Satisfactory Excuses From God or Man?
The other day, a friend and I discussed a common issue: the unsatisfactory excuses offered by religious individuals when confronted with contradictions in their beliefs.
Consider the commandment "Thou shalt not kill," a central tenet in both Christianity and Judaism. History reveals countless instances where believers have engaged in killing, often justifying their actions through interpretations that contradict this fundamental law.
When this contradiction is pointed out, many religious people become defensive, offering justifications that seem to undermine the absolute nature of the commandment. But the reality is, either killing is permissible or it's not. A divine law shouldn't be subject to human interpretation or situational exceptions.
If the commandment were truly absolute, it would logically preclude believers from participating in any activity that could potentially lead to killing, including military service. Yet, many religious individuals find ways to reconcile their faith with such activities.
This raises a critical question: How can one truly believe in the divine origin of their holy books while simultaneously justifying actions that violate their explicit commands? If these texts represent the "law of the land," shouldn't adherence be unwavering and unquestioning?
Of course, some might argue that other passages within religious texts provide exceptions or justifications for killing. However, this introduces the problem of contradictions within the supposedly infallible word of God.
Contradictions create confusion and ambiguity, undermining the clarity that should be expected from divine instruction. This leads to the question of authorship: Were these texts truly inspired by an infallible God, or are they products of human imagination, prone to error and inconsistency?
A truly infallible God would presumably provide clear, unambiguous guidance without internal contradictions. The presence of such contradictions suggests either a fallible God or human authorship with all its inherent limitations.
This leaves us with a profound question: Are we following divine mandates or human interpretations? The answer may be more human than many believers are willing to admit.
Back To Home Page