How I feel about the holy scriptures . . .

How I feel about the holy scriptures . . .

The good passages of the Abrahamic scriptures are much like the goodness of=
 Aesop=E2=80=99s Fables; however, the bad passages of the Abrahamic scriptu=
res are much like the badness of Homer=E2=80=99s Iliad. Unfortunately, whil=
e some societies say that a particular set of scriptures is perfect, not on=
ly is the story therein are often mythological or legendary when compared t=
o logical or scientific truth, but the morals and ethics contained therein =
also lack normal, logical continuity. Traditional theology tends to claim t=
hat each set of these scriptures reiterates absolute morality, but each set=
 of Abrahamic scriptures is too inconsistent for them to reiterate even obj=
ective morality much less absolute morality. It could also be said that if =
every passage of the Abrahamic scriptures were true, then God and Satan wou=
ld be some type of weird entities that have too much power like the spooky,=
 creepy, and insidious entities that were sometimes portrayed on the classi=
c television show known as =E2=80=9CThe Twilight Zone.=E2=80=9D No belief s=
ystem, or anything else, for that matter should be defended, maintained, or=
 eliminated through an appeal to consequences or authority based on the per=
verse use of force. Just remember, most people base their belief systems up=
on what the society around them teaches, even if the sum of their beliefs d=
on=E2=80=99t really make any sense. It is ironic that when humanity was you=
nger, people had less non-violent wisdom with weapons of much more limited =
destructive capacity, but in modern times, the reverse is true: People have=
 more non-violent wisdom, but with weapons of greater destructive capacity.

It could be said that fundamentalists, especially their extremists, are usu=
ally motivated by four factors: a hyper-religious complex, a self-referenti=
al complex, a liberation complex, and a persecution complex. Fundamentalism=
 was originally defined by Christians who believe that the Holy Bible is au=
thoritative and inerrant and is primarily meant to be interpreted literally=
 and intratextuality, to the point of literally interpreting scripture with=
 scripture. Instead of inconsistencies in the Holy Bible being interpreted =
as man-made contradictory errors, they go by the letter of what the text sa=
ys and then extrapolate what they believe that the meaning of the text is b=
ased on harmonizing the inconsistencies therein. This process could be desc=
ribed as a circular logic process. And it could be said that there are fund=
amentalists of the like within Judaism and Islam that do the exact same thi=
ng with their own set of holy scriptures. Please note that while some funda=
mentalists of the Abrahamic religions have their endearing qualities, they =
are not well liked by the masses due to the prejudiced behavior that they t=
end to exhibit and due to their cult-like tendencies. As a side effect of a=
 fundamentalist approach to any inconsistencies in its respective holy scri=
ptures, crises of faith are more likely to occur than in more moderate form=
s of religion and in more church-centered (or synagogue-centered or mosque-=
centered) forms of religion.

Much like some people refuse to associate with works of art that have macab=
re and even criminal themes because those detractors believe that said work=
s of art are produced to be taken literally and seriously: I prefer not to =
directly associate with the scriptural perfection doctrine from the Abraham=
ic religions, scientific and historical concerns notwithstanding, because i=
t appears to endorse human rights law violations and humanitarian law viola=
tions, even if most people don=E2=80=99t take that content seriously. And i=
f a people do not aspire to minimize the moral cost of waging war, up to an=
d including genocide, then they themselves and their own families and child=
ren might become victims of their own devices in the form of precedent and =
retaliation.

The truth is that the whole of each of the Abrahamic scriptures are irratio=
nal, not just when compared to scientific fact, but also in terms of morals=
, and that in the end people make their own choices and are responsible for=
 their own choices, whether those choices are ill-informed or not. And fund=
amentalists do not just take an authoritarian approach to the holy scriptur=
es, but they also take the approach that most of its contents are logical o=
r that there is otherwise a logical reason for all its contents. Thus, with=
 fundamentalism, extrapolation or symbolism is the exception to the rule, n=
ot the norm. The primary problem with the fundamentalist approach to the Ab=
rahamic religious scriptures is not merely that of the temptation for wanto=
n and gratuitous violence, but in the potential and reality of imperatives =
to engage in exactly that kind of behavior. To paraphrase an old English pr=
overb: =E2=80=9Cyou can lead a horse to some water, but you cannot make him=
 drink from it.=E2=80=9D

Of course, the key difference is that common works of art are not by any me=
ans authoritative, whereas religion typically is authoritative. It is far-f=
etched enough to have blind faith in a book, but it is even more far-fetche=
d to also have blind faith in a particular interpretation of that book. Unf=
ortunately, the fact that society highly values the Abrahamic scriptures, a=
nd puts them on a very high pedestal, creates one too many ethical dilemmas=
. The cruel paradox here is that although it is sacrilegious in modern time=
s to quote the Abrahamic scriptures to commit unspeakable acts, it is also =
sacrilegious to dispute the holiness or relevancy of any of the passages th=
ereof that naturally lend themselves to such acts. It is as if religious so=
ciety is not only asking people to be benevolent, which in and of itself is=
 normal, but to also abandon logic in the process of doing so, which is not=
 normal, all so that the holy scriptures and its contents are not questione=
d whatsoever, which is the epitome of the logical fallacy known as =E2=80=
=9Cspecial pleading=E2=80=9D. The ethical dilemma is that if you cite passa=
ges like those below with the intent to solicit people to reject believing =
that those holy books are perfect:

=E2=80=A2	The passages in question will simply be regarded as applicable to=
 the story that the scriptures convey that took place long ago, but as no l=
onger applicable today.
=E2=80=A2	If you are dealing with a believer who believes that his or her r=
espective scriptures is benevolent no matter what, he or she might deny the=
 passages that you cite that conflict with that belief as part of the scrip=
tures and attribute those passages as though they were purely of your own c=
reation, or were somehow taken out of context as a propagandistic statement=
 without any actual evidence, and thus attributing malice to your own words=
 that aren=E2=80=99t actually there.
=E2=80=A2	If you are dealing with a religious fanatic, he or she might turn=
 to religiously motivated, ideological terrorism because of citing those pa=
ssages or such passages will simply cement his or her belief in religiously=
 motivated, ideological terrorism.
=E2=80=A2	On the other hand, if you all-together refuse to cite those passa=
ges with the intent to solicit people to reject believing that those holy b=
ooks are perfect at all, you might miss the chance to deconvert some believ=
ers from believing that the holy books that have those passages in them are=
 totally perfect, while also missing the chance to prevent some people from=
 being swayed into believing that those holy books are perfect, thereby pot=
entially preventing a sizable amount of religiously-motivated, ideological =
terrorism.