old and embarrassing blogs. Report - Delete

Nick P. wroteat 3:34pm on August 28th, 2008 nah Delete

Cara Zimmerman (Chicago, IL) wroteat 6:56pm on August 28th, 2008 Hey, you offered. Report - Delete

Nick P. wroteat 6:57pm on August 28th, 2008 If the situation becomes that desperate, not just something I had out for fun.