The book Trial of beliefs is about the origins of a belief system, the organized use of a belief, the motives and intent.
Before beginning the prosecution brings this observation, there is a street in Austin, Texas called Braker Lane.
A short distance of less then a quarter of a mile from where it intersects with interstate highway 35 is an elementary school.
On the right hand side when facing the front entrance of this school on the same side of the street is a church.
On the left opposite side of this school is the minister’s house and another church.
Directly across the street is a pre-school child care bible study class.
Travel along this same road for yet another block and you’ll find one more public school a middle school.
Next to it on the same side of the road is another church.
This begs the question of which came first the chicken or the egg?
Perhaps the single greatest failing in religion which is equally revealing about religion is its hypocrisy in its selective example of and in its over use of its claims of morality, revealing about this hypocrisy is in how it selects its abominations and over looks its examples of prejudice in those selections.
Its denial of human kinds own ability to reason and its desires to have no questioning about its selective conclusions of people.
This is a highly dangerous use of a belief, dangerous in that it allows a resting place for an excused justified reason to hold prejudice and even bigotry towards others.
The history of this wrongful ethic and use is littered in that history, the roles in relationships, the role of each sex, the one religion being better then the other, this is an open invitation to justify and even hide the truth about a person.
It will excuse an action of intolerance and even a bigotry behind an idea of a creator of it all and claims it and it only may speak for it.
The hypocrisy of claiming a creator of it all and then selecting which parts it may chose as having been created wrong example its excused reasoning in prejudice.
It can not claim a creator of it all then select parts created wrong, that is placing itself in judgment of and even above the creator it claims created it.
It can not claim a higher morality and excuse an action of injustice,it can not claim a creation of a mind then tell it to not question or learn or use this mind.
It can not claim a religion as being better then another religion that believes in this same god and then claim no prejudice or intolerance of others.
It can not say to not judge then judge.
It can not claim a person born as a son of this god then place the son above the father and claim all other belief's that do not place this father god above the son as being wrong or even right.
It can not say an earthquake is the result of wrongful lifestyles then say the earthquake that may happen where they are is just a natural event.
Each example of selective judgments only give great weight of evidence of it not being a belief but a use of it to deny and justify a prejudice, a self denial of the reality of ones self.
The mind is not a hat rack or a knob to balance the body.
When the origins of law throughout history are examined the conclusions begin to become more evident.
Law is after all a punishment for something a civilization considers to be an intolerable act or action.
Evolved law understands the concept of being innocent before proven guilty.
In religion one is guilty by non-submission.
This is exampled in religions long history of no questions shall be asked about it.
This is exampled in people who can not tolerate any thing different then themselves.
This is exampled in the known nature of human kind's intolerance at times of others.
What kind of a God would create a world of such vast difference only so its creation may judge selective parts of it as being wrong?
Of course no God would be that insane.
What kind of a God would kill off a child then have someone say god took it to a better place?
Of course no god would be so insane to murder to teach a lesson to not murder?
Evidence of use to excuse is exampled in its long endless preaching of the end of the world and only a select few who have submitted shall live on in a better place and all those who have not submitted shall exist in an endless hell.
That is an extreme example of an excused justified prejudice of all that vast differences in life that have always existed.
Religion could be summed up as a person standing fearfully in a dark room imagining what is in it and refusing to turn the light switch on to see what is really in it.
We have always existed in a heaven called earth and we have created the hell in it.
There is a motive,Trial of Beliefs examines this motive,reasons and the intent.
The trial is about "how","why",and for what motives?
The trial examines this,places it before the court of humanity as for its purpose,its known use and the human motivational denials contained within this motive.
The fears,the insecurities of human kind,its prejudices,its intolerence of non-conformity.
The evidence that is presented is self evident in our daily lives, We have all at times felt them,witness it.
The old saying "To know God is to know yourself,does not mean to know of a God or to be a God,it means to know yourself is to know of others"
The Trial is centered around the reality of that statement.
How one views others is a reflection of who they are.
There is more to the saying "birds of a feather flock together" then the fact that birds fly.
One might wonder what any of this has to do with organized religion or religions themselves?
Nothing at all until it is preached.
This is the Trial its evidence is overwelming.
In the game of poker the term "Tell" means the actions of a player while in a hand often reveal what they are holding, some of the "tells" are how fast they may be beating,how often they fold a hand or the position they are at before they make a bet,
Religion and how people use them has a great many "tells".
Trial of beliefs askes its jury of readers to examine those "tells"
It asks of the jury to reach a verdict as to the evidence of the truth of those "tells"
The debate of science or evolution verse a religion is a false debate that hides within its the motive.
If a religion claims a God creator of it all, then this debate is a debate of a submission to religion and is not a debate of a god creator verses evolution or science.
How is this?
If there be a God whose requirements of its creation is to obey or suffer the consequences of defiance would have never permitted a language or the development of the written word or the use of mathematics.
The very fact of a language brings questions, “How are you today”: “How did you do this or that?” “How did you catch that fish?” “How did you make that wheel and where did you get the idea from?” “If we all get together we can built this or protect yourselves from that?”
Every single inch, every single moment of the human race, every single concept is a language.
All of the history of the human race has been this language of learning.
Every single second of human existence has been an exorcized example of this absolute fact.
The entire natural world that has always existed has been an exorcized example of learning.
If nothing were to be asked. Or questioned there is no purpose for a creation or evolution of a creative pondering mind.
No arts, no music, no building, no civilizations, no dreams. Only an organism of duplication of parts all resembling each other, all laboring at the same tasks for the same ends.
No language other then a mindless signal of what to do, a simple signal to do the same simple tacks.
A religion that is denial of this absolute example of language, of thought can not be at any point a God belief.
The very existence of its own texts of written words examples this un-questionable existence of how language is used.
The hypocrisy of its denial of thought that selects any thoughts of question as a blasphemy betrays its motive, its intent as being illustrations of a prejudicial intolerant view of any non-submission to its selective wisdom of how all life and lifestyle must be.
An organized organization created from the mind of humans to excuse its intolerance of others.
It denies its very examples of the creativeness of language, while preaching a blasphemy of any other creative use of the mind.
The target of the debate is not and has never been about science or evolution verse a God belief or no God belief.
It is about the organized miss use of a belief be that belief a God one or no God one.
Tweet
