ExChristian.Net - Articles

2010-02-21T13:48:00.008-05:00

Faith In Hearsay

2010-02-04T03:40:00.000-05:00

By WizenedSage

Image by ajschu via Flickr

Christian, your faith is not really in god and Jesus. Your faith is really in those men who wrote those ancient texts that now comprise the Bible. Now I’m not going to ask you to believe anything without providing evidence; I wouldn’t insult your intelligence that way. But let me show you the other side of this “faith” coin.

Let me repeat my thesis; your faith is really in those men who wrote those ancient texts. This is a very important point which, I’ll wager, you have never seriously analyzed. As you well know, you learned about god and Jesus from another human who told you about them. God and Jesus did not just appear to you. Someone told you about them, and you may have learned more by reading about them in the Bible and other books. This is what our courts call hearsay evidence, which can be defined as “evidence based not on a witness' personal knowledge but on another's statement.” It’s all about what other people have said or written. There’s nothing out in the world that we can all see together or test with instruments and come to the same conclusions about (this is why there have been so many gods claimed to exist). It is vitally important that you recognize that all anyone today really “knows” about god or Jesus is based on what was written by primitive people that you never met and know almost nothing about.

Neither god nor Jesus has ever shown himself to you directly in an unambiguous way. You may have had feelings, but feelings are just emotions and the only thing emotions can prove is that you’re human. When the Muslim says he has felt the presence of Mohamed, are you convinced? Couldn’t it just be a shot of adrenaline in his brain that caused his skin to tingle and the hairs on his neck to rise? Couldn’t that explain your feelings just as well? Could the Muslim suicide bomber blow himself up if he didn’t have convincing feelings? Yet, you know for certain that the Muslim is wrong about Allah and Mohamed.

You may argue that you have a “relationship” with Jesus. But how does one have a relationship with a being who has never acknowledged your existence? Have you actually seen him? Has he talked to you or left you a phone message? Is that really a relationship? Isn’t that pretty much the same kind of “relationship” I had with Marilyn Monroe when I was a teenage boy?

All you have learned about god and Jesus comes directly or indirectly from the Bible. Now how do you know these Biblical authors were telling the truth? How could you? They wrote about things that supposedly happened thousands of years ago; things that left little or no archaeological evidence, no confirmation by unbiased contemporary historians, and there are no photos, film, or DNA. And don’t just read apologist literature to prove I’m wrong here, read the other side too. You must know that the apologists only see what they want to see and ignore the rest.

And what do you really know about these Bible writers and the quality of their testimony? Can you be sure that they weren’t just drunk or eating mushrooms, or schizophrenic, prone to epileptic visions, delusional, or simply con men seeking power and influence? Do you really know for sure? How could you?

Yes, I’ve heard the story that Jesus’ disciples were willing to die for him, so that proves he was the real thing. This is really a silly argument. Jim Jones’ followers in Guyana were so convinced he was a genuine prophet that they drank the Kool-Aid. Does this make him a prophet? History is full of examples of people willing to die for things that weren’t true.

You are perfectly aware that these authors wrote some incredibly unlikely stories about things that you wouldn’t believe if you read about them in any other book. You would not believe that knowledge of good and evil could reside in a piece of fruit if you read it in any other book. And if you think those stories weren’t meant to be taken literally, then how do you know that for sure? The Bible itself never provides a clue except on those few occasions when Jesus announces he’s going to discuss a parable. And if those other wild Bible stories are just metaphors, then how can you be sure that the Resurrection was not also meant metaphorically – or heaven and hell, for that matter? Was Jesus just a metaphor? And what about god?

Obviously, everybody will draw the fact-fiction lines in different places if the Bible is full of metaphor. How could a god actually teach the facts, the truth that way? Isn’t that why there are so many different Christian sects, because everyone makes his own determination of what’s real and what’s metaphor, and what’s important and what’s not? Why would a god leave so much up for interpretation about stuff that’s vitally important, even life and death important? Wouldn’t that be rather careless for a god? Doesn’t all this suggest pretty strongly that men wrote this stuff all on their own? Wouldn’t a real god have done a much better, much clearer job of it?

If you take the Bible stories literally, then how do you hold down the doubts? Those writers wrote about talking animals and magical fruit trees and food falling from the sky and dragons and unicorns and 900 year-old men. How can you read of such things and not have serious doubts about the accuracy of those authors? Why do we never see any of these amazing things today? Did the world used to be full of magic and now it’s not? If god used these awesome signs to convince people in those ancient times, then why does he expect us to just take these writers at their word for them? If god thought he needed to show those primitive people signs, then wouldn’t it be pretty unfair of him to expect us much better educated, more skeptical people to just believe without any signs?

And surely you know that some of the things they wrote have been proven to be scientifically wrong or impossible. For example, they wrote that the world is flat (Daniel 4:10-11), but we now have pictures that prove it’s a sphere. They wrote that the earth is fixed, didn’t move (1 Chronicles 16:30), but we now know the earth moves very fast as it orbits the sun. The Bible authors wrote that all those tiny points of light called stars would someday fall to the earth, but they’re billions of objects which are all vastly bigger than the earth. They wrote that disease is caused by demons. We have since proven that disease is caused by microorganisms, congenital defects, or toxic chemicals. They wrote, “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree (22 Matthew 13:31-32).” We now know many other plant’s seeds, such as orchids, are smaller, and shrubs do not grow into trees. They also wrote about 4-legged fowl (there never were any) and rusting gold and silver (they don’t rust – never have).

These writers were obviously very ignorant about how the world really works. Isn’t it likely that they made stuff up to fill the gaps in their knowledge? In fact, haven’t we just proven that they did so, given their theories of the flat, immovable earth, tiny stars, 4-legged birds, etc.?

Of course, the Bible says you just have to have faith. But, if someone says to you, “Just take my word for it,” aren’t you suspicious? Shouldn’t you be? Doesn’t that suggest pretty strongly that he can’t make a very good case for whatever he’s selling? Don’t you suspect that he might be hiding something? This is the same tactic used to fill the mosques and Hindu places of worship, you know; people are told, “You just have to have faith.” Does it really make sense to you that a god created human intelligence and curiosity, but wants you to just shut it off when it comes to religion?

Everything that has been said or written about god or Jesus in the past 2,000 years and more is based on the writings of these ancient, unknown primitives. EVERYTHING! You see, your faith ultimately depends on these writers, one-hundred percent. Your faith is not really in god and Jesus, your faith is in these anonymous scribes and the hope that they were telling you the facts, the real truth about things. If they were wrong, then so are you. How can you have so much faith in people you never knew, people who may have been utterly whacko or devious, people who have, in fact, been proven to be wrong about so much? That is a faith with a pretty shaky foundation, isn’t it? What did those writers do to deserve such trust from you? Shouldn’t you think about this some more?

Do You Believe in Magic? (And I Hope You Don't)

2010-02-03T04:03:00.000-05:00

By Bret P

Image by garethjmsaunders via Flickr

I'll freely admit that I've become somewhat cantankerous lately. It's not that I'm an angry person, in fact I'm far from it. I laugh at life's follies, and thoroughly enjoy my existence. I am frustrated however.

Because of my past associations with various churches and living in the bible belt for ten years, a good majority of my Facebook friends are believers. There is quite a range in the levels of rationality and amicability among them, but given my fundamentalist background, it's understandable that I would have a few that are extreme on the right (some of those who are extreme are attempting to understand, so I don't want to lump them into one solid mass).

Needless to say I really can't go a day (yes I'm a Facebook addict) without seeing some kind of "praise the lord" or other wishful thinking in my news feed. This isn't really a problem in and of itself, and far be it for me to curb anyone's freedom of expression.

I'm relatively new in my committed stance on the improbability of a deity. I'm coming out of the closet so to speak, and just feel the need to break the assumption that I agree with my former associated theists.

Once in awhile I'll post something on my wall that might be a little agitating to believers, but since it's on my own page, I feel I'm within my right to express my thoughts and feelings. For me it's more about initiating discussion and raising awareness, not just to be controversial. Well I posted a status update over the weekend that got some unexpected attention:

"I wonder what our national debt would look like if churches weren't exempt from paying taxes. Hmm. We probably wouldn't have a national debt."

Now I would hope it's somewhat obvious that I intended it to be a more tongue in cheek comment about the separation of church and state, rather than a solution for our enormous national debt. Of course not everyone knows me well enough to get my humor style, but boy did I get a couple of interesting responses.

One of my very conservative friends made a joke about the government taking the money and doing nothing with it, which I thought was clever and funny. I agreed and elaborated a bit on why I made the comment in the first place. No issues there.

My thread caught the eye of the daughter of one my former pastors, and without engaging in the discussion at all, she posted "Answer not a FOOL!" in the comment thread. I felt the need to address this, as I thought it very rude and immature, but she had de-friended me. Talk about a hit and run comment. No tears shed for this loss. I think it's actually quite funny (and also sad).

What I wasn't prepared for was a rather fiery reply from a former college classmate. The details aren't all that important, but she obviously didn't understand my intent. I called her out on some of her points, to which I got an even more fiery, condescending, and very defensive reply.

What stood out was her outrage that I made a claim that the church promotes scientific illiteracy, and ranted about how she had two science degrees (bachelor's in nursing, currently working on her master's) and still believes in creationism.

I think this is pretty easy to detangle. Just because someone understands how the body works, doesn't mean that they understand (or need to believe) the documented evidence of how it evolved in the first place. Do I really need to list the evidence for evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang?

This person may be scientifically literate in the function of the human body, but failed on a fundamental level to apply scientific methods and principles to her own belief system. Since she is a self proclaimed believer in creationism, it's safe to assume that she believes in magic.

God magically created humans. God magically concocted the Genesis flood (by all scientific accounts, the whole story is absolutely absurd). Snakes and donkeys talk, bodies of water part into walls, a virgin was impregnated by a spirit, a man comes back from the dead, and an invisible spirit dwells and manifests itself in humans. The list goes on and on (which I'm sure most anyone who reads this is more than familiar).

Of course it's very likely that I may be de-friended when this gets published. I won't deny that there is commendable charity work being done by religious institutions, and for that specific work I believe that tax exemption is valid.

What I have a problem with is that these institutions have no reasonable evidence for their claims and beliefs, yet they use tax free money to proselytize, advertise, and exert influence on politics. This is a HUGE violation of the establishment clause in the first amendment of the constitution.

I'd absolutely love it if I could put on a concert and rant my ideals to a willing audience, and take up donations tax free. I understand why there was such fiery backlash as the Christian right gets quite defensive when their tax exempt status is threatened (and I'm severely skeptical that my Facebook comment has the power to do this).

Christians seem to be all for free speech, until someone criticizes their claims and status. I shouldn't be surprised how my rather benign observation created such a fired up response, but I am.

Everyone has the right to believe what they want, and I fully support that right. I also exercise the right to criticize claims of magic (even if it's disguised as miraculous events caused by almighty god). I find it far more inspiring to explore and try to understand the wonders of the universe than to be awed by anecdotes of magic. Even in disagreement may we continue to discuss, debate, and express our opinions in a civil and intellectually honest manner.

Deprogramming the Deprogrammer

2010-02-02T04:23:00.004-05:00

By Dealdoctor

Image by Chicago Man via Flickr

As you read the material below which I found at some website that probably has a Christian bias and defines a “cult” as something other than Christianity. As an Ex-Christian you might find something enlightening in the fact that Christianity is obviously a “cult” itself and there is a bit of humor in those in a “cult” seeking to deprogram someone who is entrapped in a “cult”. The de-conversion process is nothing other than being deprogrammed from the Christian “cult” in the same way that Christians want their “wayward members” who have fallen into the clutches of an evil “cult” to be deprogrammed. It might be interesting as you go through the process of de-conversion out of Christianity or as you reflect on your own de-conversion out of Christianity think about what that that adventure has in common with the instruction given at ehow.com to those who want to learn how to deprogram a religious “cult” member. I will put a few comments of my own in CAPS and you might think what comments you might have made to this article.

How to Deprogram a Religious Cult Member

Deprogramming of religious cult members is a controversial topic, primarily because it is often done without the consent of the cult member. Families of cult members often resort to kidnapping them to get them away from the group. If you feel you have no choice but to deprogram a loved one who has joined a cult, be sure to use the help of a professional exit counselor.

Step 1
Isolate the cult member from the group and bring them to a safe and secure place.

DID YOU NEED TO GET OUT OF THE CHURCH TO HELP YOU HAVE A CLEAR PERSPECTIVE THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT IF YOU WERE THERE EVERY WEEK?

Step 2
Use a professional counselor to conduct exit The counselor will spend the entire first day trying to get the cult member to think through the reasons he joined the religious cult.

DID YOU NEED TO HAVE SOMEONE WITH A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE THAT CHANLLENGED THE STANDARD CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW ENTER YOUR LIFE?

Step 3
View video tapes with the cult member about other religious or political mind controlling groups. Discuss these groups and the reasons the members followed them.

DID YOU BEGIN TO SEE THAT CHRISTIANITY HAD MUCH IN COMMON WITH OTHER GROUPS UNDER THE SPELL OF DOGMA AND SUPERSITION?

Step 4
Show the cult member evidence, such as newspaper articles, of her organization being a cult. Allow the member to challenge the evidence. Discuss the subject until it is somewhat resolved.

DID READING MATERIAL THAT CHALLENGED THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW HAVE A PART IN YOUR COURGE TO SAY GOOD-BYE?

Step 5
Discuss what the member feels is right and wrong about his organization. Read passages from the Bible that contradict what the cult leaders have said. Talk about how the leaders lied to and misled the members.

I FIND FUNNY HERE THAT THE BIBLE IS TO BE CONSULTED TO PROVE THAT THE CULT IS NOT SO GOOD FOR SOMONE. WHAT ABOUT THE ATHIEST PRINCES VOLTAIRE AND INGERSOLL?

Step 6
Ask the cult member if he is ready to make a decision regarding future involvement with the religious cult on the third or fourth day of deprogramming. Often by now he is ready to choose not to return to the cult.

WAS THERE A DAY OF DECISION FOR YOU WHEN YOU LEFT THE ADULT SANTA JESUS IN THE SAME WAY YOU LEFT THE CHILDHOOD SANTA? DID A DAY OF RECONING COME FOR YOU IN WHICH YOU MADE A CHOICE TO LET GO?

Step 7
Provide a safe place for the ex-cult member to stay. Follow up contact with the exit counselor is an important step in the deprogramming to help her to stay strong in her conviction not to return to the organization.

HAVE YOU FOUND A SAFE PLACE TO BE A NON-BELIEVER?

How to Identify Cults

Instructions

Step 1
Watch for changes in the individual's personality and a growing estrangement from or even hostility towards family and friends. Cult members are discouraged from remaining in contact with former associates who might cause them to doubt the teachings and practices of the cult. Members are indoctrinated to distrust anyone who criticizes the cult or leader(s).

DO YOU MEAN HOW THOSE BORN AGAIN ARE IN CHURCH EVERY TIME THE DOORS ARE OPEN AND NO LONGER HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEIR OLD SECULAR FRIENDS?

Step 2
Be aware. Cult members are often convinced to contribute all of their money and goods to the cult as a sign of their commitment. There is a strong emphasis on collecting money, which is often made by selling goods to the public and then donating it to the cult as part of their ministry. They spend much time recruiting other members, which they do by preying on their emotions.

DO YOU MEAN LIKE THE EARLY CHRISTIANS TOOK ALL THEIR POSESSIONS AND LAID THEM AT THE FEET OF THE APOSTLES OR HOW MODERN CHRISTIANS TITHE? OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE CHURCH BAKE SALES AND RUMMAGE SALES. COULD YOU POSSIBLY MEAN HOW CHRISTIANS TRY TO EVANGELIZE EVERYTHING THAT BREATHES? BUT OF COURSE NOT THAT WOULD BE “CULT”.

Step 3
Recognize the lack of control over the member's private life. Cult leaders monopolize the member's time and relationships, cultivating complete dependence on themselves and the cult. Members are taught to distrust anyone outside the cult and are discouraged from reading any material except what is provided or approved by the cult. Marriges and living arrangements (usually communal living) are dictated by cult leaders.

DO YOU MEAN HOW CHRISTIANS ARE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT HOW COOL THEIR PASTOR IS OR HOW THEY SPEND ALL THEIR SPARE TIME AT THE CHURCH, WORKING TO EVANGELIZE FOR THE CHURCH OR HOW EVEN THEIR MARRIAGES HAVE TO BE CONFIRMED AT THE CHURCH?

Step 4
Note that cult members are discouraged from thinking for themselves. They are given little or no time alone and are constantly engaged in physical or group activities. They are engaged in mind altering behaviors, such as chanting, denunciation of selves and others and encouraged to report suspicious behaviors of other cult members, including their own families. Shame and fear of alienation cements their dependence on the cult.

DISCOURAGED FROM THINKING FOR THEMSEVES? WELL “CULTS” SURE BUT THE CHURCH REALLY IS ALL ABOUT FREE THINKING, RIGHT? (GRIN). SHEESH!

Step 5
Notice the unquestioning dedication which cult followers exhibit towards their leader. They learn to rationalize his behaviors even if these contradict previously held beliefs or common sense. They believe happiness and redemption comes solely from their leader(s) and they will sacrifice nearly everything for the benefit of the cult.

DO YOU MEAN HOW CHRISTIANS IDOLIZE JESUS? OR HOW THEY IDOLIZE THEIR PASTORS? I AM UNSURE JUST WHAT CONNECTION I SHOULD MAKE HERE?

Step 6
Keep in mind that forcing or coercing a member to leave a cult can cause psychological and emotional damage. They have been programmed to believe God will punish them if they leave, and threats are used to force them to maintain silence about cult activities. It is necessary to get help from a professional deprogrammer and assure that they are kept away from other active cult members.

OH, YOU MEAN HOW CHRISTIANS ARE MADE TO FEAR HELL IF THEY LEAVE THE CHURCH OR HOW THEIR OWN FAMILIES GIVE THEM HELL IF THEY QUESTION CHRISTIANITY? NO? WELL OF COURSE NOT THAT WOJLD MAKE CHRISTIANITY ITSELF JUST ONE MORE CULT!

Gosh, we better get serious about getting folks out of those horrible “cults” and back in the church pews where they belong. Is that why they call it Christian CULTure? I think there needs to be someone who is out there to deprogram the deprogrammer. How about you?

Does Christianity Deserve the Respect it Demands?

2010-01-31T22:21:00.000-05:00

By Bret P

Image by Wellington Grey via Flickr

Christians seem to whine a lot about how they're ridiculed and disrespected in the media, and how this fallen world is somehow persecuting them. I think it's an absolutely laughable claim, especially here in the United States where Christians have far more influence on public and foreign policy than they should.

Now of course there is a spectrum of attitude among the entire Christian community, but I think it's safe to say among the evangelical (basically Protestant non-liturgical) denominations they believe they're being portrayed unfairly by a liberal, intellectually elite media (insert laugh about Fox News here).

Here's a list of my top 10 reasons (listed in no particular order) why Christianity shouldn't be given the respect it demands (and in many cases, should be ridiculed):

• Suspension of Critical Thought - Have "faith like a child" and "lean not on your own understanding". Basically, don't think for yourself, and if you question any logical fallacy, your pastor and fellow flock members can give you plenty of explanations.

• Promotion of Scientific Illiteracy - Evolutionary biology in it's entirety is as much a fact as the earth's orbit around the sun. It's not a matter of opinion, and there is no "alternative" explanation. The bible is not by default correct, nor does it have the authority to trump scientific evidence. Humans were not "created", and it's unlikely that some unseen intelligence put everything into motion (and if you have some tangible evidence to the contrary that is testable, replicable, and not from scripture, I'd love to see it).

• Willful Ignorance and Mistrust of the Scientific Community - When I've asked Christians to define the theories they oppose (evolution, abiogenesis, and universe origins), it's clear that they don't understand them (or the scientific method for that matter). When I offer resources to clarify the theories (with evidence), the usual response is "I'm too busy", or an outright "I don't care to know, and wouldn't believe it if I did see it".

• Intricate Maneuvering of Tough Questions - Ask a Christian the tough questions about contradictions, the suspicious origins, historical inaccuracies, and downright absurdities of the bible, the nature of god, and so on. Most likely you'll get a wide range of parroted responses that are rather elaborate, and in turn create more questions than answers. If it were all true, wouldn't it be pretty simple and straightforward?

• Blatant Dishonesty - Creationist propaganda alone is enough to prove the point. There's no way around it; creation apologists blatantly lie without excuse. What does the scientific community have to gain by lying about its evidence and theories? Nothing! A better understanding of our world helps us make progress, and it improves our quality of life. What do creationists (and subsequently churches) have to lose? A whole lot of tithing, that's what. There's also blatant political propaganda on which party you should vote for (ever so subtle), that gays and lesbians are detrimental to family values, and that our wars are justified because we have god on our side to help us eradicate evil.

• Extraordinary Claims - Do I really have to present the long list of absurdity? To believe in any of it, your critical thought process has to pretty much be eliminated. Christianity claims to factually know the origins of the universe, the earth, life on the planet, and ultimately the future of humankind without sufficient tangible evidence. Christianity also rejects any reasonable argument and tangible evidence against their claims, while demanding respect. And apologists say non-believers are arrogant and closed minded?

• Repulsive Attitudes - What is god's obsession with blood? For millennia he required blood sacrifices for atonement of sin. Of course the ultimate blood sacrifice of Jesus was a human one (and it changed all the rules!). How is a bloodthirsty god who accepts human sacrifice (if you look in the old testament, there are plenty of other human sacrifices) better than any other god? And why does god need to sacrifice Jesus (who is also himself) to appease himself when he created humanity fallible in the first place? Also checkout the long list of atrocities (rape, genocide, slavery) that are condoned (no matter which testament you read).

• Cherry Picking Theology - As we become more civilized, the bible becomes less palatable, but apologists will continue to preach the divinely inspired universal truth of the bible, frequently claiming the new testament trumps the old. The good things Jesus said (like the Beatitudes) are highlighted, but you forget that Jesus is also god (and the same god of the old testament). As mentioned above, that old testament god condoned slavery, rape, and genocide (and within any context is repulsive). Even Jesus condoned (not condemned) slavery. Yes, Jesus was passionate about his ideals (that were well ahead of his time), but he also had a lot of crackpot ideas that most modern Christians don't follow (like abandoning your family, killing people who deny Christ, selling your home and all worldly possessions to give to the poor).

• Atonement - God created humans, knowing that they weren't going to be perfect. When the first humans sin, all subsequent generations are cursed because of this. So basically you're born a rotten human being, repulsive in god's eyes, but he loves you so much, you just have to believe in Jesus so that he won't have to torment you in hell for all eternity. That really can't be good for anyone's self esteem.

• Absurd Worldview - Christians are apparently not citizens of this world, as it's just a temporary place to prepare for the afterlife. Why bother making this world a better place for humanity when it's all going to be destroyed soon once the rapture happens and the apocalypse destroys the planet? I know from personal experience that most evangelical Christians view a global economy and government as a sign of the antichrist appearing. It explains why so many Americans (dominated by Christian ideals) are notoriously opposed to globalization (although you'd think they'd be all for it, if it would speed up Christ's return). Personally, I'd like to see the evidence for an afterlife. Modern science shows us that there's no reason to believe that consciousness continues after our brains die (because the mind is the function of the brain).

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I just think it's amusing to list some of these things. I'm surrounded by people who believe this stuff, but of course I do not deny their right to do so, nor do I devalue them as human beings. Nonetheless, it shouldn't come as a surprise when the media ridicules, criticizes or portrays Christianity in a less than favorable light.

And on that note, I would like to make a final point. Christianity tends to ridicule it's Mormon and Jehovah's Witness cousins (like the kooky family members no one likes to talk about it), although they unite on the political front. I think the cult spawns of Christianity are slightly more absurd, but Christians really shouldn't throw stones. Christianity is just as ridiculous, it just has a larger following.

"Good Christians" with non-working noses

2010-01-31T07:33:00.001-05:00

By summerbreeze

Image by maxgiani via Flickr

Listening to the news about Haiti, and hearing the News Commentators talk about "the stench of death", revived a memory of what my Dad had said about his service in WW II. He had fought in the Battle of The Bulge, among other battles, and told us several times about how once you smell a decaying or burning body, you instantly know that it is human, and you never forget that smell. Dad was a very sensitive man, and you could see that even decades after-the-fact he was still disturbed by it.

There's a reason that I'm bringing up this unpleasant subject.

Over two decades ago, my husband was an Army Officer and we lived in Central Germany "off post" in a rented house among the German people.

While living there, we used to love to spend every week-end exploring German history from Castles to Concentration Camps. We're both History Buffs in a big way.

On a days' visit to Dachau, I was struck by the close proximity of the town of Dachau to the Concentration Camp. It is only three kilometers between the city's train station and the camp.

I clearly remember thinking as I looked over at the town... "Those people could see from their 3rd-story windows what was going on." Not only could they see, but they also surely could have smelled as well, and that thought was very unsettling.

As we went through the gates at the Concentration Camp, my oldest daughter said "Mommy I don't like this place." I'm sure that she picked up on our somber vibes.

Looking through the lens as an atheist now, I wonder about the mind-set of the average religious person living in Dachau at that time. Catholicism and Nazism had a complicated relationship, and nearly every person in the Nazi hierarchy had been or was a Catholic. Hitler himself was a Catholic (in spite of how Catholic's today denying it), although he also was anticlerical. I'm not saying that every single Catholic endorsed the Nazi Party, just that a large percentage ignored the atrocities.

I have a tremendous respect and awe for the courage that some average Germans had in WWII to save Jews by sheltering them or helping to secretly relocate them. Obviously these single acts of heroism show that a 'higher thinking' was able to transcend centuries of Antisemitism that had been spewed from every pulpit.

I had a German friend in my neighborhood there who was open-minded, and I guess I could describe her as an agnostic. She told me that her parents, grand-parents, etc., as far back as she could remember, sincerely believing that the Jews were "the Christ killers."

Had the Vatican spoken out so much more forcefully, and more often, would the result of the "final solution" been different? Me thinks that in their eyes, that would have meant acknowledging that just perhaps, they may have been wrong about the "Christ killers" package that they'd been delivering to Catholics for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Just how deep does the delusion, the self-brainwashing, and the hatred have to be when it takes precedence over the natural, in-born human compassion we all share ?

After our U.S. troops liberated Dachau, several of our soldiers were so horrified and repulsed by what they saw, the bodies piled high, the gas chambers and the walking corpses, that they opened fire on many of the guards there. Could you blame them ?

Our troops also went into the City of Dachau and rounded up the citizens and forced them to look at the horror inside the camp. I remember seeing pictures of the local men and women with wide-eyed "disbelief" on their faces.....then our troops forced the citizens to help clean up the camp---BRAVO !

At that point, I'm wondering just how many of them gave a sober, hard look at their belief and perhaps wondered just how one can believe such a doctrine of hate and at the same time be a loving human being.

Just as Christopher Hitchens says : "Religion Poisons Everything" ...............minds included.

Nothing Fails Like Prayer

2010-01-30T03:45:00.002-05:00

By Mriana

In previous postings I have blasphemed the Holy Spirit, God, and Jesus in various ways. This time I am going to say something about prayer, which all too many Christians seem to think that getting housemaid's knees and praying to something that does not exist really does come true. If one tries to point out that it is nothing more than the role of the dice and pure superstition, they act like they are trying to save Tinker Bell from certain death by saying, “It's true! Prayer really works. I do believe! I do believe!”

Ah! Clap if you believe in fairies!

Now I realize many Christians who visit this site will insist that prayer really works, especially if you have enough faith, but that simply is not true. It truly is a role of the dice. A form of gambling, because with or without prayer, one has a 50-50 chance of whatever.

Take for example the co-worker I have who believes and often says, “Prayer really works!” A while back she gave me a ride to Walmart so we could cash our paychecks. Now, this is the bugger about it all -- for some reason, the paychecks where we work do not clear the bank. They often bounce and if you try to go to our boss's bank, they will not cash it due to “insufficient funds.” So, we were at Walmart, and she stated she had said a prayer that they would cash it. Walmart cashed our checks and she was going on and on as to how prayer really works and that was the example she gave, saying, “See? Prayer really works!”

The people do not need to be born again. They need to grow up. They need to accept their responsibility for themselves and the world. Reality check: We had a 50-50 chance of Walmart cashing it. Plain and simple. Prayer had nothing to do with it. They either would or they would not. She did not have to say any prayer and I bet we would have had the same results.

Again, some Christians may say that she had enough faith for the both of us, but that simply is not true. I could have gone in by myself and had the same results without prayer.

I was a Christian for several years and every night I prayed the same prayer before I went to bed. It went like this:

“Dear Heavenly Father (just as I was taught), we thank you for this day and all the help you have given us. Guard us, guide us, and protect us from all evil.”

So far it is a standard prayer and probably beautiful to many Christians, but from there, I would say,

“Do not let anything or anyone in our house tonight or any other night.”

Now, before my mother started taking me to church regularly at the age of fourteen, I did not pray before going to bed and no one intruded into our home. There was no change, even after I moved out of my mother's home and prayed that. So far there has been no intruder, with or without prayer and the truth is, it is the same toss of a coin.

Reality check: As long as one locks their doors and windows before going to bed, it is less likely one will break into one's home. Prayer has nothing to do with it. To make such a request of a supernatural being is purely superstition and luck of the draw. Such a prayer is basically a throw back to the days of primitive man, before we had door locks. I think Valerie Tarico put it best when she was on Mark Mythos show and I will try to recall it from memory that best I can. She used the example of primitive man thinking there was a lion or something out there that could harm their family. If you stayed awake and you were wrong, then you lost nothing but sleep, but if you went to sleep and there was a lion around, you could lose your life and your family too. It was something like that at least. I think such a prayer fits that primitive position, but we do not live in caves or in trees anymore. We live in a modern world in which we can lock out the outside world and cut down on the risk of an intruder and if we can afford it, we can install a whole security system in our homes.

However, if someone choses to break into your home, with or without you being there, there is nothing any man-made deity can do to stop that person. Your best bet is to lock your doors and windows.

Now here is the kicker. I also prayed for my sons. I asked God,

“Please do not let my sons become involved with gangs, drugs, or crimes, and to keep them safe from all harm.”

I truly believed that God would protect them from these things and keep them from getting involved with bad things. I did not consider freewill, in part because I never knew exactly what that was and having grown up with Wesleyan doctrine, freewill was not discussed very often. So it was never actually defined.

Again, my odds were 50/50 and most of it also had to do with parenting- two parents, not just one. I took my sons to church, specifically an Episcopal Church, because I did not like Fundamentalism. While my older son grew up to be a fine [Buddhist] young man, I did not have as much luck with my younger son, who admired his father.

Mind you, I left and divorced their father when my younger son was six months old and he did not have very much involvement with them due to his own problems. However, it would seem genetics played a role in my younger son's life, because he did become involved with drugs and alcohol by the time he was 13. At this time, I was still saying that prayer and wanted to believe that God would protect him from such things, but he was slowly making a spiral down a bad path as he made bad choices in his life.

When he became involved with the Disciples, I have no clue, but he did and now he is 18, serving 60 days in jail due to a series of MIPs (Minor in possession/intoxicated), trespassing, shoplifting (alcohol), stealing, and one other charge. His bond for the trespassing alone was $5000. He was there until the judge saw him and ended up with 60 days, is ordered to go to a drug and alcohol rehab program for 28 days after he serves his time, has a large fine, and two years supervised probation.

So much for prayer.

Now one might say that it is because I stopped praying, but if that were true, then it seems to me, he would not have started when he did, because I was praying then and faith that this unseen being would take care of my sons when I was not around to know exactly what they were doing.

Reality check: We all make choices and it is our responsibility to make the right choices, even as teenagers, and young adults. My younger son made some bad choices, plain and simple, and given that his father is an alcoholic and drug addict, genes also had a role to play in the matter too. It had nothing to do with prayer.

Both my sons had a 50/50 chance of being substance abusers due to genetics. They also had more influences in their lives than just myself. The rare visits from their father was apparently just enough to influence one of them as well as they friends they chose.

To say one did not have enough faith, did not pray hard enough, or did not pray at all, is to not face reality. In this case, the reality is genetics and the choices my younger son made in his life. My wishful fairy tale prayer, irregardless of enough faith or not, had nothing to do with it.

We all have responsibility for our own lives. As the retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong has said,

“The Church doesn't like for people to grow up, because you can't control grown ups. That's why we talk about being 'Born again.' When you're born again, you're still a child. The people do not need to be born again. They need to grow up. They need to accept their responsibility for themselves and the world.” -- ref.

I find this to be true especially when one is trying to rely on the superstition of prayer too. To beg, plead, request, some parent figure in the sky to do something is not taking responsibility for yourself, especially since there is no parent figure in the sky. One is doomed to fail if they believe some parent figure in the sky will take care of everything, including their children. This simply is not true and I wish I had listened to Bishop Spong, Don Cupitt, Anthony Freeman, and other Anglican ministers like them a whole lot sooner, because maybe I would not have fallen into that trap. Of course, I probably would have left the Church a whole lot sooner too, if I had started listening sooner, because when I started listening, I started questioning, researching, and studying more than I ever did before.

The truth is, prayer is no better than meditation. It can comfort some people or it can make them more fretful and anxious. More often than not, I became more fretful and anxious when I prayed, because I would started praying for what was troubling me over and over again.

Yes, I had heard of the saying, “Let go and let God,” but I had also heard, “God helps those who help themselves,” and when I did not know what to do to help myself the anxiety kicked in even with prayer.

However, prayer, like meditation, can trigger neuro-chemistry in the brain, which can have a calming affect too. This has been seen in Buddhist monks concerning meditation, as well as Catholic nuns concerning prayer, but prayer has no affect on the outcome of reality. If it helps you relax, like relaxation techniques help others to relax, fine, but it does not do much more than that and your requests are nothing more than playing the lottery. You can pray for someone all you want, but in the end, it is they who need to take responsibility for their lives and make good choices. You praying the right way and/or to the right god has nothing to do with it and more often than not, if you put faith in prayer and your god concept in order to make people do what you desire, it will surely fail. When it comes to other people, it is not the prayer that gets them to do what you desire, whether it be to cash a check or to stay away from drugs and crime, but rather the choices they make in their lives. You also cannot make someone do what they have not chosen to do for themselves with a prayer to your god concept either. Again, they have to chose to do it and in the end, you would be better served in getting what you want by asking or seeking help from a real person.

Therefore, do not pray for me, do not pray for others, or yourselves. If you want to help others, do something besides get on your knees. If you want help for yourself, go seek help from another human being or more than one human being. Because prayer is just a crap shoot and no invisible being is going to intervene to make anyone do anything for you, themselves, or anyone else.

Disbelief in a NON-thing

2010-01-29T19:26:00.000-05:00

By dealdoctor

Image via Wikipedia

Disbelief in a NON-thing is different from disbelief in an actual thing.

When someone is a believer in the Spirit of God they rarely consider the fact that a spirit of any kind is not a defined thing. Our nouns are people, places or things which might be found and examined in the world in which we live. When we use the word “God” or “Spirit” however we may not consider that belief or disbelief in such an entity does not involve a limited person, place or thing that might be found in our world. So the word God is a very funky word. It does not work well in any context including arguments about its own existence.

What I am saying is that for most of the words we use as we speak to one another a real physical thing comes first and the word is secondary. First there is a real tree and then the word tree that refers to it. You know how could Adam name the animals (grin) if there were no animals there in the first place to be named, what sense would naming them make at all? The thing can be touched and has limited dimensions and a limited lifespan just alike all other things. To simply use a word IMPLIES that it is first real and that includes the world God. Of course there is no real Santa but be careful to use the word IMPLIES there was first a real thing to be named at all.

When we bring in “God” or “Sprit” there is no actual limited physical object that precedes the word we are using. I enjoyed reading once that someone might believe in a spiritual body but exactly what could that possibly mean? Take Casper The Friendly Ghost of TV cartoons of days gone by who could walk through doors but who could also catch a ball when it was tossed to him. Really? You can’t have it both ways. A body is limited and physical and it can catch balls or it can pass through doors untouched but doing both is really not so logical. Right? A spiritual body is not possible it is an imaginary physical body. I mean why do angels need wings anyway. Isn’t it birds in this world that need wings? See it gets really stupid.

Now what about “God”? IF God is a thing to be there then one might believe in God or not believe in God. If a horse was said to be in the barn one might believe it to be there or doubt it to be there but there would be a limited horse in a limited barn that was being evaluated for belief. With God and Spirit, since they are not limited things there is actually no PARTICUALR thing to be believed in or doubted, then believing or disbelieving in God is DIFFERENT.

Atheists quickly say, rightly, they cannot define God and the odd thing is that believers say they also cannot define God. To state any limits for God is impossible because God is NOT a limited thing to be defined to any limits. So here in that God has no DEFINITION both sides, atheist and theist, are in harmony. The Infinite does not do definition very well. God is really slippery. Ghosts seem to wear no one certain shoe size. Papa Bear’s bed might be too big ;Mama Bear’s bed too small ; but God’s bed is really neither big nor small because we are unsure what size is required for a being with no limited body. God is “infinite” and “ infinitely small” at the same time. He knows the full extent of the Universe as a grain of sand and yet is able to know the inner workings of the smallest cell. Sure. Really? Eats fire and shits ice and is going to win an Oscar for acting this year too! Anything else? If you do not need any physical evidence then you can make any statement you want. Religions do just that and then, get this friggin’ argue about who is right!

What does this have to do with us atheists anyway? Well when you do not believe in God you are an atheist. BUT the WORDING is such that one might assume too quickly that God IS something like a horse in the barn that MIGHT be there but in your case you personally do not believe is actually there in the barn due to the lack of evidence. BUT, if God is NOT a thing that should even have a word assigned to it in the first place then someone would be an idiot to believe in God. If there is no tree then to believe that the word tree means anything is just plain stupid. IF this is so, and it is, not believing in God is different from not believing in the horse in the barn. The horse is a real thing that might be there or not. God however never was a real thing to begin with and saying words will never make God real. To be an atheist is to be someone who does not believe in something that is actually nothing at all.

This atheism we have is a different kind of disbelief than ordinary disbelief. Atheism, properly understood has no THING at all in which it does not believe. It is a NOTing of something that NEVER WAS in the first place . I do not believe in Round Squares . I also do not believe in the content of what rocks dream about when they are asleep. Let the word “God “become as empty of content as a thought of a rock when it is asleep. If someone DOES however believe in such things as round squares and the thoughts of sleeping rocks it is up to them to bring forth such things as they claim to be real from their non existence in their own imagination into the very light of day! If someone believes in a yesterday that is coming up next week, well, you get the idea. Such people make about as much sense as round squares, the thoughts of sleeping rocks, fat-skinny people and “God”.

If we do not believe in “God “let’s make sure this “God” we do not believe in not only is a thing that is not real for us but never is a “thing” that never could actually ever BE just like an the word up which could actually never mean down. When the WORD “God” is properly examined and found to be no real definable thing disbelief in any real thing represented by that word God is the only sane position.

Moses - revisited!

2010-01-29T04:27:00.000-05:00

By James C

Image by Loci Lenar via Flickr

Just about everyone has some knowledge of Moses, be it from the Bible, the Qur'an, or movies. A historical figure, credited with leading the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt as well as reputedly being the author of the first few books of the bible and famous enough that he is mentioned more times in the New Testament than any other Old Testament character; and is the most mentioned name in the Qur'an.

You know the story... as a newborn, placed in a basket in the river to save him from Pharaoh’s death sentence on Hebrew babies (shades of future Herod). Then saved and adopted by the Pharaoh’s daughter and raised in the palace. Later, kills an Egyptian for "smiting a Hebrew" and flees to Midian where he chances upon the seven daughters of Reuel, a Midian priest. He helped them withstand some unfriendly shepherds and then assisted them in watering their father's flock. When Reuel hears this he gives his daughter Zipporah as a wife (that's faster than online dating!). But there's a slight problem. In Exodus 2 (supposedly written by Moses himself) his father-in-law was Reuel as mentioned above. But in Ex 3, 4 & 18 it's supposedly Jethro... and over in Numbers 10 (also claimed to be a Moses effort) the father-in-law is called Hobab -- go figure?

And the last chuckle? That anyone with a working brain could call this anything beyond mythology! But if you really want to get a bit discombobulated concerning Moses, drop by Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_in_Rabbinic_Literature
and check out what the Rabbis have to say.

There, in addition to his connections to the creation and water, you'll find that he was born circumcised and walked immediately after birth! Except another story has him snipped after eight days. AND.... he spoke on the day of birth and began prophesying at age three! Just imagine what a successful televangelist he would have been. And was his birth an important day?? You bet! At least according to one of the stories, some 600,000 Hebrew children had already been thrown into the river but were saved by Moses birth... hey, maybe they were the 600,000 that left Egypt with Moses some years later.

And I guess it would be a bit of problem growing up in the royal household when it came to giving names. Bithiah, his adoptive mother gave him the handle of Moses. But, depending on which story you follow, he had either seven or ten names. Among them, Jared, Abi Gedor, Heber, Abi Soko, Jekuthiel, Abi Zanoah, Shemaiah and Heman. Can you just imagine the confusion in a classroom full of Pharaohonic kids when the teacher has to conduct a roll call?

As he grew up he became quite sensitive to the plight of Hebrew slaves, helping them when the load was too great or their strength too low. Even convinced the Pharaoh that the slaves were entitled to some rest and got him to give them one free day a week... VOILA! The SABBATH!

And this sensitivity toward the Hebrew slaves is what caused him to flee Egypt. Ex 2 says Moses saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew and so killed him. But the Rabbis have a far more interesting take on this phase. Seems the dude he killed had forced a Hebrew woman to "commit adultery with him." Pharaoh was a bit upset and delivered Moses to the executioner who had a very sharp sword. But Moses' neck became like marble and dulled the sword. Or.... according to another version, angel Michael gave the shape of Moses to the executioner and thereby killed him (did the executioner/Moses lookalike kill himself????? Doesn't say).

Tho Ex 2 takes Moses to the land of Midian, the Rabbis seem to disagree on the timing. Evidently he went to Ethiopia, spent nine years in their army, was proclaimed king, married Adoniya (with whom he had no relations for 40 years) and when she complained about that to the princes and generals they dismissed Moses, gave him treasures and THEN.... he went to the land of Midian. And there, it really gets confusing!

In the next few paragraphs we find the following caveats to confusion…. “Moses was then twenty, or possibly forty, years of age” and “Moses lived for twenty years in Pharaoh's house” and “Moses lived for forty years in Pharaoh's house” and “kept him prisoner for seven, or ten” and “only seven years in Jethro's hands” and “must have been Jethro's captive for ten years” and finally, “After ten (or seven) years.”

And remember Ex 4:24-25 when Moses was headed back to Egypt and God sought to kill him. Moses’ wife, Zipporah grabbed a sharp stone and circumcised their eldest son. The Rabbinical stories claim that: “On the way he met Satan, or Mastema, as he is called in the Book of Jubilees (xlviii. 2), in the guise of a serpent, which proceeded to swallow Moses, and had ingested the upper part of his body, when he stopped.[14] Zipporah seeing this, concluded that the serpent's action was due to the fact that her son had not been circumcised, whereupon she circumcised him and smeared some of the blood on Moses' feet.[14] A heavenly voice was then heard commanding the serpent to disgorge the half-swallowed Moses, which it immediately did.

Let’s see, now… your husband is being swallowed by a giant snake and so you INSTANTLY CONCLUDE that it’s because of #1 son not having been circumcised???? Quite a jump to conclusion. Just imagine how upset (and pained) that kid would have been if her conclusion had been wrong!!

Anyway, all of the above speculations and disagreements occurred before Moses spoke to Pharaoh about letting his people go. But no sense bothering you with more and more. Those interested can go to the Wiki link above and chuckle through the rest.

And the last chuckle? That anyone with a working brain could call this anything beyond mythology!

Sad About Haiti? Give to Our MegaChurch

2010-01-28T18:21:00.000-05:00

By Valerie Tarico

Image by speakingoffaith via Flickr

Last week I wrote an article about solar powered Bibles that are being sent to Haiti as aid. As a former Evangelical, I was trying to explain the psychology that turns a tragedy into a marketing opportunity for religions that need recruits. On a whim, I pulled up the website for Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Ok, it wasn’t a whim, it was a hunch based on past experience. At the time of the 2004 Asian Tsunami, I was researching local mega churches and ran across Mars Hill for the first time. I was appalled to see their home page recommendations for members: pray for the people in the disaster zone, give to Mars Hill church, give to our church building efforts in India. (Why wasn’t it “Pray for Mars Hill Church, give to the people in the disaster zone . . . ?)

There is little more sacred to me than compassion – the part of us that feels someone else’s pain as our own and seeks to alleviate it. My deepest spiritual values were violated by what Mars Hill was doing; I would say that the moral heart of humanity was violated.

The solar Bibles project struck a similar note, which is why it occurred to me to see what Mars Hill is up to now. To my dismay, they were once again channeling the compassionate impulse into what is best described as self-promotion : promotion of the church, it’s pastor, Mark Driscoll, and the viral fundamentalist ideology that both serve.

God never meant for Christians to take care of poor, suffering people but rather poor suffering Christian people. The Mars Hill website directs people to one of Driscoll’s side projects – a website (ChurchesHelpingChurches.org) seeking to direct aid money into church reconstruction. By filtering and selecting Bible verses, Driscoll makes the case that God never meant for Christians to take care of poor, suffering people but rather poor suffering Christian people (and potential converts.) “ I challenge all thoughtful, biblically-minded Christians to find a single instance of the New Testament church filling the plates of the ‘general population’ poor.” Cofounder of the site, James MacDonald of Harvest Bible Chapel penned these words: “Children are crouching in shivering fear as people stand stunned and staring in disbelief at the remains of what they once called their home. The world is racing to help these people in unimaginable crisis, but who will help the church?”

This explicit co-opting of the charitable impulse may be characteristic of successful mega-churches. In The Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren hops among 15(!) Bible translations to back up his points, one of which is right in line with Driscoll. Warren chooses the New Revised Standard Version to ensure that readers don’t think God is talking about “general population poor” when Jesus says “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these . . . you did it to me.” (In place of the elipses, the NRSV says “who are members of my family”, which Warren has already defined as the tribe of born again believers. p. 126.) Later in the book, Warren comments, “Notice that God says the needs of your church family are to be given preference . . .. ” (p.259). To top it off,for Warren becoming a “World Class Citizen” means this:

If you ask me, I will give you the nations; all the people on earth will be yours.(Psalm 2:8 NCV) Prayer is the most important tool for your mission in the world. People may refuse our love or reject our message, but they are defenseless against our prayers. Like an intercontinental missile, you can aim a prayer at a person’s heart whether you are ten feet away or 10,000 miles away. What should you pray for? The Bible tells us to pray for opportunities to witness, for courage to speak up, for those who will believe, for the rapid spread of the message, and for more workers. Prayer makes you a partner with others around the world. You should also pray for missionaries and everyone involved in the global harvest.

(Note: If you didn’t fully appreciate the name of “Harvest Bible Chapel” you have the context now.)

After I wrote about solar Bibles and Churches Helping Churches, one Huffington Post reader (and, I presume, Mars Hill Member) pushed back: “While it is true that Mars Hill Church is encouraging efforts to rebuild churches in Haiti, it shouldn't be overlooked that the congregation donated over $429,000 to general relief efforts (not including the church rebuilding project).” As evidence, he or she provided a link to the church blog, so I went there. Perhaps their ratio of aid to recruiting was higher than I thought. But were the Mars Hill members donating to general relief efforts or the church general fund? The blog seemed to suggest the latter. (And wasn’t Driscoll explicitly teaching against the former?)
Here was Pastor Jamie Munson’s advice to people who want to actually do something in response to Haiti.

• Start giving to the church.
• Quit living on your own and join a community group.
• Pursue church membership and align formally with your church family.
• Confess to your community group about lack of giving or participation in Jesus’ mission.
• Consider financial coaching: get help building a budget so that you can align your finances with right priorities.

In my experience visiting Mars Hill, this is in keeping with the church’s general philosophy. At my last visit, the church newspaper Pop Vox made the case that God (not Mark Driscoll, but God) wants Christians to give first and foremost to their home church—and to do it regularly and to do it till it hurts. Perhaps one of the secrets to mega-growth is making sure to capture community resources and channel them in the service of that growth.

I am not saying that the Mars Hill effort is ill intended, and I have no doubt that at some level it will involve providing food, shelter and medical care to people in dire need. In a place where people are dying of trauma and hunger, Bibles and church buildings are likely to be much better received if they are paired with goods and services that meet people’s basic needs. Also, it must be remembered that congregation members who are opening their checkbooks are genuinely compassionate people, seeking to do good – or they wouldn’t be susceptible to the appeal.

But at what cost?

Because Bible believing Christians perceive themselves as a light shining in darkness, a moral beacon to the world, they often don’t understand that much of the critique written about their religion, like this article, is prompted by moral distress. For Evangelicals the diversion of energy into recruiting activities seems to be in the service of a higher good. From the outside, it seems opportunistic, just like Scientology’s high-profile relief work. It is morally distressing, with a high opportunity cost and, consequently, a high human cost: Genuinely decent, loving people who seek to serve Goodness are having their precious empathy and compassion channeled into activities that range from exploitative to merely inefficient or insensitive.

A young Christian friend of mine caught sight of the Solar Bibles headline. “Really?” she asked (with that inflection that only teenagers can conjure). “It seems so elitist. You have to be really not hungry and not in pain to think—Hmm. What would comfort me is a Bible. I think that’s what I’ll send.”

Note: Interesting comments at: The Daily Kos.

Countermeasures: Dealing with fundy-in-laws

2010-01-28T03:55:00.000-05:00

By exfundy

Image by George Eastman House via Flickr

My super fanatical fundy-in-laws are some of the most rude, disrespectful and arrogant people I have ever had the misfortune to meet. I put up with them for my wife. She doesn't agree with the things they do either, but they are her family and she doesn't want to completely cut them off. We have come to an agreement that I won't just unleash and tell them what I think while forbidding them to ever step foot in my home. In return I do lots of little passive-aggressive things when their actions step over the line. My wife actually gets a kick out of it. The following are the first two stories of some of the countermeasures I have used.

Story #1

My wife and I threw a birthday party for our daughter's 14th birthday. We specifically designed the birthday party as a cook-out because we didn't want loads of kids running through our house. We wanted our nephew (Nick) and niece (Kristy) who are 5 and 2 respectively to be there because at this point they are still just kids and they adore my daughters. This of course meant their parents, the fanatical fundy-in-laws (John and Jane), would be in attendance.

As everyone arrived we were very clear that the only reason to go into the house was for a trip straight to the bathroom and back. We told John, Jane and their kids twice just to make sure. About thirty minutes into the party Nick asked Jane if he could go in and watch TV. Noticing that I was standing nearby she said no and told him to go play.

A few minutes later Nick ran to Jane and told her he was tired and he really wanted to go in and watch TV. This time Jane was unaware that I was standing behind her. Thinking no one would hear her she told Nick to quietly go upstairs to my daughters room and to make sure he kept the volume down. She of course also gave him instructions on what channel to watch as he was not allowed to watch many things. She also told him to go to the bathroom first and wash his hands before touching anything.

I slipped inside the house without being noticed while Nick was in the bathroom. I picked up the TV remote in my daughters room and looked at the guide. On the local PBS station there was a show all about evolution scheduled to start in 5 minutes time. I set the DVR to record the episode. I hid in a room across the hall and watched my nephew go into the room. He turned the TV on to whatever station he had been instructed. Sure enough a couple of minutes later the station turned all on its own because it was set to record NOVA. Nick never thought twice about it.

About an hour later Nick came out of the house just as I expected. What happened next though was better than I could have imagined. Nick ran straight to Jane and started telling her something. I was too far away to hear the words, but he was very animated.

As Jane listened to her son a look of horror slowly spread over her face. When she had heard all her fundy brain could handle words literally exploded from her. Everyone looked as Jane shrieked, "Nick, that is a lie straight from the pits of hell. God made everything. That wasn't on the channel I told you to watch. Why didn't you watch the station I told you to watch?"

Sensing it was time for me to step in I ran over and went into action. Of course I feigned complete ignorance of the whole thing. I asked Nick which room he was in while he was watching TV. He told me. I immediately explained to Jane that I had set a show about evolution to tape up in my daughters room. I even told her I did it specifically because I knew she wouldn't want one of her kids to see it and I was afraid one of her kids may stop and turn on the TV downstairs during a trip to the bathroom.

Jane was fuming. I think she knew that she had been had and was irate over it. Before she had a chance to react I had one more thing to say to Nick. I asked him why he was in the house watching TV when I had told him and his mom that he wasn't supposed to do that.

I'm pretty sure Jane was praying her god strike me dead that very moment as Nick quickly informed me that his mommy had told him it was OK to go in and watch TV. I looked at Jane and told her I thought we had made it abundantly clear that no one was to be inside for any reason other than to use the bathroom.

Jane hollered for John and Kristy. After John and Jane had a quick whispered exchange they determined it was time to leave even though no cake had been eaten and no presents opened.

I can't be sure, but it seems like the party got much better after they left. I know it did for me.

By the way, before any one tells me that tricking the fanatic fundies kid into watching a show about evolution is no better than the way christians do things allow me to say something. This story does not give you any indication of the extreme amount of disrespect these people have shown me. They have no respect for me at all. Not even in my own home. They must really think that my non-belief entitles them to completely ignore and disregard my rules in my home. My purpose was not to convert their son. Jane is the one that came to our house and blatantly disregarded our rules. Her son should have never been in the house watching TV in the first place. If she had the simple decency to respect us it never would have been an issue. But this is an ongoing and long standing problem. As long as the fanatical fundy-in-laws continue to act this way in my home I will continue to take their disrespect and use it to turn the tables on them and make them the ones that are upset and uncomfortable.

Story #2

My fundy-in-laws have a habit of taking extreme advantage of any kindness shown to them. Let them borrow something and your lucky if you ever see it again. I'm sure you know people like that and can imagine many of the other things they do. However, the one they are absolutely the worst about is when someone agrees to watch their kids.

The first couple of times they asked my wife and I to watch their kids we told them before agreeing what time they had to be back to pick them up. Yet both times they showed up far later than the time they agreed upon. My wife was ready to tell her own sister that she would never again babysit for her. However, I had a bit of a countermeasure brewing inside my brain. So I told my wife to wait and give it one more chance because the next time I would make them seriously regret doing it.

Just a few days later we got another request to watch their kids. We agreed. My wife and I were both adamant as to what time they must be back to pick up their kids. We even told them they would regret it if they didn't show up in time. They didn't like it at all. They tried to explain that they were attending some type of church event and they would have to leave earlier than they wanted to leave. They even tried to convince us it would be sinful of us to not allow them to stay for the whole event because they were doing something for god. Any other time a statement like that would have been cause for me to throw them all out of the house immediately telling them to find another babysitter. That wouldn't have allowed me to carry out my plan though. So instead I just said, "Then god should have known that and supplied a different babysitter." They finally told us they agreed to our terms. Though I knew they had no intention to actually follow through.

Nick and Kristy love playing with our dog since their parents won't let them have one. Not too long after they showed up both kids were on their hands and knees playing with the dog. I was counting on it. I snapped a picture of both of them in that exact position. I immediately took the picture and uploaded it to the computer and with a little bit of Photoshop, Nick and Krista were not on the floor playing with the dogs, instead they were both on their hands and knees locked into dog kennels. The pictures were ready if I had to use them, and I was pretty sure I would. My wife even asked if I would print separate pictures of the kids, the kennel, and the Photoshopped image out onto a single sheet of paper. I wasn't sure why she wanted it, but I obliged.

Of course the agreed upon time came and went without so much as a phone call from the fundy-in-laws. I'm sure in their mind attending a church event was a righteous and godly thing so it was OK to break their promise to us. Just to be nice we tried to call them. We got the result we expected. They didn't answer their phone. They ignored our calls. That is what they had done both the other times. Sporting a huge smile I set my plan into action. I took the Photoshopped picture and transferred it back to my phone. I sent a text to both John and Jane. It said: 'Had to go. Key under mat in back. Kids can't get into any trouble.' I attached the kids in the kennel picture and hit send.

Within 15 seconds both my wife and I were receiving phone calls from John and Jane. We followed their example and ignored their calls. We got text messages from both threatening to call the police. I wasn't really worried about it. I had all the original pictures to prove there were actually no children locked into kennels.

A few minutes later we heard a car come to a screeching stop in front of our house. Within moments the back door was open and John and Jane both came running into our house as fast as they possibly could. When they saw their kids playing a game on the Wii and not locked into dog kennels they realized we had played them like puppets.

It was obvious that both John and Jane were really pissed and wanted to say something. I could have sworn I saw steam coming from their ears. But both knew they had no legitimate argument. They had broken their promise to us and we had called them out on it. My wife however did have something to say. She stood up and handed Jane the paper with the three pictures. In a very calm voice my wife said, "I want you to keep this picture as a reminder. A reminder of the last time I will ever babysit for you because I won't allow you to use my kindness to take advantage of us anymore. Now, take your kids and leave my house."

At that moment I'm sure the Cheshire cat would have been extremely jealous of the huge smile on my face. I couldn't have been more proud of my wife at that moment. Nor could I have been any more thrilled to see the look of complete and utter defeat present in John and Janes' expressions and body language.

That has been over two years ago and we have kept our word. We have not babysit for them again. They won't even ask us unless they are completely desperate. As a matter of fact Jane was so desperate a few weeks back she called me and asked if I would watch her kids. Asking me specifically is a very rare event indeed. What did I say? I barked twice and hung up.

Good vs. Evil: There's No Such Thing

2010-01-27T04:16:00.000-05:00

By Bret P

Image via Wikipedia

I'm quite exhausted from politicians and religious people talking about evil in regards to foreign affairs (particularly Islam), and propelling this idea that there is some kind of eternal struggle between good and evil in the world.

I think as humans, we're preoccupied with opposites, forgetting there is a spectrum contained within polarized concepts. Good vs. evil permeates our legends and movies. History is viewed through the lens of culture, and humans generally have a real problem with moral ambiguity.

I recently saw a fascinating video on the theory of how the universe first started to expand (the origin of space and time). During this birth, there was only matter and anti-matter in a struggle. Matter ended up dominating just enough to allow the universe to continue forming as it has over the past 13.7 billion years.

I wonder if this neutral struggle for dominance is ingrained in the human subconscious somehow, birthing a meme of good vs. evil. Various cultures (and religions) tend to view good and evil in very different lights. It's relative to cultural attitude rather than moral absolute.

Yes, there are dangerous people in the world, that pose a threat to our safety and our way of life. There are dictators, serial killers, terrorists, criminals, extreme religious leaders and corrupt politicians. As members of civilized society we don't condone murder, rape, slavery, genocide, theft, and so on. These are things that we choose to oppose and dismantle in our societies because they violate human rights.

I think it's absolutely lazy and irresponsible to blame the atrocities of the world on some invisible (and not empirical) force of evil, because such a force can't be truly understood, studied, and effectively combated.

I think we'd be much better off realizing that people take action because of what they think and believe in. Terrorists believe what they're doing is good for their country (and many times for their god). Serial killers have very good reasons (if you understand their thought process) for murdering their victims. The acts that result in such tragedy are obviously not to be condoned, but ultimately it's a process of warped thinking that drives people to do horrible things, not an invisible force.

The universe is indiscriminate in tragedy, and ultimately indifferent in human affairs. When we make foreign policy decisions (and really any other public policy decision) we must look at it rationally, trying to understand the motives of those who try to violate essential human rights. No invisible presence of good or evil (aka God and Satan) should be considered in these affairs. They are imaginary.

With an increasingly Christian military (evangelicals are proselytizing all over the place) and people of faith in public office, we must be wary of the consequences of superstition in relation to our freedoms, our national security, and ultimately our lives. Be afraid of superstition and irrational thought, not of an invisible force of evil in the world.

"McChurch" or "My Worldview's OK, Your Worldview's OK"

2010-01-25T07:00:00.000-05:00

Bu Bob R of A Priori Blues

Image by borkur.net via Flickr

America is adrift in a sea of propaganda. Depending which brand of propaganda you like best, you tune in dutifully, become convinced that They are evil and We are good. Everything that They say is false, everything that We say is true. I use the word "brand" to refer to our favorite forms of propaganda purposely, because that's technically what information has become. In a media saturated world, which is conversely a world predicated on advertising, everything is about the "brand." This is why a football stadium can be named after a bank, or a shaving cream, or any number of things which have nothing to do with football. As long as you create a brand, and then create brand awareness, you are successful.

That is the endgame in today's world. A brand is like a dogma or a creed. Once crystallized, it cannot be deviated from or tampered with. Cursed is he who adds to or subtracts from words like these: "15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance." I'm sure you instantly recognize that tag line and the name of the company that uses it, along with the font that their name is printed in, and the lizard or caveman who sells this insurance, came instantly into your mind. Can you tell me who the 6th President of the United States was? Or what the 6th Amendment is about? Could you point out Yemen on a map? Do you know as much about anything as you do about brand names and logos? Sadly, in a world like ours, where we are inundated with brands, and where everything has been converted to a brand, whether it's the News we watch, the cereal we eat, the water we drink, or anything else in our lives, all of it is meticulously researched, produced, and packaged to target a certain demographic in order to build
brand awareness and customer loyalty. Although we almost never complain about it, we know that we are pawns in a great corporate scheme about as well as we know that we need to keep breathing oxygen in order to survive.

My concern here, as you'll note in the title, is less with secular branding than with the sacred. I'm under no illusions about the Church and the ways that it uncritically adopts the practices of the "world" and baptizes them into spiritual disciplines. I'm a veteran of many an Evangelism class, many a church growth strategy, and many a Pastor's meeting. Even when I was buying what the church was selling, I was fiercely critical of the fact that the Church is indistinguishable from a secular business. The vast majority of Pastors that I knew, or whose worthless books I read, fancied themselves as spiritualized CEOs. The Church was God's Corporation (incidentally from the same Latin root for "Body", corpus), and they were at the helm. The elders and deacons were alternately the board of directors or the mid-level managers.

Congregational meetings were like shareholder meetings, where the future direction of the company or the brand were discussed at length and where, besides a prayer to start and one to finish, you'd have no way yo tell whether the people gathered were a part of a community of believers or whether the church sanctuary had been lent out to a small company for the evening. As a zealous and academic student of God's Word, I despaired of leaving college to enter "the ministry" knowing that, while I had spent all of my time in school studying the Scriptures, their languages, the history and customs of the Bible, and the meaning of the gospel, that as soon as I stepped off campus and on to the property of whatever church I would work at, all of that was over. I would spend all of my time in "ministry" conducting meetings, raising funds, discussing "church growth" strategies, using not the language of the New Testament but the lingo of the board room. Most of the Pastors I knew were power hungry, schmoozer types. Most of them reminded me of managers I'd had at other jobs. I honestly can't think of a single Pastor I ever knew who was more immersed inthe Word of God than he was in the pie charts and diagrams and statistics about how to grow a church. I used to make a point of scanning the shelves in a Pastor's study, to see what kind of books he collected, for to paraphrase, Where your Books are, there your Heart will be also. I was almost never impressed, and nearly always disappointed at the corporatist crap that filled the shelves.

When a pastor talks about "souls", he's really talking about "consumers". When a pastor talks about "church growth" or "evangelism", he's talking about marketing and brand awareness. To be a Pastor in American Evangelicalism, you must see the church as business first, and maybe spirituality... not even second. Maybe you get around to it, but what matters is the brand and brand awareness. If you go to church, ask yourself this simple question, which is a litmus test for just how corporatized your church is: When is the last time your knowledge of the Bible increased? I mean, really--outside of your first year of being a Christian, did you ever learn anything in church about the Bible, who wrote it, where it came from, and the millions upon millions of details about what is allegedly the most important book in the world, and which is allegedly the church's raison d'etre. Even back when I was buying what the Church was selling with all my heart, I knew this to be the case. There was a time in my life when I wanted to teach the Word of God to people more than anything else in the world. Equal to my passion for the Bible was my disdain for the role of the American Evangelical Pastor, who is just a snake oil salesman or a half-assed business person who could never hack it in the real world, so they play make believe CEO in the church. If you go to church, you probably know what I'm talking about.

Beyond the fact that the church is just a baptized version of the corporation, however, and more to my point in this article, is the deeper problem of the worldview. In most places in America, if you were to draw a circle in a five mile radius from where you're sitting right now, you'd have at least 5 to 10 churches within that circle. Some places, you'd have even more. So, when pastors talk about "evangelism" and "church growth," what they're talking about is getting people to stop going to the church on 5th Street and start coming to the church on Main. Or taking families from Second Presbyterian and bringing them to First Baptist. Each church is a product or a brand, or offers many different products to church consumers. The primary draw for Christians is the "Children's Ministry" (read: free daycare). If you have kids and you go to church, most likely you chose the church you go to based on the "children's ministry", or the quality of free daycare they provide. The church may speak in tongues and cast out demons and you may not be comfortable with that, but if the children's ministry is good, you'll overlook it. And vice-versa, if you want some demons to come out of you now and again but aren't getting it, you'll overlook that, too. The #2 draw is probably the quality of the music, then the entertainment value of the sermon, and so on down the line. There are the rare individuals for whom doctrinal purity is a concern, but most Christians wouldn't know the Nicene Creed from the Westminster Catechism, and even if they did, they'd chuck it if the music or the daycare sucked.

With that in mind, let's do a little thought experiment. Close your eyes and imagine with me. OK, don't actually close your eyes, but pretend to, since you have to read. Imagine that it's not only true that the church, at its heart, is a business, proffering a brand which is distinguished from other competing brands by the goods and services it provides. Just imagine for a moment if you lived in a world where the very fabric of your understanding of the world, the system of beliefs through which you understood the origin of the cosmos, man's place in it, your role in society, and our collective destiny, if all of those things were literally up for grabs, and you had to choose which "brand" suited your particular taste when it comes to these crucial questions. Imagine if you lived in a world where the formation of a worldview were treated like a product. Imagine if you lived in a world where people actually went "church shopping", which is also to say that they go worldview shopping. Imagine if it were commonplace for people to shed the foundational beliefs that they hold about all things near and far, about the most important things, as though they were buying a new pair of sneakers. Imagine if we lived in a country where people literally had a menu held up before them from which they could choose what they want to believe in, and where they could then construct their worldview, and therefore their life, accordingly.

Imagine no longer. Open your eyes...

Do you like the idea that God is in control of everything, even your decisions, so that what looks like a "free will" choice that wrecked your marriage was actually God's will to bring you to your new girlfriend? OK. Then you'll love what Reformed Presbyterianism has to offer. Or, are you frightened by such a notion, preferring to believe that God loves you enough to let you choose your own way, as your overbearing parents never allowed you to do? Well, have you tried Methodism? Do you like fantasy worlds like Dungeons and Dragons and J.R.R. Tolkein novels, and want your religion to look like more like Mordor than Missouri? Well, check out one of the many varieties of Dispensationalism. Did you used to love getting wasted, being so emotionally free and falling all over the place, even if it occasionally meant you made a fool of yourself in the process? Then you should sample some Pentecostalism--those people are wild! Not to beat a dead horse to death, but this is precisely what Brit Hume was engaging in when he made his altar calls to Tiger Woods. If you want a new worldview, one that will take your old mistakes, take your old turds and polish them up to look like priceless diamonds, then come on down. That's what we do here in the church. The best part is that we have so many brands, and therefore so many variations on worldviews, that if you get tired of seeing the world through fire and brimstone colored glasses, you can trade them in for some "emerging church" lenses. There, good as new.

I am no fan of Chuck Colson. I don't know how getting thrown into prison for basically being a traitor got cashed in so that now he's one of the leading Evangelical voices on all things Church and State. But, even Chuck Colson knows that the McChurch phenomenon has taken over American Christendom, as he states:

The roots of the church's identity crisis are found in the consumer mentality so pervasive in our culture. Aside from those hierarchical denominations that assign members to the parish wherein they live, most Americans are free to choose which church they will join or attend. And choose they do.

Ask people what they look for in a church, and the number-one response is "fellowship." Other answers range from "good sermons" to "the music program" to "youth activities for the kids" to "it makes me feel good." People flit about in search of what suits their taste at the moment.

The former traitor and ex-con turned worldview peddler is right. Though, of course, he dislikes this phenomenon because he wants everyone to buy his brand, instead of church brand X, which is competing with him. But, McChurch has taken over. In the wake of the Protestant Reformation, which broke the giant monolith of the Catholic Church, which is to say which broke the Monopoly of the Catholic Church, Christianity has devolved into millions of splinter groups, each competing with one another for a share in the worldview market. Most Christians know little or nothing about the Bible, and so they're left to make their choices based on the services offered by competing churches. Those who do know something about the Bible are probably worse than those who don't, because they will literally argue with fellow Christians about whose worldview is from God and whose is from Satan. You believe in Predestination? Haven't you read John 3:16? God so loved "the world". It doesn't say he only loved the ones he chose. You must be believing the doctrines of demons, as Paul said. You baptize infants? You offer communion to everyone? You recite the liturgy? And so on, and so on.

If this is the world that we live in, and it is, is it any wonder that most people don't believe in facts? What I mean is that, when confronted with scientific evidence, at least half of our country will dismiss it and claim that it's fabricated by a competing worldview peddler. Of course they do--this is what they're used to in their churches. Second Baptist has a better worldview than First Presbyterian and has exposed the fact that First Presbyterian only believe what they do about baptism because they're relativists who don't trust the Word of God. Or vice-versa. So, if you have facts, and you want to talk to an American Evangelical about them, you should realize that you are only one choice on a worldview menu. They've spent their lives in line, choosing Spiritual Value Meals from the McChurch menu board. They've literally been trained to believe that there's no such thing as a fact--there are only competing worldviews. They learned it first when they chose their church from the McChurch menu board, and passed on the worldview of church Brand X. Then, they were trained to believe that the Church itself is a worldview in competition with secularism. There are no facts, just competing worldviews. If you want to talk about facts, you're not going to get far. They're used to discarding worldviews and trading them in for others that suit them better. Yours had better look tastier than piping hot tongues of fire, or sorry, you're out of luck.

Worshipping Convictions

2010-01-24T10:43:00.000-05:00

By Carl S

A co-worker used to watch Saturday morning cartoons with his grandson, and would repeat some of the incidents on them to me. One of his favorites was of an older dog teaching a pup “dog traditions.” The adult dog says, “We fetch sticks, chase cats, and bury bones. I don’t know WHY we do it, but we do.” I think many believers are that way. For example, they keep praying as if prayers actually worked. Reminds me of that old joke about the man waving a blanket around on Times Square, to “Keep the elephants away.” When informed that there weren’t any elephants for hundreds of miles around, he said, “See, its working!” These things are funny and harmless, but how do people get into them in the first place?

The topic herein is addressed to not only those who are ex’es, but all humans visiting this site. (Churchgoers, does your pastor know you are here? Wouldn’t he tell you it’s a no—no? After all, one of the regular contributors here was carrying on a discussion with a believer on a Christian web site, and was censored out of it.) This is not about the Christian faith, nor Islam, or faiths per se. It is about something stronger, deeper, unmovable. This site exists, for one thing, because we have all “been there,” recognizing that we are up against what we cannot much affect, though it is not a mighty fortress, but a fabrication of the imagination, a very powerful fabrication.

In the realm of ideological thinking, especially from the pulpit, feeling and faith trump fact, and passion replaces fidelity to the empirical and painstaking logical demonstration. No, I am referring to something much greater, for which even now, humans are exploding themselves and other humans going about their everyday business. I am speaking of Absolute Convictions. The reason you can’t get through to a suicide bomber, Taliban fighter, cult member, Christian Righteous member, and other believers is because that believer is absolutely convinced with absolute conviction. No amount of logic, of pointing out the obvious, will move the believer. The person will say, quite casually, that he or she knows “in my heart,” as personal testimony, while at the same time listening only to those persons and information which reinforces those convictions. To be honest, I see it as not so much God, gods, or the supernatural which are worshipped, but their convictions.

How many find comfort, even joy, in their convictions, and camaraderie with their leaders and like-minded reinforcers? The convictions rejecting doubt by necessity, as if it were a blast—furnace one would be thrown into, or a near—miss automobile accident! What are the costs to keep doubt away, both to the individual and others? On the major level, the Holocaust, present day witch-killings of young children in Africa, the Inquisition, etc. On the personal level, I offer the example of a young woman whose husband I worked with, who died at 44 years-old of a heart attack. The woman phoned me to ask if her husband was in hell because he was not a church goer. Then there was the local Vietnam vet who was very agitated because he thought his pastor said that smoking is a sin.

How is it that intelligent, normal people, become convinced absolutely by a Pope, religious spokesman, a Jim Jones, Hitler, Bin Laden, Lenin, the Taliban, to the point that they will blow themselves up, slaughter Jews by the millions, torture and burn to death non—believers, and still consider themselves MORAL?

Who are the ”convincers,” and why? Their influence is their power, and why is it entrusted to them, except for the fact of believing in absolute certitudes? How is it that the members of every single religion know “in their heart” individually, with absolute conviction (including ancient, extinct religions) that they are in possession of the one TRUE one? (Maybe one reason lies in the hope that the opponents will get “what’s coming to them”, and that misery JUST HAS to be rewarded in some future life.)

Let us say that these charismatic “convincers” are so convincing because they actually believe what they are saying (Or give that appearance, but that’s another matter). They are calm, serene, at peace, offering assurances of a hidden possession of answers, wisdom, of being able to give “meaning” to their follower’s lives. They have the courage of their convictions, and articulate them with authority invested in them by their listeners. Theirs is a very appealing seduction. They entice the common and natural sympathy and empathy humans have for one another, their prejudices, fears, paranoia, towards those outside their power. Their influence is Alpha power, the power of a “superior” race, the bestowing of authority via conviction, of the secrets of life and death, to die for, to kill for.

Indoctrination has made them absolutely convinced; they themselves have been trained, and train, to interpret reality through a religious or political (or mixed) construct, with unquestioning loyalty. To merely question is in itself a betrayal of these absolute convictions, for to possess the “truth” is to be indifferent to truth itself. (What seems to be true, though, is that they who are absolutely convinced spend millions of dollars and hours in attempts to convince others!)

It is no wonder then, that such a simple thing as science should be an enemy to absolute conviction since, in nature, no such thing as absolute good and evil exists, including human nature, and the only truth is that which can be verified, no matter if it is comforting or disturbing. Has not the mere discovery of DNA convicted some of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and on the other hand, freed others condemned to life prison terms, even execution? How many innocents were put there by eyewitnesses, convinced they did it?(Sorry, I digress.) Shouldn’t we be trusting those who are capable of admitting they may be mistaken, rather than those who say they cannot be? Should anyone be so absolutely certain to the extent of depriving others of civil rights and life itself?

We have all been victims due to our trusting too much, have all been scammed to some degree. (The divorce rate is sometimes an indicator.) Wouldn’t it be telling the truth to admit that those who “trust in God” really trust in their local or national spokesman for God? Those current spokesmen are their representatives in Iran, Bin Laden, the Dalai Lama, cult leaders, Mormon leaders, etc., etc. We like to think that others will learn by their mistakes, but find it’s impossible to convince those with absolute convictions otherwise, for we aren’t dealing with the Wright Brothers type convictions that a flying machine can succeed despite failures, but beliefs that such a machine can be constructed of bricks and still fly because some ”authority” tells us a higher power has said this is so, that nature lies because it is contrary to scriptures, no matter what one’s religion is.

Because this is the thinking site, any believer willing to make it this far must be furious. Good. Maybe something will get through, and I say this with hope for all of us. I have come here not to preach, but to open up this topic for discussion, since it is of such breadth and depth beyond what I have said. I conclude with the words of Professor Charles Johnson: “In the realm of ideological thinking, especially from the pulpit, feeling and faith trump fact, and passion (as well as beliefs based on scripture) replaces fidelity to the empirical and painstaking logical demonstration.”

Bionic Marvel

2010-01-24T10:23:00.000-05:00

By Ayhwh

Faith healing, divine wonders, and miracles are a significant part of religion’s shtick. A miracle supposedly subverts nature causing unexplainable supernatural things to happen. Pastors and evangelists use the idea and promise of miracles to swindle the masses into giving them cash and obedience. Miracles do not exist, but science brings amazing cures!

The Bible abounds with miraculous events, from the beginning to the end. The myth makers who desperately wanted to add authority to their stories put them there. What better way to add authority, than by having the hero heal the paralyzed, cause the blind see, and the deaf hear? If we could pray and have limbs grow back, then there would be no better way to prove god’s existence. There would also never be an ex-Christian because no one would walk away from something so obviously true and powerful.

This leads us to a problem. The fundamentalist Pentecostal tradition I was raised in, the Assemblies of God, holds divine healing as one of its “16 Fundamental Truths.” The statement says, “Divine healing is an integral part of the gospel. Deliverance from sickness is provided for in the atonement, and is the privilege of all believers.” Many denominations have similar statements of faith. All pointing to the same belief, healing was not just for bible times and it supposedly happens today. Okay . . . but it doesn’t!

It is nothing more than doublethink when modern Christians believe miracles continue to occur, even though overwhelming evidence to the contrary exists. The only assertions faith healing supporters can make are anecdotal or observational. “A friend of a friend was supernaturally healed of cancer.” When in reality, the person may have been undergoing chemo, but they attributed the remission to god. As the story makes its way down the telephone chain the faithful tend to minimize the natural and exaggerate the supernatural, until you have an amazing, but fabricated, proof story.

These beliefs are made worse by charlatans like Benny Hinn and Peter Popoff who prey on the sick and needy. They ask for money to support their ministries, which in turn fund lavish lifestyles. If they have enough faith and send enough cash, then they are promised healing. Just load any video on Youtube by James Randi to find out exactly how horrible these conmen are!

Thomas Paine said it best, “All the tales of miracles, with which the Old and New Testament are filled, are fit only for imposters to preach and fools to believe.” Supernatural miracles are a hoax, but amazingly, the blind see, deaf hear, and amputees are receiving new limbs.

January’s National Geographic cover popped out at me last night as I walked through the supermarket. The headline read, “Merging Man and Machine” and the cover had a bionic hand on it. The prosthetic hand looked more like something from a Star Wars movie than real life. With my curiosity piqued I flipped open to the article. What I read on the next few pages amazed me. The story started with information about cochlear implants being put into deaf infants who then are able to hear and learn language. The deaf hear.

It also mentioned some ground breaking science being done with restoring vision to the blind. Video signals from a small camera are converted into an electrical pattern the cells in the eye can understand. 60 electrodes attached to the retina receive this information and converted it to vision. The blind see.

The majority of the story was about Amanda Kitts. She tragically lost her arm in an automobile accident. The good news to the story, Kitts has been fitted with a revolutionary bionic arm. Kitts controls this electronic/mechanical arm by thinking, exactly the same way you would use a natural arm, but she does this without having anything implanted in her brain. They did this by stimulating nerve cells that would have connected down the arm and to the hand to grow in the muscles of the stump of her arm. As these nerves grew their signals were strong enough to be read by electrodes that touch the skin. As her brain tells the hand to open and close it responds to the signal by reading the nerves in the muscles. Amputees are receiving new limbs!

The natural wonders of today far outweigh the mythical gods and prophets of the past. The stories about Jesus healing the blind, deaf, and crippled are impossible to verify. And miracle claims above all other assertions require exceptional proof. Those who cling to the Christian myth dumbfound me. I do not understand why people would pray for divine healing when it never comes.

The popular question among skeptics is “why won’t god heal amputees?” There is a great website devoted to this question. It is an important question because if god did heal an amputee after the limb was prayed for, then we would have conclusive proof a supernatural miracle of healing occurred. We would also know modern medicine had nothing to do with it. Unfortunately, for the religious, this has never happened.

So when I asked myself this question, I came to the ultimate conclusion that divine healing is nothing more than mere religious mumbo jumbo. The good news is humanity has a lot of amazing solutions to the problems that cause suffering in our world. Science is overcoming superstitious quackery bit by bit everyday. We are getting closer and closer to a real cure for amputees and a better world for all those in need. I hope we get there!

The Bible for Dummies

2010-01-24T10:03:00.000-05:00

By John

Image by Brent Nelson via Flickr

I was a Christian for a dozen years. The following is my attempt to summarize in a nutshell what I read in the Bible:

God creates the universe. Billions of years later, he tells humans that he did it in six days: first the earth, then light, and then the sun and stars to serve as calendar.
God forbids the knowledge of right and wrong to Adam and Eve. Then, he blames them for their wrong choice, and condemns them and all their offspring to death.
Ever since Adam and Eve’s fall, God hides himself from most of mankind. But he blames anyone doubting his existence.
God drowns all living creatures in a flood, including koalas, giraffes, kids and grannies, minus the eight members of Noah’s family and couples of every species. Later, he provides the commandment “You shall not kill.”
Abraham is willing to sacrifice his son at God’s command, and God praises his faith. Later, Jesus blames believers for blindly observing God’s commandments, saying that “God wants mercy, not sacrifice.”
Abraham’s nephew Lot offers his two daughters to appease a rapist mob. Later, he has sex with them while drunk. He is what God calls a righteous man.
God delivers his people Israel from slavery and genocide in Egypt. Then, he allows them to own slaves, and commands them to exterminate the Canaanites, the Jebusites and the Amalekites.
God gives the Israelites a law that commands them to kill homosexuals. In another law, he allows them to sell their daughters as sex slaves.
God sends Jesus to offer his life as a sacrifice. Then, God gives Jesus his life back. Perhaps, he cancelled the condemnation of Adam and Eve's offspring and the need for Jesus' sacrifice when he decreed that the sinner alone would die for his own sin.
Jesus promises that whatever we ask in prayer will be granted. He has not yet given us a cure for cancer, though. Fortunately, human medical research is advancing.
Jesus tells his disciples to sell all their possessions and give everything to the poor, as he will return within “this generation.” The first generation of his disciples does so, but the current 80th generation holds on retirement plans.
God is love and commands us to love one another. If we don’t, he will torture us forever in hell.
God inspires penmen to write all the above–plus a few stories about stopping the sun for one day and spending three days in a fish–in a book. Then, he expects us to use that book as a guide for our life, hope, ethics and family values.

That's it. How come I needed twelve years to come to my senses? How come that book is still taken seriously today?

Solar Powered Bibles for Haiti: Why Some Christians Feel Compelled to Exploit Disaster

2010-01-24T00:26:00.001-05:00

By Valerie Tarico

Image by Toni_Chacheres via Flickr

While Doctors without Borders was struggling to get anesthetics for amputations into Haiti, an Albuquerque group queued up aid of their own sort: 600 solar powered talking Bibles. Eve now, food, water, and medicine are having trouble reaching Haitians because of damaged transportation facilities and supply lines, but the missionary group says some of their Bibles are on the way.

I first read about the solar powered Bibles after a friend forwarded an article from an Australian news source--the point being that half way around the world people found the story controversial enough to be newsworthy. Why? Because it is morally troubling, even for most Christians. According to the gospel writer, Jesus says "I was hungry and you gave me bread," not "I was hungry and you gave me Bibles." How can anyone see pictures of crushed buildings, blood covered children, and people begging for food, and think of it as an opportunity to win converts?

Like many others, I read about the solar Bible effort with a sense of revulsion. But as a former Evangelical believer, I also read about it with some sympathy for the people packing the boxes. There is no doubt in my mind that they think what they are doing is kind and good. I would bet my psychology license that their behavior is driven by genuine concern for the people of Haiti. I simply believe also that the Evangelical mindset has tremendous power to co-opt and redirect a believer’s moral priorities and sense of compassion.

One of the most pernicious attributes of ideology, whether secular or religious is its power to disconnect true believers from moral emotions like empathy, shame, and guilt. In fact, what often happens is that the ideology repurposes both these emotions and the rest of a believer’s moral machinery in the service of the ideology itself. Let me explain.

Under ordinary circumstances and with normal brain development, certain moral instincts are built into us. Universally, for example, we have an aversion to the thought of babies being burned for the pleasure of adults. We have some general notion that stealing is wrong. We value honesty.

If you have to choose between food and Bibles, only one saves people from eternal torture. Research in brain science is showing that moral reasoning and behavior is driven by a set of inborn emotions--empathy, shame, guilt, disgust, righteous indignation, moral pride—and that these in turn drive moral reasoning and behavior. These emotions, along with specialized circuitry for analyzing morally relevant situations (and some pre-set defaults) are shared by our whole species. Why? Because they allow us to live in community with each other.

We humans are social creatures. To use the technical term, we are "social information specialists." Our primary resource is information, and we mostly get it from each other. Without the ability to cooperate and share knowledge we’d all still be in the Stone Age—or the tree tops. The only way we thrive in the long run is if we support the well-being of our community and, as we are starting to recognize, the broader web of life. That is what morality lets us do. It helps us to treat the wellbeing of others as if it were our own – because in a peculiar way it is.

For this reason, empathy or compassion is at the very center of most religious and secular wisdom traditions – usually in some form of the Golden Rule. Often the best means we have of guessing what another sentient being wants or needs is by projecting ourselves into their situation: How would I feel? What would I want? What would make me happy?

This is where a viral ideology like Evangelicalism can hook in and take advantage of our moral make-up. First, it can diminish empathy by downplaying the importance of here and now suffering. Second it can make something other than a person’s apparent needs (like food or anesthetics) seem critically important. Third, it can re-direct our mother-bear instincts away from protecting vulnerable individuals and toward protecting the ideology itself. Believers may come to feel more protective of their religion than they are of actual human beings.

1. Diminishing suffering: Evangelical Christianity downplays the horrors of suffering in several ways and sometimes even glorifies it.

a. Bible-believing Christians are taught that this world is just a prelude to the next – the one that really matters. Suffering is part of God’s plan, because it surrounds us, so it must be. Mother Theresa, for example, is said to have told a man in pain that Jesus was kissing him.

b. Because God is described as fair, there is a heightened tendency for believers to fall into the "just world hypothesis" to think that people deserve what they get. This can lead to a pattern of blaming victims for their own misfortune: pregnant teens shouldn’t have been having sex, rape victims should dress differently, poor people should work harder.

c. In the Bible, when God intervenes he often does miracles that affect a few people rather than responding to the suffering of the many. A few blind receive their sight, one lame man stands up and walks. This teaches people to focus on the "miraculous" exception rather than the pattern. Believers can praise God for saving a handful of orphans, neglecting the tens of thousands He just created.

d. In the central story of traditional Christianity, Jesus was born to be a human sacrifice; his ministry was just a prelude to Golgotha. Suffering, rather than something to be fought against, is seen as redemptive. The human race is saved by torture.

2. Redirecting focus: Economists say that religions create "goods" which then have "scarcities" that people desire and compete for—God’s favor, for example, or sacred space, or a certain status during the afterlife, and Evangelicalism offers several great examples of this.

a. Evangelicals prize salvation--a "personal relationship with Jesus," and the promise of heaven—so it is natural that when they are being altruistic, this is what they want for others. For someone who is salvation focused, the best thing he or she can do is to save someone’s soul. If feeding people wins converts, fine. But if you have to choose between food and Bibles, only one saves people from eternal torture.

b. In particularly evangelistic denominations, even children are taught that God wants them to be "fishers of men." Think Jesus Camp. A Buddhist might get a feeling of virtue or self esteem from pursuing compassion, mindfulness and simplicity; for some Christians, this same satisfaction comes from a convincing others to become believers.

c. Rather than being defined by service, generosity, or other consensually valued character qualities and activities, virtue can get re-defined as a life of Bible study, church attendance and prayer and/or sexual abstinence. These behaviors may become more highly valued than the qualities that normally make someone a "decent human being" a "good colleague" or a "great neighbor."

3. Self-perpetuation: Religions that focus on recruiting and keeping believers – on marketing and on defense of the ideology– often out-compete those that don’t. This is why Muslim countries are arguing in the United Nations that religions as entities have human rights—including the right to be protected against criticism.

a. The most evangelical forms of Christianity gain mind-share by turning the whole congregation into a sales force with divine sanction. Individual members may support missionaries or may pack up their families to go seek converts in foreign countries. Populations that are seen as vulnerable to conversion--poor people, uneducated people, families in crisis, youth in transition—are targeted for intensive missionary efforts.

b. Christians are encouraged to give money to the church. One successful Seattle mega church has two or three offerings in a single Sunday for different causes. Another cites (twists?) scripture to make the case that God wants believers to give first and foremost to their home church.

c. Rhetoric like "The War on Christmas," "The War on Easter," "Activist Atheists," and "Jihad" keep believers under a perennial sense of seige. Stories of martyrs are read to children—while Christianity’s bloody history is largely ignored.

d. Even though Christianity is the largest religion in the world, commentators and pastors lament the decline of the faith and the loss of young people. They raise the specter of Christianity becoming a religion on the margins within a generation.

The heart of Evangelicalism may be thought to lie in two Bible verses, both of which are taken to be perfect words from God, essentially dictated by God to the authors. One is John 3:16, the most memorized verse in the Bible "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." This verse is paired with one called Great Commission: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 28:19NIV)

Contrast this with the verse that is the center of faith for many modernist Christians, what is called the Great Commandment. When asked what was the greatest commandment in the Torah, the writer of Matthew tells us that Jesus replied "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)

Both evangelicals and modernists call themselves Christians, or followers of Jesus, but the two preceding paragraphs define two different religions. As much as Evangelicals argue to the contrary, they are in conflict. Only one of these religions sends missionaries pretending to be aid workers into Afghanistan, putting other aid workers at risk. The other sees this as immoral. Only one of them sets up recruiting clubs on grade school campuses. The other sees this as immoral. Only one of these religions uses money, time, and cargo space to send Bibles to people in need of anesthetics.

I consider World Vision to be at the better end of the Evangelical spectrum based on a ratio of humanitarian aid to proselytizing. But even World Vision goes out of their way to downplay their mission: bearing witness to the saving power of Jesus Christ. In the wake of the Haiti disaster, ads on the internet showed bandaged children with a banner that said, "Save a Life." A banner that said, "Save a Soul," might have been equally in keeping with their statement of faith.

World Vision shares the Church's commitment to disciple followers of Jesus Christ who bear witness to the Gospel by life, deed, word and sign, with the goal of encouraging people to respond to the Gospel. We do this through the life of service that we lead, the deeds of Christian love we perform, the words that we share about our faith and the signs of prayers answered as we visibly and concretely improve the lives of others.

Would World Vision’s Evangelical donors, volunteers, and staff put their energy into disaster relief and poverty programs if they weren’t on a mission to disciple followers? Who can say? At least they do both.

At the uglier end of the spectrum is a Seattle mega-church that claims almost 20,000 members, Mars Hill, founded by Calvinist celebrity Mark Driscoll. In the wake of the Asian tsunami several years back their website advised members to 1. Pray for people in the disaster zone. 2. Give to Mars Hill church. 3. Give to our church building enterprise in India. Five years later, their opportunism, meaning willingness to co-opt the compassionate impulse and redirect it into church growth is more sophisticated but unabated. In the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake, Mars Hill directs members to a site called Churches Helping Churches. "Who will help the Church?" it asks.

Rebuilding local churches helps address the practical and spiritual needs of a country, one person, one neighborhood, and one community at a time. . . . We need to help the church of Jesus Christ as our first priority in areas hit with human catastrophe. I challenge all thoughtful, biblically-minded Christians to find a single instance of the New Testament church filling the plates of the "general population" poor.

You can be assured that in Haiti, none of the money will go to the Catholic churches that have functioned traditionally as community centers among Haiti’s poor and that are pictured in ruins on the website’s banner. No, the money will go to Evangelical missions seeking converts among the Catholics. (Oh, btw, the site features another front page action item: Follow Mark Driscoll on Twitter.)

Is the founder of Mars Hill and of the Churches helping Churches site a crass self-promoter? Perhaps, but I suspect that he genuinely believes he is doing good, even maximizing good, by turning suffering into fundraising for his brand of beliefism. The crass self-promotion may be a quality of his belief system, not his person. Physicist Steven Weinberg once said, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Weinberg’s statement may simplify overmuch, but it contains a kernel of truth. For genuinely decent people to engage in systematic acts of harm, even for them to take milk from the mouths of babes as it were (like Mars Hill does), something has to override their moral sensibilities. Fear has the power to do this, but so does ideology. For solar powered Bibles or church-building to win out over food and medicine requires a religion that values conversion over compassion. But when we see this phenomenon at its worst, it is because someone in the thrall of a viral ideology has figured out some reverse alchemy that turns the precious gold of empathy into the lead of opportunism.

A Prayer for Haiti

2010-01-23T04:50:00.000-05:00

By the Avangelism Project

Image by United Nations Development Programme via Flickr

I was thinking about how I might have addressed the tragedy in Haiti as a pastor and this prayer is what I came up with.

Scary how easy it is to come up with pious sounding words that simultaneously play on guilt and pride when you know the jargon.

Dear Holy Father God in heaven,

We look at the devastation in Haiti with horror and confess to sinfully wondering why and how you would allow this to happen.

Yet we know that indeed your ways are higher than our ways and your thoughts higher than our thoughts. Forgive us, merciful father, for our presumptuous questioning of your divine and perfect ways.

We confess it is that very sinful desire to be as God hatched in that first Adam’s heart that wrought sin and death and despair into this world. And we rejoice that second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ, has conquered the very sin and death that horrifies us this day.

We delight, Father than in Christ, all things—even those things we cannot understand, even those things that horrify us, even those things the wicked would use to besmirch your name—indeed, Holy God, that ALL things work together for good for those that love that same Lord Jesus Christ and are called in him according to your glorious purpose.

In Him, Father, we pray for your divine grace to shine forth and for your glory to be revealed unto men. We pray that in this tragedy the wisdom of men may be made foolishness, that sin and death may be swallowed up in victory, and that every knee might bend and every tongue confess that Christ is Lord of all things, to the praise of your glorious grace.

May it be so for Christ’s sake, by whom, in whom, and for whom all things were made and through whom all things continue to be. Now and forever.

Amen.

What do you think? A lot of manipulation, huh?

Tree Droppings

2010-01-21T20:13:00.002-05:00

By Valerie Tarico

This morning, when I thought I had better things to do, I spent an hour cleaning gutters and sweeping tree droppings off of our back porch roof. I could have been writing the definitive article that would spread across the net and free humanity from religious fundamentalism—-or--ok, emptying the dishwasher.

I would have put it off, the tree duty I mean, but I was up against a deadline. Getting onto the porch roof means I have to wiggle on my belly out a window that only raises part way, and any year now I know that I’m going to get stuck with my top half on the outside and my butt half on the inside, waiting for my kids to come home from school and yank me out.

Wouldn’t it be so much easier to clean up after this tree if I thought like I used to? Normally another day or two wouldn’t increase the risk much, but tonight is Chocolate for Choice, an annual fund-raiser at which all of the best chocolatiers in Seattle – restaurant dessert chefs, bakers, and boutique chocolate makers –all strut their stuff. For a modest donation, you get to wander around and sample it all until you can’t. And then, if you pay for the upgrade, you get to fill a half-pound box with as much chocolate as will fit.

All of the money goes to something I care about passionately, reproductive freedom, (implication: I can actually feel virtuous about this over-the-top ritual of indulgence) which means I don’t miss it even for my husband’s birthday. Hey, honey. Guess where we’re celebrating your 45th? A few years back, I had two extra tickets by mistake, so I brought my daughters, who decided on the spot that it was an entitlement of childhood and—I should have seen this coming-- told their friends. This year, we’re going with six teenagers in tow, each of whom is planning to come home with a box of chocolate to last the week, as am I, of course.

All of which is to say, that putting off the gutter thing seemed high risk.

So there I was on the roof, having only just made it through the window, squatting to dig handfuls of wet brown half-decayed vegetable matter out of the gutter, and thinking, sympathetically for the first time, about these neighbors on the next block who chopped down two hundred-year- old trees that used to create an arching canopy leading into a park. A hundred years of growth was gone in a day, but their gutters are clean and no more leaves can fall on their weedless lawn or their clipped boxwood hedge. Those of you who know where I live are probably thinking, “I didn’t know there were Conservatives on Capitol Hill.” But there are, and I was feeling a sort of unprecedented kinship with them.

So I scowled up at the offending tree, also a hundred years old. (Brynn, who wrote about it for school once, insists that it is a Port Orchard Cedar.) It responded by swaying slightly above me and the back side of the neighbor’s garage, deep feathery green against the white sky. And when I picked up the broom, and as I swept, instead of grumblings, I found fragments of childhood poems floating through my mind– Joyce Kilmer: I think that I shall never see a poem lovely as a tree . . . E.E. Cummings – I thank you, God, for most this amazing day, for the leaping green spirits . . . .

And I thought, Wouldn’t it be so much easier to clean up after this tree if I thought, like I used to, that God had personally given it into our care, that someone up there had assigned me stewardship of this magnificent being, and I could know that I was fulfilling my purpose? For a moment I was wistful. I thank thee, Lord, for most this amazing tree . . . . But then a different voice echoed in my head, my own voice, from a story I once wrote for my daughters: “They were not born for a Purpose,” the old healer said, “But if they seek, many purposes, great and small, will present themselves and ask to be chosen.”

Ah, I thought. I choose this purpose. I, small short-lived creature that I am, human merely being, choose to be steward of this tree, sacred to me by my own choice---even if all I have to offer it is fragments of tribute and protection from my own worst impulses.

Second Star to the Right

2010-01-21T04:30:00.000-05:00

By Ted Gresham

Image by gainesp2003 via Flickr

There's a poster on my bedroom door of the Triangulum Galaxy. I bought it at the VLA Radio Telescope in Socorro, NM. I love that place! Sometimes I pass by the poster, point at a spot, and say, “I want to go there!”

A few years back I was digging around in Hubble photos and discovered the Deep Field Survey. When I read about that picture and understood the magnitude of what it represented the little bit of belief in a creator within me that still existed began to flame out.

The news lately has been carrying new stories about an updated Deep Field called the Hubble Ultra Deep Field:

“Astronomers announced in a series of papers over the fall and in a news conference last week that Hubble had recorded images of the earliest and most distant galaxies ever seen, blurry specks of light that burned brightly only 600 million to 800 million years after the Big Bang.” NYT, 1.12.10

It's not so much the view into history that amazes me, though that is incredible. The most wonderful and somewhat terrifying part of the Hubble Deep Field is how it reveals the unbelievably enormous size of this universe. In contrast we're specks on specks on specks. We're nothing. It was news articles about the Ultra Deep Field that encouraged me to “out” myself as an atheist and seek friendly people of like minds. How, if this entire universe is “created,” could such a creator even notice us, much less “care” and “love” us, or be anything like what theists say the “creator” must be. I just don't buy it. Not any more.

Out there, in the universe I see the face of our ancestors and our human destiny—if we don't destroy ourselves first. We are created but our “creator” is the universe itself, the magnificent glow that lights our sky at night, the penetrating heat and collection of element that makes us who we are. Whatever made us to be human came from the universe and out of the universe.

Few Christians have much of an interest in hard science. There are virtually no fundamentalists or evangelicals in the upper ranks of Astronomy, Geology, Paleontology or similar scientific disciplines. The Christian world view cannot accept what these sciences reveal. My interest in Astronomy was always at odds with the tiny world of my Christian friends. We can have fun with Science Fiction but there was and is no accepting of science fact. I struggled with some of it myself for a long time but science won me over.

Religion is the ultimate Truman Show, a fake world with artificial props, players acting their parts, absolute limits to sky, earth, and society. Science has forever been an enemy of Christianity. This is especially true of any science that could possibly contradict Biblical “truth.” (Of course “truth” is defined by church hierarchy and adjusted over time when it becomes too ridiculous to be believed.) Biology, Geology, Physics and Astronomy all push the boundaries of human understanding. They left religious belief behind many decades ago. I look up and see a universe full of unbelievable complexity that I will never know. Christians look up and merely see the “face of god” thinking some day god will tell them all about it when they get to heaven. It's just a bunch of pretty dots and darkness to them. They may as well be naming the constellations after prophets and assuming the whole thing revolves around the earth. They do not care what exists out there, the meaning of fossil records, the obvious reality of evolutionary processes because it shakes their little box. I speak more of the fundamentalist and absolutest Christian sects than of the more liberal and philosophical denominations. To the fundamentalist (from whence I came) “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

But it doesn't.

I love to fly, especially in small planes. Once I and a friend lifted off in a Cessna 172 just before sunrise on a mission to photograph my home town from the air. Flying at about three thousand feet or so we headed east where the sunrise inflamed a lake creating an indescribable vista. Then we turned west, towards town. I could not begin to photograph town, however, because it was buried in a fluffy fog. The tips of a few tall trees poked out of the massive white blanket. We returned to the airport.

An hour later we took off again. The town was there before us, clear and distinguishable. Religion is like that fog. People live within the comfort of a confined world. The sky above is not visible. It's hidden by a blanket of dogma and doctrine. In time when one rises above it and looks down the skies clear and reality shows what lies beneath. But unlike in the real world the fog never clears for most caught in a religious fog. The cloud is perpetual, invasive, and held over their heads by fear and uncertainty.

Religion is the ultimate Truman Show, a fake world with artificial props, players acting their parts, absolute limits to sky, earth, and society. It's not god sitting up in the control room but a collection of theologians and ministers carefully dictating what to believe. Every time I poked my head above the fluff of Christianity things became more clear. Like Truman in cinema fiction there came a time when I figured out everything was fake and contrived. I weathered the storm purposely created to keep me back and slipped through the “door in the sky.”

Shakespeare through the voice of Hamlet spoke immortal words:

“There's more to heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies.”

Indeed, there's much more than Christianity or any theist religion will ever admit. I cannot any longer linger on a flat earth. I have to reach higher, much higher.

What to do now? I've moved away from Christianity, through Buddhism to its outer edges and have at last settled into a realistic view of existence. Should I look back and hope a few Christians will follow? Should I check my wake, see if it's rattling a few boxes and adjust my speed so they're not harmed? Should I impede my own progress out of consideration of what the majority thinks of my “heretical” views?

Doing a little search about science and Christianity I ran across a long article describing theories about the origins of the universe written by a PhD in Philosophy named Dr. Lane Craig. He began his article with this:

From time immemorial men have turned their gaze toward the heavens and wondered. Both cosmology and philosophy trace their roots to the wonder felt by the ancient Greeks as they contemplated the cosmos...

...The question of why the universe exists remains the ultimate mystery. Derek Parfit, a contemporary philosopher, declares that "No question is more sublime than why there is a Universe: why there is anything rather than nothing." (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html)

Craig goes on page after page describing theories. Following them he concludes the Big Bang remains the best theory. Then he slips off the slope and says, “The problem with saying that the Big Bang is an event without a cause is that it entails that the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing, which seems metaphysically absurd.” Because science says there is no cause for the Big Bang or that the cause can't be known Craig calls the theory absurd. There HAS to be a cause or a reason!

Craig draws these conclusions:
We can summarize our argument as follows:

Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.
Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.
If the universe has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.
The universe began to exist.Therefore, the universe is not necessary in its existence.

From (2) and (4) it follows that

Therefore, the universe is not necessary in its existence.

From (1) and (5) it follows further that

Therefore, the universe has an external ground of its existence.

From (3) and (6) we can conclude that

Therefore, there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.

Only fellow philosophers can follow the rabbit trail of logic Craig offers. We mere mortals puzzle at complicated reasoning. But having dabbled briefly in logic (a math requirement which I did not do too well in) I can recognize a fallacy when I see one. The fallacy in Craig's conclusions is evident in his first point, that “whatever exists has a reason.” This is the fallacy of theism. Without the belief that there is a reason the purpose of god evaporates.

Philosophy deals with reason and reasons. Science, however, deals in causes. Reason assumes intelligence while cause is random and arbitrary. That is the whole argument of religion summed up in a single sentence, isn't it? From our infancy (we born and reared in a “Christian” home) we are programmed to believe everything has a reason. Thus for our entire lives we look for reasons. We do not look for causes. There is a difference.

A rock falls from the sky (caused by its being in proximity to earth because it was sent towards earth by another planet's gravity because it passed near that planet because it was blasted from a star in a distant system because... on back to the infinitum of universal history.) When the rock strikes earth it throws up a massive cloud, disrupts the surface, creates havoc, and people die. Were we here for eternity we could trace the source of that rock back through time and space but we're not. We can only surmise something caused something that caused something that caused the rock. We can easily see that the rock is the cause of earth disruptions, destruction and damage. We cannot ever know the “original cause” of the rock coming our way. But was there a “reason” for the rock hitting earth?

Did god send that rock? Craig the philosopher says yes. I say no. If god sent the rock then why? And knowing the laws of the universe, velocity, time and space, etc., it's clear that the rock began its trek towards our solar system many millions of years ago. God, then, would have to have planned to whack the earth on such date in 2010 at some point before the origin of our planet. But our planet is only six thousand years old? How can that be? Or perhaps the earth really is as old as geology says but what of Adam and Eve? When philosophers like Craig start mixing theology with cosmology there are always glaring holes. To say god sent the rock to earth is tantamount to saying he thumped it in our direction like a marble on a playground, just for fun maybe.

In the end all Craig manages to say in so many words is, “God made it, I believe it, that settles it.”

But I, again, say it does not settle it. Not for me.

There is within me, the ex-Christian, such an excruciating need to understand “why.” Only reason can answer “why.” Cause has no “why” beyond (a) banged into (b) and caused (c) because (x) hit (a) and we were not there to see what came before. No reason, just cause. I want to know WHY, dammit! But I know there is no “why” to know.

Knowing there really is no “why” seems to belittle us all to a point where we are nothing. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field indeed reveals that we are, in the scope of our universe, less than nothing, smaller and less significant than a speck of dust on an amoeba.

We are nothing. But how did we discover we are nothing? How have we become aware of all that is out there? Did mere evolution, cause that led to cause that led to cause that led to cause, eventually push us to look up into the night sky and see more than dark and light? If this is so there should be a “cause and effect” that made it so and a “cause and effect” we can discover for ourselves. We have not yet made that discovery. We're missing a big piece of the puzzle. Is that piece gone or beyond our grasp in the same way the history of the universe is too far away in space and time for us to understand origins or actually know the Big Bang is valid theory? Evolution, cause that led to cause, explains our biology. It does not so much explain our intellect. It is this nagging thought that keeps so many people clinging to religion and looking there for an answer.

Dawkins and others merely make assumptions based upon the scant information they have. Evolution is the end all for them. But their position seems as tenuous as religionists. The evidence showing how a human could have evolved an intellect, sentience, thirst for knowledge and rise towards the stars in noisy rocket ships does not, as far as I know, exist. Science continues to seek the cause. Religion pushes cause aside and provides reason. So must I go mad, bouncing between Craig's assumption and Dawkins' conclusions? I just might.

But I don't think I will go mad. I fall too close to Dawkins and far enough away from Craig on the scale of belief to keep a little of my sanity. Though it still pains me to say so I do not believe there is a “reason.” There is, however, a cause. That cause will not be found in fables, folk tales or religious fantasies. It's not nearly enough to simply say, “god says it, I believe it....” etc.. Not at all. Craig is correct in when he says it's absurd to believe the Big Bank was an event without a cause. But it's not that the Big Bank was without cause, there was no doubt a cause, just one we specks on specks on specks will never, ever know.

Craig's leap from cause to reason, however, is too far a jump. No, we do not have a “reason.” There is a “cause” however. We are not going to find that cause in metaphysical or religious dogma. We will find it, eventually, if we look hard enough and far enough within ourselves as a species and beyond ourselves into that universe above our heads. If we are to ever progress beyond who we are, then, we have to simply turn our back to those who refuse to follow and move on. I have returned to the question of where to go from here.

Did science itself stop when religion started screaming? No. Why then should I? I'm sorry that those I know, some I love deeply, others I once had fellowship with, remain in their little boxes. I don't mean to deliberately rock their boat but any tiny step I make to reach that universe above me will without any doubt shake them. The only way to keep them from being jostled would be to stay still. I won't. I just won't. The “why” I seek is not for reason but for a cause. The hunger for knowledge that brought us all to the edge of space is stronger within me than the desire for religious comfort. If the majority of humanity is happy banging off the top of their little box like upside-down pogo sticks so be it. My box broke. No more banging for me.

By day my mind reacts and recoils at the religious establishment, the suppressive doctrines and convoluted reasoning such as Craig and many others expound, confusing the less educated and less willing. I am appalled at the wars and hatred and fears and injustice wrought in the name of religion. By night my eyes sparkle with wonder and awe at the sky above my head. I am forever a child of the night, not of darkness but of an open sky with a billion billion points of light that beckon, calling me out there. Forget the day, I say, live for the night. Live for what is before us, above and beyond the speck we call Earth, beyond the blink of time humans have existed, and for the future of humankind.

We cannot look back nor be apologetic. We should not allow our past or those who cling to a theistic religion hold our feet down. They will blame us, they will condemn us, they will call us heretics, sinners and reprobates. So be it. We know, we who have flown above the clouds, that all we are and all we can be is not found in a backward-facing religious dogma but a forward-facing search for real and ultimate truth.

Another dreamer of the night, Isaac Asimov, said, “Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.” Religion calls us back. It wants us in the fold, part of the group, conforming to its own established norms. But it's too late for that, at least in my case. Atheist, Buddhist, these are mere labels. Ultimately they are not definitions. I am a visionary with my eyes glued to the sky. I will not look back. I will never go back.

Shakespeare invented the phrase and concept of the Undiscovered Country explored in the Star Trek VI. Whether we're talking life after this, life before this, or merely the life of the human race, we'll not find answers back in space dock. The only place we'll find it, if we find it, is “out there.” Out there, then, is where I'm going....

"Course heading, captain?"

"Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning."

...The Beginning

Whose Red Herring?

2010-01-18T18:51:00.001-05:00

By ExFundie

Image by Nimbuzz via Flickr

Having lived as an ex-Christian for awhile now one of the things I have found fascinating is being able to see Christianity from the other side. Christians have a hard time understanding why the opinions most non-Christians have of them range from amusement to downright anger. Looking at it from the other side I can now understand it. It's been rather amazing. Perhaps the most interesting part of this observation though is to see the different ways that christians have learned to rationalize the fact that those outside the church most often state that christians are the reason they have no desire to become one.

I had a discussion with a Christian friend not too long ago about this very topic. He told me that the "I don't like christians" excuse is little more than a red herring. Even though I was thoroughly indoctrinated into that school of thought at one time I asked him to explain what he meant. Below is a recounting of what he said. The quote won't be verbatim, but it will remain true enough to convey his meaning.

"The claim of not liking christians is merely a lie used to distract from the real truth. The real truth could be one of a variety of things. They won't admit to any of the real truths because a truthful answer would make them look small and immoral.

1. Some people are just looking to take the easy way out. Following God takes work. It can be a real sacrifice. Some people are merely too lazy or selfish to work or make a sacrifice.

2. Some people just don't want to live a moral life. They would rather go on being immoral and doing wrong and they know that if they become a Christian they can't do that.

3. They just want to point fingers at every perceived wrong they see in christians because it's an easy way to convince themselves they don't need god since christians are no better than they are.

4. The whole argument completely avoids the most important thing. It is the spirit of god that does the convicting. If I tell someone the message of Christ the spirit will convict them of the truth. If they choose to reject it that is their choice. However, whether they choose to accept or reject the message is not based on my example or my life. If they try to claim otherwise the only person they are fooling is their own self."

During this time I had taken a few notes to keep track of what he said to make sure I responded to each of his points. This is my response to him:

"Let me start by saying I take offense to the fact that you immediately start by characterizing anyone who does not want to be a Christian as small and immoral. I find it insulting and highly arrogant that you think the only way to be moral is through Christianity. I assure you my morals or how big a person I am are not in question.

You say people are looking for the easy way out? They don't want to sacrifice? They don't want to work? Let me explain something to you. I was born and raised in a Christian home. My wife is a Christian. My whole family are christians. My friends are christians. By not being a Christian I am risking everything. I have worked hard and sacrificed for my new beliefs. It's been more sacrifice than I ever made as a Christian. Don't talk to me about sacrifice and laziness.

People just want to be immoral? Really? So, your telling me that the reason I walked away from Christianity is because I wanted to be immoral. Let me check. I haven't suddenly started robbing banks. I haven't taken to pushing down little old ladies on street corners. I haven't developed a drug habit. I'm not beating on or cheating on my wife. The only thing I am doing that you would disapprove of is that I'm not a Christian. That's it. If I gave you an account of everything I do in a days time you would find nothing wrong with any of it. As a matter of fact you would find that I give more time now helping others than I ever did when I was encumbered by chains of Christian rules and dogmas. It's rather small of you to even insinuate that the reason people don't want to follow god is because they want to be immoral.

I find your phrase 'point out perceived wrongs' to be rather funny. I don't need to convince myself that I'm just as good as you. I don't view myself as any better or worse than anyone else. I'm imperfect. Your imperfect. We all are. I don't give a damn about your wrongs, perceived or real. The only reason it ever comes up is because christians are so intent on pointing out everything they believe to be wrong with us that it just gets sickening. As a matter of fact I would venture a guess that if anyone is using the perceived wrong of others to make themselves feel better it is christians.

That last thing you said is perhaps one of the most repulsive things about Christianity. It's all up to the spirit. The message is so powerful that you act as if there is nothing you could do to mess it up. How convenient for you. As long as you have presented 'the gospel' to me you are completely off the hook about everything else. Who cares if people look at your example of Christianity and run away screaming? Once you told them about god it's all up to the spirit and you can totally absolve yourself of all responsibility. I've got news for you. The way you present yourself and the way you act says more about 'your gospel' than the words you say. If you come off as a self-righteous obnoxious ass your words mean little. When your actions betray your words the words become meaningless. It seems to me that your the one taking the easy way out by taking no responsibility for your own actions.

I find it rather disturbing that you feel being a Christian is the only possible to live a moral life. If the only thing keeping you from a mindless crime spree is the threat of some future eternal damnation then by all means stick with it. I'd rather you be a Christian than a serial killer, but as for me I'm doing just fine being moral without the threat of endless torture hanging over my head.

It seems to me that Christians are the ones that spend their time, often euphorically, pointing fingers at everyone and everything for any perceived wrong they can find. Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

As for someone fooling their own self please look in the mirror. You can try to pass the buck all you want. The bottom line is that when you claim to be a Christian then your life, your words, and your actions are representative of what being a Christian is all about. You can claim that once you present the gospel that your actions no longer affect the choice I or someone else will make if it makes you feel better. That doesn't make it true. The truth is your argument is nothing more than a way to absolve yourself of the responsibility of living what you preach."

I probably lost a friend that day. Not that he was much of a friend anymore anyway. For the past two or three months our conversations have only consisted of him trying to win me back to Christianity. He acts as if my choice to leave the faith has suddenly made me no smarter than a five year old. He has become condescending and arrogant. It's as if I no longer have value as a person because I no longer believe the way he does.

I'm appalled to realize I once believed that way, but I guess when you live by a creed that throws away logic and reason all you have left is irrational, unreasonable rationalization to explain things that you don't like or understand.

Jesus the False Prophet

2010-01-18T18:41:00.000-05:00

By WizenedSage

Image by Sacred Destinations via Flickr

Christians are fond of defending the claim of Jesus’ divinity by pointing out the “fulfilled” prophesies of the Bible. However, if they paid attention to the whole Bible, then they would see that they are obviously guilty of the confirmation bias; that is, they count the apparent hits and ignore the misses. Below are a number of passages from the Bible where Jesus or one of his minions (on Jesus’ behalf) prophesies that the end of the world will be soon. That was 2,000 years ago. Now, for those who might be tempted to suggest that a couple thousand years could be like a couple days to a god, please be aware that that is irrelevant. The Bible was written for the instruction of humans and no human would interpret 2,000 years as ‘soon.’

Please observe:

Matt 10:23: [Jesus said to his disciples] 'When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes'.

Mark 13:30: [After detailing events up to the end of the world, Jesus says] 'Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place'.

1 Thess 4:15: We who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord [“ are left” for 2,000 years?].

1 Cor 7:29: The appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none [he certainly didn’t mean live that way for 2,000 years].

Hebrews 1:2: In these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.

1 Peter 1:20: He [Christ] was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times.

Rev 22:20: [Jesus said] 'Surely I am coming soon'.

1 Peter 4:7: The end of all things is at hand.

If the believers are aware that Jesus was wrong over and over about the “imminent” end of the world, why do they still accept him as a prophet?
Not convinced yet? Well, here are a dozen more: Mark 9:1, Mark 14:62, Rom 13:12, 1 Cor 7:31, Phil 4:5, 1 Matt 16:28, Hebews 10:37, James 5:8, 1 John 2:18, Rev 1:1, Rev 3:11, Rev 22:6.

That’s 20 misses. And, in upholding Jesus as a prophet, aren’t they ignoring Deuteronomy 18:21-22?

“You may say to yourselves, ‘How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?’ If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken.”

Doesn’t this pretty much prove that Jesus was a false prophet, since what he said did not come true – at least 20 times over?

Now think of the “Left Behind” novels authors and all the televangelists and other preachers who are still carping about the imminent rapture and ‘end times.’ I can’t help but see that picture of the three monkeys in my mind; hands over mouth, hands over ears, hands over eyes. Willful ignorance personified.

Think about it. If someone gave you stock tips or horse racing picks a half-dozen or so times, and they were always wrong, would you continue to listen to his tips another dozen times or more? Would you still expect wisdom from this guy? Wouldn’t that be a pretty good definition of “gullible?”

If the believers are aware that Jesus was wrong over and over about the “imminent” end of the world, why do they still accept him as a prophet? And if they aren’t aware of this, why is that? How could they miss so very many instances of false prophesy? Is this indeed a simple case of willful ignorance?

Praise God for the Disaster in Haiti! Isn't God Good? Thank You Jesus!

2010-01-17T23:36:00.002-05:00

By John Loftus of Debunking Christianity

As a bit of sarcasm that Voltaire would appreciate let's all praise God for the disaster in Haiti. God is sovereign. He knows what he's doing. In fact this has been long overdue.

If this is a punishment sent by God then God's punishments are good, aren't they? We're all sinners so we deserve to die, right? People deserve what happens to them because Adam and Eve sinned, or because our parents sinned, or because of original sin (whatever that can possibly mean in this context for the children). God's goodness and glory are displayed in the sufferings and deaths of the victims along with the grieving surviving family members.

In any case, it's disasters like these that God sends to draw people to him, sort of like beating your wife in order to get her to love you, right? God is perfectly good. Glory be to God! He always does that which is perfectly good. So this is not a tragedy, not a disaster, not an "evil". This is all good! Praise God! Evil is nothing but a privation anyway, according to Augustine. It doesn't really exist!

Let's thank God and do nothing to prohibit his judgments on the people of Haiti, because it's God's will.In addition, consider this as a perfectly good divine method of population control. Every once-in-a-while God just has to do this because populations get out of hand and because of this they might upset the so-called perfectly fine tuned ecosystem he created. Never mind for a moment that a more humane way to control population is to control our sex drives, or female ovulation cycles, so that we don't even have a population control problem in the first place. And never mind that there is no reason for a miracle working God to be concerned with such a fine tuned ecosystem when he could sustain the world and control population growth by means of several perpetual miracles. He could even have averted that earthquake with one, like he should have done with the underwater earthquake that created the Indonesian tsunami of December 2004, which killed a quarter of a million people. If God had done this, then surprise! He still would remain hidden because no one would ever know he averted it, simply by virtue of the fact that it didn't happen!

No, God knows what he's doing and his ways are for the very best. We cannot even fathom how good God's ways are since he's omniscient and knows best. He has perfectly good reasons why he remains hidden, even though by means of a perpetual miracle God would have remained hidden here (but we're taught not to ask these kinds of questions). We know God is good by faith because we certainly cannot figure this out using the rational powers he created in us, even given his perfectly good revelation in the Bible.

Anyway, those damned Haitians are bad people, as Pat Robertson said. They made a pact with the Devil and deserve this. No wonder they don't have divine protection. And as a Christian I Just Do Not Give a Damn That People Die. Any true Christian who dies in this disaster will go to heaven anyway.

Besides, Jesus told us that when we see such things we should look up into the sky dome of heaven and be thankful, for this is yet another sign that Jesus is coming. Just ignore the many other previous disasters that have taken place like the Spanish Influenza outbreak of 1918 and the failed apocalyptic predictions that came with it of the end of the world. In fact, let's hope and pray things get worse because we'd rather be in heaven than here on earth. And ignore also the fact that if the world comes to an immediate end there are still billions of non-Christians who have not yet been reached with the saving knowledge of Jesus, many of whom could still be reached if God grants them more time. Ignore also that most these victims will burn in hell forever. God's patience cannot last forever. Who cares if he calls a halt to this world whenever he does? I don't. I only care about me. I want to go to be with God soon, today if possible. The people who wind up in hell deserve what they get, even those who die in this Haitian disaster. Let them burn. I'm just thankful that in God's graciousness toward me he didn't end the world before I got saved. Isn't God so full of it [grace, that is]? It's simply amazing!

So let's thank God and do nothing to prohibit his judgments on the people of Haiti, because it's God's will. And let's look to the sky for Jesus and help raise money for doomsday ministries that tell the world of the coming disaster upon the heathen for whom this disaster is being sent. We'll be raptured out of this mess, and even if not, his grace is sufficient for us. We know where we'll go when the time comes.

Be thankful and praise God in all things!

They Don’t SPEAK for ME!

2010-01-16T11:09:00.002-05:00

by Bruce Gerencser of Restless Wanderings

They all use the same Bible.

They all believe the same Bible.

They all worship the same God.

They all believe the same about Jesus.

They all believe the same about man’s need of redemption.

They all believe in heaven and hell.

Whether they call themselves Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant or Baptist they believe the same.

Whether they are a part of a denomination or independent they believe the same. Whether they are liberal, charismatic, conservative, or fundamentalist they believe the same.

Regardless of the name over the door every Christian Church essentially believe the same.

The cardinal doctrines are settled. God is God. Jesus is Jesus.The Bible is truth.

Yes, they differ in matters of eschatology, worship styles, music. social rules, government and politics BUT these matters are peripheral to the central truth of the Christian Church, Jesus the Christ crucified and raised from the dead.

Yet, a funny thing happens when a noted Christian pastor/bishop/elder/priest/para-church leader says something controversial…

Well, they don’t speak for me!

They don’t represent me.

They don’t speak for all Christians.

As with real families when the crazy uncles says or does something bizarre we are quick to distance ourselves from them. We pretend they are not a part of our family.

But they are.

So it with the Christian Church.

Try as they might to distance themselves from the crazy uncles in their midst, the uncles are still part of the family. It is called the family of God. The blood washed band.

So stop trying to pretend that Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Paul Crouch, Jack Van Impe, Al Mohler, John Piper, Billy Graham, Franklin Graham, Creflo Dollar, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Joyce Meyers, Paula White, Jack Hyles, Bob Gray, Ernest Angley, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Jim Wallis, the Pope, etal are NOT a part of your family.

TBN, GOD TV, and the Church channel represent you.

When Pat Robertson gives his latest prophecy he speaks for you.

When the Pope condemns condom use in Africa he speaks for you.

When Rick Warren condemns homosexuality he speaks for you.

As with real families when the crazy uncles says or does something bizarre we are quick to distance ourselves from them. We pretend they are not a part of our family.

But they are.

So it with the Christian Church.When Al Mohler, John Piper and every Calvinist let the world know that God is in the killing, maiming and destruction business they speak for you.

When hate-mongering Christian Michele Bachmann waxes eloquently about God she speaks for you.

When James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Doug Phillips, Gary Demar, Rousas Rushdoony speak they speak for you.

When the Southern Baptists pass resolutions about homosexuality and women in the ministry they speak for you

When a politician invokes the name of the Christian God they speak for you.

When a priest molests a boy his actions reflect on you.

When Ted Haggard smokes crack and has sex with homosexual prostitutes his actions reflect on you.

When your pastor steals, lies, and sleeps around his actions reflect on you.

When a Christian nation on behalf of a Christian God bombs the hell out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and

Pakistan and kills tens of thousands of people they do it in your name.

They are YOUR family.

They worship the same God as you. They read from the same Bible as you. They believe in the same Jesus as you do.

Object all you will about my unfair judgment…

The NON-Christian world sees things just like I have represented them here.

The FORMER-Christian sees things just like I have represented them here. They see the Bible as the problem. They know to abandon the Bible is to abandon Christianity. They see no other solution to this problem but rejecting the Bible. It is the Bible that is at that foundation of all the speaking that goes on in God’s name. God has spoken! Where? In the Bible.

Every wild, bizarre, vile pronouncement that Christians make are propped up by the Bible. Book, chapter, and verse.

What is your response to this post? Do you want to beat me up, in Jesus name of course? Do you want to straighten me out? Do you want to expose my biases, my errors in judgment? Do you want to attack me and tell me I have an axe to grind or that I am jaded, cynical, and hateful? (all true BTW)

Anything but deal with the main premise of this post.

Cornering a Christian

2010-01-16T04:21:00.001-05:00

by Gray

If you really want to stump a Christian, ask one which doctrine of salvation is the correct doctrine, according to the Bible. And by that question, I am not asking what the Biblical steps to salvation are. I think all Protestant Christians would agree that the definition of salvation is basically, repentance and acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior. Rather, I am talking about which of the competing theological doctrines of salvation, like predestination, Arminianism and “eternal security” is the one true doctrine of salvation. In other words, how is salvation achieved? Is it through predestination? Or is it through the Arminian belief in a synergistic interplay between God’s calling and man’s choice to believe? Or, is salvation up to man alone and guaranteed forever, once chosen?

The fact that the Bible contains conflicting statements about the path to salvation is very telling. Salvation is the central theme of Christianity, yet the responsibility for and the eternal effect of the repentance and acceptance of Jesus has eluded even the greatest of all Christian theologians. And don’t look to the Bible for a clear explanation of one “true” doctrine of salvation. You will not find it. In fact, what you will find, if you really look, is a confusing and some would say, contradictory treatment of the subject. For instance, in Romans, chapter 9, Paul lays out a very compelling argument for predestination. In verse 17, Paul quotes God’s statement to Pharaoh regarding his role in dealing with Moses, ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ Paul concludes in verse 18, stating, “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.”

And Paul reiterates his point about predestination in other epistles, as well. And the theological teaching about predestination, which is backed up by plenty of Biblical references, is that once a person is “elected” by God, he can never lose his salvation, because it is God and not man who perseveres in the faith. However, if that is true, then why are there so many warnings in the Old and New Testaments that seem to be directed towards keeping people from straying away from the faith. One very scary example of such warnings appears in Hebrews, Chapter 4, verses 4-6, where the writer of Hebrews specifically states that if one (obviously a believer) falls away from the faith, he or she can never return. There are other warnings that undermine the theory of predestination, like the one in 1 Timothy, chapter 1, verses 18-20, where Paul warns Timothy to “fight the good fight”, lest he lose his faith, like others have.

And the fact that there are excerpts from the Bible that seem to contradict the doctrine of predestination is why other doctrines of salvation have been adopted by other denominations. The Arminians, named after the founder of Arminiansm, Jacobus Arminius, believe that God alone does not “elect” those to be saved. Rather, God calls and it is up to man to respond or not. Another departure from predestination that exists in the doctrine of Arminianism, is the teaching that one can lose his or her salvation (backsliding), but can return to the faith by repenting again, although I have never heard a good explanation for the verses I quoted above in Hebrews. Those verses are outliers to the whole lot of the differing salvation doctrines.

Finally, there is the doctrine of “eternal security”, or “easy believerism, as critics call it, which is taught by many popular mega church preachers, like Charles Stanley. This doctrine is my favorite, because it reminds me of my old Catholic days of sinning all week and then going to confession on Saturdays to get a “clean slate”. Stanley and those who preach eternal security teach that once a person prays the “sinner’s prayer” – God I am a sinner, and I choose to turn from my sinfulness and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior – they are saved forever, no matter what happens in the future. As long as the prayer is genuine when it is prayed, they are golden forever. Needless to say, many of the more fundamentalist churches are offended by this doctrine, because they claim it gives a person a “license to sin”.

You might ask, “So what if the Bible is not clear on exactly which doctrine is true?” Well, if you look at each doctrine and its practical application, you can understand why it is important to know which one is true. For instance, if a person asks, how do I get “saved”? A person who believes in predestination cannot honestly say, “Well, all you do is repent and accept Jesus”, because that is not true. It is God who chooses who will and will not be saved, according to the doctrine of predestination. Now, it is true that those of the Arminian and eternal security persuasion can respond in that way. However, if a person asks an Arminian or an easy believer, “What happens if I turn away for a while (backslide)?”, well, then you have another split in theology. The Arminians will respond, “If you backslide, you must repent before you can be saved again”. And the easy believers will disagree and say, “No problem, you are still saved, no matter what you did. There is eternal consequence for backsliding in our faith.” And then there is that really confusing warning in Hebrews, chapter 4 that I mentioned, which no doctrine has an answer for.

I think the fact that the Bible contains conflicting statements about the path to salvation is very telling. For me, it was one of the reasons I began to question the Bible’s accuracy. And I think something as important as the doctrine of salvation should be clear if it is the truth. It should not lead to hundreds of different denominations and such contention and confusion. And if you force a Christian to choose one doctrine of salvation, no matter which one they choose, they automatically back themselves into a logical corner from which they cannot escape. That is because there are equally compelling passages that support other, contradictory doctrines. Try it, it is fun.

ExChristian.Net - Articles

Popular Threads

Faith In Hearsay

Do You Believe in Magic? (And I Hope You Don't)

Deprogramming the Deprogrammer

Does Christianity Deserve the Respect it Demands?

"Good Christians" with non-working noses

Nothing Fails Like Prayer

Disbelief in a NON-thing

Moses - revisited!

Sad About Haiti? Give to Our MegaChurch

Countermeasures: Dealing with fundy-in-laws

Good vs. Evil: There's No Such Thing

"McChurch" or "My Worldview's OK, Your Worldview's OK"

Worshipping Convictions

Bionic Marvel

The Bible for Dummies

Solar Powered Bibles for Haiti: Why Some Christians Feel Compelled to Exploit Disaster

A Prayer for Haiti

Tree Droppings

Second Star to the Right

Whose Red Herring?

Jesus the False Prophet

Praise God for the Disaster in Haiti! Isn't God Good? Thank You Jesus!

They Don’t SPEAK for ME!

Cornering a Christian