ExChristian.Net -- encouraging ex-Christians

Problem with Repentance

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 06:02:22 PST

By Paul So ~

When I was seventeen years old I took my faith very seriously; I took my faith so seriously that I could pray over an hour if I felt compelled to do so. But why did I feel compelled to pray over an hour? As a Christian at the age of seventeen, the most important phase is to be forgiven, but forgiveness is only possible through confession and repentance. I learned this from reading a few passages from the bible and from other Christian devotional books. However, while I understood what it means to confess, I didn’t exactly know what it means to repent. When I read some of the devotionals as well as some of the passages of the bible, and begun to reflect on the meaning of repentance, it dawned upon me that repentance done by a single human being is impossible.

The reasoning behind this thinking was that a sinner cannot repent unless he realizes the benevolent nature of God through the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. When I say the sinner cannot repent, I really mean he cannot repent on his own, rather it has to be through God who does it for think. This reasoning was supported by biblical passages in Romans 2:4:

“Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance”.

The idea that repentance isn’t something that sinners do, but something that God grants to sinners was also found in Acts 5:31 and Acts 11:18. In other passages, which I couldn’t find, it also says that the holy spirit inspires repentance among sinners.

It dawned upon me that I cannot ask for forgiveness yet, but rather I have to ask for repentance. So for many months this is what I did. However there were several disturbing problems with this theological notion of atonement. First, how do I know that I have not committed a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? After all, the blasphemy against the holy spirit was not well-defined, and there are couple of different interpretations of it. In Mathew 12:31, it talks about the blasphemy of the holy spirit as the only sin that cannot be forgiven. So if this is what I did, then I cannot receive repentance at all. I thought I was in deep trouble. It leads me to the most painful and excruciating existential and spiritual anxiety that was more disturbing that mere physical pain. I seriously was contemplating on committing suicide on several occasions. I got out of this pathological phase by praying more and by choosing one of the more “safer” interpretations of the blasphemy against the holy spirit as a persistent sin against God, so it’s no longer just on act that causes this blasphemy, but a persistent and deliberate behavior. After this insight I got out of it but there were other problems that were not resolved.

Second, how do I even know whether I am in the state of repentance? Even if I did ask for it many times, how do I know that I actually received it? What are the signs? None of this made any sense to me. Are deep spiritual emotions the sign of repentance? Or is it a mere knowledge of the fact that I am repentant? Is it through a dream, or through some other ambiguous signs? I had many questions that went through my head that related to this question: How do I know? How do I know that I am not merely deceiving myself to believe that I am being repentant when I am truly not? I tried to “systematize” my own theology of atonement by trying to connect the dots from passages to passages, and I assumed that different narratives contain symbolic meaning of repentance, but I couldn’t find them, and I always felt that there were discrepancies or disconnectedness among them. I tried to ask other Christians, including my father, and all they said was to have faith that I am going to or I have receive repentance. At first this was convincing, but eventually it did not help. To have faith that I am repentant merely amounts to believe that I am repentant because I believe that I am repentant: this is obviously circular and unhelpful. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I knew that faith is just not going to give me knowledge, but only let me make an assumption. Even if I did have faith that I am repentant, how do I know that my faith is not displaced on a wrong assumption? How do I know that the devil is deceiving me into believing that I have genuine faith in my repentance? How do I know that I am not just deceiving myself into believing that I received repentance? I became like a theological version of Descartes who doubted everything, and when I doubt but received no answers to my troubling questions, it eventually lead me to depression, cynicism, bitterness, and loneliness.

Third, one of the most subtle problem I had with repentance was this: I have to be repentant by asking for repentance; this simply did not make any sense. Immanuel Kant, a famous German Philosopher of the 18th century, was raised a Lutheran Pietist by a group of evangelical pietists who believed that to be repentant is to ask for repentance. Kant knew that there was something wrong with this line of thinking:

“The separation of good from evil is brought about by supernatural operation, i.e. contrition and crushing of the heart in a repentance, which borders on despair. Only divine spirit can bring us to a sufficient state of repentance. We must pray for it- being contrite that we are not contrite enough”

When I read this passage from the biography of Kant, it became clear to me that “being contrite that we are not contrite enough” was incoherent and self-contradictory. For Kant however, it was something more. The biographer said “This was repugnant to him. He considered it hypocritical because the grieving and contrition were not ultimately the responsibility of the one to be converted”….”On this hypothesis, we could never know whether we really were converted, because this would presuppose knowledge of an unknowable supernatural force” Kant’s problem with repentance was very similar to my own, and I no longer felt alone in my confusion with repentance: it was really confusing because it was incoherent and we simply cannot know if we really were repentant. Kant also made another striking point that if we cannot be repentant apart from God, why should we be held culpable or blameworthy? If we cannot repent without God, why would God punish us for something which we cannot do?

Even if I did have faith..., how do I know that my faith is not displaced on a wrong assumption? I guess the fourth problem is that I didn’t feel like I received any answers in my prayers. I felt so depressed a frustrated with the notion of repentance that my prayer felt futile. The first three problems combined made my “spiritual journey” seem futile all together. What it really amounted to was that there was not theology of atonement, because there were theologies of atonement. In other words, there were several ways to interpret atonement because the notion of atonement was vague, and the only clues are the fragments of biblical passages that mentions it. I talked with this to some of the most friendliest theology students, and they admitted to me that the atonement is far from being the most clear doctrine in Christianity. They still had a clear belief about it, but they admitted that different Christians have different understanding of it.

The problem of repentance, however, only lead me to reject Christianity but it didn’t lead me to reject the existence of God; I became a deist afterwards. In a couple years later I was about to reconsider Christianity until I began to read parts of the bible that exposes some of the atrocities that God endorsed. I eventually rejected the belief in the existence of God when I begin to examine the arguments for the existence of God and the nature of God. You can read more about it in my other article “Discordance”, but the gist of it is that when I studied philosophy and examined Christianity more closely, I begin to see more incoherency to the point that I no longer believe in any of the fundamental beliefs that most protestant fundamentalist would hold close to their hearts.

Thus, the problem of repentance ironically lead me to the philosophical life in which there was a liberating doubt that extricated me from the incoherency and dogmatism of superstition. Whereas philosophy gave me the liberty to ask questions, to formulate beliefs based on any reasonable justification, and to re-examine or modify my beliefs in accordance to new insight an evidence, I don’t think Christianity gave me the same privilege.

The Hiddeness of God

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:55:05 PST

By WizenedSage (Galen Rose) ~

"I've never understood how God could expect his creatures to pick the one true religion by faith -— it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe." - Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein

According to Christian theology, an invisible god created the universe and sustains and rules it today, making this god the most powerful force in the universe. But, why then is he so hidden from us? We know of many lesser invisible things, such as gravity, electrons, and magnetism, which we have discovered, measured, and described by their effects on visible things, but such evidences of a god are highly ambiguous at best.

Amongst the apologists, there appear to be four main arguments for the “hiddenness” of god: the testimony of the Bible argument, the free will argument, the mysterious ways argument, and the “spiritual sight” argument.

Christian and fence-sitting visitors to this site should think seriously about these arguments, and learn what they can about both sides.

Testimony of the Bible Argument

The essence of this argument is this (from http://www.gotquestions.org/God-hidden.html):

“So why does God no longer speak audibly to us? There are several reasons for this. As noted above, God has already spoken, and His words have been miraculously kept for us down through the ages. Now we have the completed canon of scripture, and we need no further miracles to “validate” the Bible. In His perfect Word is everything we need “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible is complete and is perfectly able to make us “wise to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:15). . . “

But how can we be sure the Bible is the “word of god?” Surely the fact that the Bible says it is the “word of god” can’t be taken as proof. Anyone could write that. So, what evidence does this gotquestions.com writer offer?

Well, here’s a bit of that evidence: “His first miracle – creation – was the primary evidence of God’s existence and exhibited many of His attributes. From what was made, man could conclude that God is powerful, sovereign, and good.”

There are a number of things wrong with that statement, but let me point out just one of them. The claim is that man could conclude that god is good from what was made. But, is cancer good? How about grotesque birth defects? Are murderous earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes and tornadoes good? It could be argued that nature is trying very hard to kill us. Why should we infer from this that god is good?

Personally, I think the very best argument against the Bible being the word of god is the enormous number of obvious tall tales in it. For example, there are talking snakes and jackasses, a magical fruit tree, 900 year-old men, a wooden boat which could carry multiple samples of all the animals on earth, and a man who walked on water, calmed a storm with a command, made food materialize, healed people with a touch, etc., etc. There is no evidence in the world today, which anyone can point to, that would prove any of these claims, not one. Perhaps these stories read like myth and legend because that’s what they are. After all, that is the simplest explanation, in keeping with Occam’s Razor.

Free Will Argument

It is often argued that if god were to clearly show himself, and prove his existence, that would remove our free will in the matter. My short version response is . . . so what? I have no free will in the matter of gravity or hunger, either. I know they exist. So what? That knowledge helps me to survive in this world, so why isn’t that a good thing? Why should we accept that a lack of knowledge about something is a good thing? This seems to be an all too common claim when it comes to religion.

One writer (at http://www.seekerstrove.com/hidden.html) argues: “If God were to reveal himself in his awesome glory who would not come? All would fall on their faces, trembling in terror. Do you think that God wants a personal relationship with people who came to him because they were afraid of him? What God wants from you is your love.” This is clearly contradicted by Matthew 10:28, where Jesus says: “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” If Jesus isn’t saying in this passage that we should fear god, then what the hell is he saying? There is also Proverbs 9:10: "The fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom." And if god wants us to fear him, then why doesn’t he prove his existence to us unambiguously. After all, I am not going to be afraid of something I don’t believe to exist. And what kind of love is it that fears the object of that love, anyway? How does one bring himself to love a being that he fears? That is not a healthy love.

Why should the knowledge of the existence of a god who can hurt us be hidden? What could be more important for us to know? Why should it be a secret? Is it because it wouldn’t be a proper guessing game without this hiddenness? Is it that god simply wants to turn our salvation into a guessing game? Is god some kind of child? And if the New Testament god is the one true god, then why are the cards stacked so heavily against people who live outside of Europe and the Americas? Isn’t this unfair? So, god not only wants us to guess, but he stacks the cards against most of us? Why does this sound more like the work of a Satan than a god who loves mankind and justice?

How can we take seriously the argument that god wants to remain hidden when there is so much contrary evidence in the Bible? God spoke with many people in the Bible; Abraham, Noah, Job, and others. Why wasn’t their free will important? Also, god was once so anxious to show himself off and spread his message that he came down as Jesus and appeared to thousands of people, performing all sorts of miracles. What about their free will? Why is it important to preserve our free will in the matter, but not theirs? The free will argument is clearly chock-full of holes.

Mysterious Ways Argument

To my mind, this is perhaps the silliest argument of all. Essentially, this argument says that if there is something that makes no sense about a god’s ways, such as his hiddenness, then we should just ignore it, that we’re just not sufficiently intelligent to make judgments about such things. Does it ever occur to the proponent of this argument that he is just taking someone else’s word that he is dumb?

The faithful tell us that we can’t know the mind of god - that our puny minds can’t hope to understand him. Yet, this god supposedly wants us to believe in and worship him (or so the Bible claims). So this ultra intelligence, who created us and knows our every thought, can’t make himself understood by us? Does this really make sense? How could anyone expect to sell me a philosophy, a car, or a religion, if he can’t speak my language and make a sales pitch that I can understand?

Worse still, because most believers are satisfied with the “mysterious ways” claim, we have a world of hundreds of religions and thousands of sects, and we argue and fight and kill each other over who’s right. How can it make sense to infer from this that a real god, who loves people, is in charge? And how can I know which god’s “mysterious ways” I should believe? Should I accept Allah’s mysterious ways, or Ganesh’s, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s? If a god doesn’t have to make sense, then how can I possibly choose which is the real god, or even if there is one? Would a real god expect me to just guess, or take someone else’s word for it, that he’s the real one?

In the end, the mysterious ways argument is a red herring, designed to take our attention away from the nonsensical claim that there’s a god who desperately wants our worship, yet stays carefully hidden, providing only the most ambiguous signs. But it is the handiest argument of all. When the believer is pushed into a corner by logic, he can pull out this argument to show he is no longer interested in logical argument. Maybe believers are willing to accept that they’re too dumb to spot nonsense, but I’m not.

The “Spiritual Sight” Argument

According to this argument, god is not hidden at all, but is known through the human spirit. Here’s one explanation of this theory (from http://groups.northwestern.edu/christians/Why_is_God.html):

“God made man with three parts - the spirit, the soul, and the body. The body is for contacting physical things . . . The soul is for contacting psychological things, such as thoughts, love, hatred . . . The spirit is for contacting God, who is Spirit. . . Maybe God tries to hide Himself so that only His true seekers will find Him.”

To begin with, no one has ever proven this “spirit” thing even exists. Try defining the word “spirit,” to get a sense of what I mean. It seems to be the kind of word that has as many shades of meaning as there are people. Also, I have five perfectly good senses, so why can’t god show himself thru at least one of these senses, instead of this so-called sixth sense of “spirit,” which can’t even be proven to exist? What better way for a god to leave me in doubt than to avoid using any of the more obvious senses? Now I believe in school spirit and team spirit, but these are just feelings. But many people have claimed that ghosts are spirits, or that they have been in touch with the spirits of long dead wise men, etc. An awful lot of nonsense has accumulated around this word “spirit,” and a very good argument could be made that spirit is nothing but feelings.

For example, the same site had this to say about connecting with god through the spirit:

“You Can See God . . . You cannot see God with your eyes, but you can see God with your spirit. To believe without seeing Him with physical eyes is more blessed.”

I’m betting that was written by a man who wanted desperately to see god, but never did. So he turns it into a good thing, that he never did. He continues:

“The way to use your spirit to see God is to talk to Him. Say, "Lord Jesus, I want to see You in my spirit. I want to contact You. I want You to reveal Yourself to me. I want You to come into me and live in me. Thank You, Lord." If you speak to Him in this way, He will be hidden from you no longer.”

Now isn’t this just telling us that if we try really, really hard to believe something, then we just might succeed? Might this approach work just as well for “seeing” Mohammed or Satan? How does this approach differ from self-hypnosis?

There are many cases on record of crime suspects being grilled for endless hours by police - the interrogators constantly suggesting how the crime was done, and insisting they knew the suspect was guilty - until the suspect confessed to a crime, and actually believed he was guilty. Later, DNA, eye-witness, or other evidence proved the original suspect could not have committed the crime.

Our minds, you see, respond amazingly well to the power of suggestion. One should remember that the point is not just to believe something (as the writer above suggests), but to find the truth. Through the power of suggestion, millions have come to worship Allah and dozens of Hindu or other gods. But their “spirits” didn’t find the truth, because they were merely responding to their feelings. Your feelings can tell you nothing about what exists outside your own head. For example, you may feel that you are deeply loved by someone, but that feeling may have more to do with your psychological need than with the facts of the matter. The “other” in this case may be merely acting a part. You would need to rely on concrete, external evidence to uncover the truth of the matter. And the same applies to gods.

Conclusion

The Bible insists, over and over, from beginning to end, that to believe in and worship this god is the ultimate obligation and meaning of man, and to not believe is the absolute worst thing a man can do, and assures him of misery and/or an early death (Old Testament), or everlasting torture in hell (New Testament). If god wants us to believe, and we don’t, then the ruler of the universe is not getting what he wants. Does this make sense? Otherwise (if we believe there is a god), we must accept that he wants us to play guessing games with our salvation. Does this make sense?

All we really have to go on are those ancient stories, those incredible tall tales of the Bible written by primitive, superstitious men. So, either we take their word for how the world works, or we are lost. Does this make sense? Those ancient scribes made many claims, but none of those claims can be supported by concrete evidence in the physical world. Under those circumstances, believing requires a leap of faith, but a leap of faith is just a guess by another name; it is merely presuming as fact something which can’t be proven.

Doesn't it seem reasonable that if a god truly interacted with this world, and wanted us to know it, then it would be obvious, and we would not be dealing with a god who hides? According to the Bible, he is all powerful and WANTS us to know it. So why are all the alleged signs of his existence so ambiguous? In fact, there in a nutshell, is a pretty decent argument that Bible-god does not exist.

Now, believers will often argue that we should believe something even when it makes no sense to us. In any other area of life, to believe something when it makes no sense would be considered stupid. Thus, to just believe, we risk stupid. Most folks seem willing to take that gamble, but I am not. And no god with a lick of sense or an ounce of compassion is going to fault me for honest skepticism. To me, the world appears to involve no gods. When I read the Bible, it's as if those primitive men with their endless tall tales are saying to me, "Who are you going to believe, us or your own eyes and mind?" No contest. I believe that my own mind, fortified with several hundred years worth of scientific discovery, is much the better suited to finding the truth about the world than those superstitious ancients.

Snow White: Antichrist

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:48:34 PST

By John ~

A friend of mine once proposed to me that Disney's Snow White is the Antichrist. There you see her lying in state while the seven dwarves (who represent the seven churches) bow before her. A prince (the false prophet) comes riding up, kisses her, and restores her to life (false resurrection). Therefore, she's the Antichrist.

Makes sense to me.

The theological underpinnings of Snow White are simply one in a string of Disney tales. Prince Philip (the savior) slays the dragon (Satan) to rescue Sleeping Beauty (the Church). Simba is separated from his father and flees (the fall of man) only to live in an unnatural state until he is reconciled to Mufasa (God the Father). Goofy becomes possessed when he gets behind the wheel of a car (representing how modern science separates us from our true nature in god). And less obvious examples such as Peter Jackson (Pontius Pilot) crucifying the characters of Aragorn, Faramir, and Galadriel (the Father, Son and ...Holy Crap! Are you serious? She wasn't freakish in the book!)

Now, try to point any of these out to a Christian and they will either call you a moron, laugh, or roll their eyes. The same people who think Tim LaHaye's version of the end times has merit will not take you seriously. These seemingly rational people who will talk to you about demon possession will discard your earnest pleas to beware the Dwarf Whisperer (Snow White, aka Antichrist). People who actually think there is such a thing as a "true Christian" will mock you for your Disney-beliefs.

I don't see why? My silly story is no more fantastical than theirs. Maleficent and Satan are both fictitious characters. So what's the big deal?

I keep hoping to come across some radical fundamentalist preacher on the street just so that I can be temporarily possessed by the demon Grumpy and give him what-for. And if he drives that demon away, there are six more for him to contend with.

Make that five. The spirit of Dopey is apparently already at work among the religious.

Can We Encourage Others With The Truth About The Liars?

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:31:35 PST

By Yak ~

Yet Another Representative of Christ Shown to Keep Toxic Secrets: http://news.yahoo.com/priest-fathered-child-removed-york-church-170202021.html

The old adage that "The fish rots from the head-back" certainly proves itself to be both true and relevant on an on-going basis.

Secretly fathering a child while in the institution of higher learning that "forms" priests in their role as spiritual leaders, "pastors," confessors, truth-tellers and even judges of other people's faith (ever been told by a christian pastor/priest/minister/teacher that "your conscience wasn't formed correctly" when you took issue with their crazy-making?)

Famously, (and joining the long, distinguished and rapidly growing list of religious vow-takers-and-breakers) Thomas Merton, a member of the Catholic "Trappist" or "Cistercian" monastic order -- one of the golden boys of their religion -- also fathered a child while at school. But, true to form, members of his organization have made sure that his woman and his child are covered up.

Whenever sexual indiscretions occur in Christianity both the leaders and the followers engage in aggressive denial, minimizing, and altering the stories, and, in an outright demonstration that religious brainwashing is both real, rampant and insidious. Incredibly, they still believe that they still inhabit the position of the moral higher ground.

I did hear an elderly monk say once, "never underestimate the power of denial." No truer statement was ever made by a member of religion.

Wouldn't it be interesting if there was an easy to reach online list of these people, the dates, and the names of those who were involved --and the cover-ups-- so that there is reliable proof that one can turn to when a person decides to leave the seething and tricky cauldron of "holy" and arrogant religion?

I can't think of a more helpful and compassionate way to encourage those who wish to de-convert and get their lives back. "The truth will-out," as the old saying goes. So, why not use the truth as something helpful and kind to those who are sick and tired of the lies, denial and shame, but who find themselves being scapegoated and shamed by the very religious people they are trying to get away from?

I wonder: with the rapidly increasing number of illegitimate children discovered as being popped out by christian leaders, we may be doing the milkmen of the world a terrible disservice.

It may be time to revise the old saying from being, "He/she doesn't look like his/her father, he/she must be the milkman's kid" to "He/she is the christian leader's kid."

To the Milkmen of the world: we offer you a sincere apology. You're indiscretions appear to have been up-staged by religion.

Your thoughts?

Blank Checks

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 03:03:27 PST

By Andrea ~

Imagine that you are with your life, husband, boyfriend, girlfriend, or anyone else that's close to you. You're with them on the first day of a new year. They ask you what you hope to do this year and you say ''This year I will be a blank check for you(insert their name here). You decide what you want me to do with my life this year and whatever it is,no matter if I like the idea or not,I will do it.I will be like a blank check and you write the cost, of whatever you want,on me and I'll let you ''cash in'' whatever amount you desire from me.'' Then for the next 365 days you do everything this person asks from you.No matter if its insane or if you don't understand any of it...you do it with a smile.Every time you want to say ''What the hell am I doing this for?'',you bite your tongue and instead say ''Thank you for the opportunity to serve you this year.''

Aw isn't that sweet? Isn't that how you showed your love for someone on New Years? We all do this right? Haha... not so much.I would hope that no one reading this has actually done that. Unless you had a lobotomy'... I'm pretty sure no one would be this much of a door mat for someone. Most of the time,if someone has a relationship like this,everyone around them worries about them. They worry that the person has lost their voice in life and has sunk to taking endless orders from people. There is only place, as far as any that I've been involved in,that actually thinks this is a healthy way to have a relationship.That place is Christianity.

All of us, with a good heart, has made a sacrifice for someone at least once right? We've all been to the store and spent the money on a birthday present for someone... even though we were tempted to spend it on ourselves. We've probably all let someone else in the family have a turn to choose the restaurant, even though we didn't really want to eat there that night. Or sometimes maybe its on a bigger level... you cut back on buying clothes for yourself and save money because your daughter wants to take dance lessons. It's a natural part of life right? If we didn't do that once a while it would be hard to survive and no one would be happy. We all know why we're willing to sacrifice for people we love... but how many people know why they are willing to distort that same idea of sacrifice for the sake of religion?

I think that religions like to look at other religions and think they are so dedicated that its ''scary.'' While giving themselves a pat on the back for not doing anything that's'' going overboard.'' To most Christians living now...a girl who is Muslim, and covers here face all the time is living a sad overly controlled life. Yet when it comes to themselves, it's a good thing to say that Jesus has their whole life planned and they will everything and anything he asks of them. Some of them even say to Jesus ''I give you all control.Its not I who live but you who lives in me.'' That's only one of many creepy sayings that I remember from them.

So what is about this God idea? Why is that no one else can do outrages things for their God(or they are called crazy) but when it comes their own God.. they believe he should walk all over them? Why is it that people know where to stop,on the level of sacrifice, when it comes to relationships with actual people but not with God?Why is it that if someone told their best friend that they were going to die to her will and live for her.. people would think she's crazy, but in their ''relationship'' with Jesus that's considered an honorable thing to say to him?

That whole way of thinking just blows my mind because its so scary but, in modern Christians, it only seems to be applied to God.

The truth is.. I did it once and I still don't understand what happened. I'll admit that I was never a total robot(if God asked me to stick my head in the oven for an hour I probably wouldn't have done it) but I was willing let him control most of my future.I don't naturally tolerate being bossed around very much.If someone wants to control me too much then that relationship will probably last five minutes. That's just not my personality to be passive about that. But even I was sucked into the ''let God walk all over you'' way of thinking. So it left me always wondering..what is the deal with that?I was reminded of it strongly today because that hypothetical ''blank check'' idea that I talked about... I didn't make that up.That was real and I saw some Christians talking about how it was who they wanted to be for God this year. But I didn't find it surprising..what else besides religion that convince someone it's good idea to be a blank check?

The Hug

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 02:49:05 PST

By Tania ~

The house is empty now. Everyone has left to go to prayer meeting. I had to go to the basement for something, and I saw one of the many God books on the desk. And I remembered that hug, that hug that reminds me that I cannot share these thoughts with my family yet – or maybe ever. It would be too much.

They know that I am having doubts. They know that I am not sensing God, that my experiences with prayer and church and Christians in the past year have significantly changed my thoughts about this faith that at one time meant the world to me... And, I think – I should hope – that they know me well enough to know that this is not a phase, this is not me rebelling or being selfish or lazy or judgmental.

They know how I am in my relationships (not perfect in any way, but probably as “normal” as most people!). They've raised me in a simplistic, non-materialistic way, and I've stuck to that because I think it is the best way to live. I have volunteered with the dying for years now and I am training to become a funeral director – and because of that and also because I am generally a curious person about many things, I have spent much time reading about dying, death, the meaning of life, values, beliefs, spirituality. religion, etc. I am well-read; in fact, I've been told that I read too much and think too much!

Back to that hug...

In our family, we do not hug much – maybe a few times a year? I “came out” to my brother as much as I probably will. And he hugged me – tightly, fiercely, wordlessly. I don't know what that meant. He's my big brother, the one who reassures, corrects, advises, tries to set me straight. To this, there were no answers. I don't know if he felt that I am hopeless, or maybe he felt sorry for me, or maybe, maybe, he understood exactly where I'm coming from. A few weeks ago, I admitted my doubt/disbelief about all this God stuff to the Bible study group I sometimes attend (I don't give up easily! God, if He's there, honours that, right?!); when asked what these doubts were about, I admitted, “God. His involvement in my life. His existence. Everything. He used to seem so close and so real, and now... there's nothing.” (I don't think people do that much in any group I've ever attended. Keep quiet, right? I can't do that.) The leader's response was not what I expected. I expected a bit of, I don't know, admonition? Encouragement? Brushing aside of my remarks? Instead, slowly, quietly, thoughtfully, his response was, “Well... that was very honest of you... and... we're here for you....” That answer hurt. I am grateful for what he said, but I guess part of me was hoping he'd tell me that Satan had messed with my mind or that "We all go through that" or "Just have faith!" I don't remember if he did say anything else. His hesitance in replying and the way in which he did not attempt to re-convert me or immediately offer prayers or answers – that, I will not forget.

And I won't forget that hug.

This whole “losing my faith” thing has shaken me up a lot, and I am not a person who keeps silent when things are bothering me. But in this case? When sharing my latest “testimony” is such a far cry from the testimonies I've shared as a Christian over the years?

I will keep quiet for now, unless asked.

Thank you, all of you, for your honesty, for sharing what's weighing heavily on your hearts and minds. I've just discovered this site, and it helps knowing I am not alone. I have this feeling, deep down, that things will turn out okay and the truth will set us free and all that... it's just that right now, it's a bit too deep down.

"Word" Processors

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:55:52 PST

By Carl S. ~

Several years ago, Newsweek magazine published the results of a survey asking different denomination members to define "God". Yes - that god. The definitions of "God" fell into four or five different categories. (I made a point with my wife one day that her definition of God was not the same as her brother’s, sister-in-law’s, my niece, etc.) Thus, theology, as a method to define "God" and “his” mind, wishes, and duties to Him turns out to be a means to control via . . . words. And it works.

A noted Father of the Catholic Church, Thomas Aquinas, wrote of the "Five proofs for the Existence of God." Aquinas, an erudite philosopher quoted occasionally by theologians, is considered by them to have written a brilliant exposition with his "proofs", but, as one thinker noted, his "proofs" only make sense if you accept his premise to begin with, and he offers no proof that his god exists. What Aquinas offers is what every theologian feeds on and lives off: words.

There is no way to counter invisible non-entities, "spiritual” claims, when words have adoration. Even a three year-old kid’s words can be taken as acceptable "sacred truth,” when words mean so very much.

The proofs for a divinity’s existence and the truthfulness of claims handed down by the divinity, depend on one's geographical standing on Earth. As astronauts circle the Globe, they cross over the many interpretations and contradictions of just how those "proofs" are defined, some involving several gods or aspects of the same god. Even in space, the premise is a premise, with no proof. No proof, for instance, even in space, that anything in the universe was created. What a view! Meanwhile, down on Earth, earthlings are harming and killing each other, over beliefs in an invisible "creator" and what they intransigently accept as "his wishes."

Meanwhile, here on Earth, many maintain that this "great invisible spirit", is a "father." This label came from Jesus. That’s one. “

The Talmudic god is a trickster, doing whatever turns him on, good or bad. (Christians won't accept this, but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of it, they believe this too, but they make excuses.) Definitely male, because he enjoys destroying. The Moslem god, Allah, appears to be just another fate-playing ogre in need of regularly scheduled praise, appeasement, and calloused foreheads, and a misogynist. Pick a god, any god . . .

"How do you live without God?" Answer: Everyone lives without God, because there isn't any.When it comes to words, I am reminded of one of my favorite word-masters, John le Carré, who put these words into the mouth of a master spy: “The world is run on lies." Indeed. Heads of state lie to other heads of state, corporations and politicians lie to their constituents, spouses lie to each other (even though little lies, out of love),governments lie to one another, and clergy lie to their congregations and followers.

Pastors know that the Nativity story is just that - a story. The pope, celebrating Christmas mass, knows this too. They lie and lie and continue to lie, and there are no checks and balances, no catching them in the act.

Let us not downplay the significance of words and their power to not just communicate, but inspire and motivate for better or worse, those who hear them. But with believers, words have a value that raises them to a sacredness which they will not challenge. They carry the connotations of possessing absolute truths. Consider the word "spirit" alone, a word which originally meant "breath," and as used in scriptures, meant that the spirit was breathed into beings by a spiritual force, and departed on death, since the person stopped breathing. Ditto “soul." Sin, redemption, original sin, grace, transubstantiation, damnation, etc., etc. . . . Put them under the microscope of logic and what is known of reality. They don’t really tell us anything, hold no water, and yet their merely being spoken has magical connotations for believers, who hang on these very words, along with the words of prayers and other incantations. Thus, "theology“ is the study of and explanation of . . . words. The entire enterprise and edifice of religions is dedicated to the buying and selling of invisible vapors and feel-good fantasies. While human beings are struggling and even starving to death from lack of help, thousands of word-processors of "the word" are taking money to talk trash.

The word "ambiguous" keeps coming to mind: ”Open to more than one interpretation; doubtful or uncertain; undefined." The vernacular of beliefs is ambiguity, resistant in all ways to explanation, clarity, respect for ascertaining truth. Beliefs create a world of their own. Lies to evade truth and support ambiguity are told so often and elaborately that the liars come to actually believe their own lies. Does this habit lead to personal convictions? I think so, from experiences in dealing with them. And don't all of us have experience of where they're coming from ourselves?

Do we not have not merely the right, but duty, to hold the "proofs" of religions to scientific scrutiny, to place them under the microscope of truth-claims for the sake of verification, as we do for every other claim? "Tradition" is a sorry excuse to perpetuate ignorance. Already, Religious presidential candidates, using the habit of their belief-ambiguity, are tripping themselves up when pressed to explain their "unquestionable" beliefs. (Again, le Carré:"A man who cannot speak clearly, cannot think clearly.”

You wouldn't believe how much crap I've heard about this god, his angels, what heaven is like, how he felt when he died on the cross, how much he loves me, how many died for the faith (by the way, how many died against the faith, because faith refused to be questioned?) Words, all words. No proof, evidence. All allegations. They can weave complex cobwebs, but still they're cobwebs. And if they want to claim that everything they assert is a ”mystery," let them, and as soon as they solve these “mysteries,” then they can make claims. Until then, and after thousands of years of preaching this non-sense, they can put their money where their mouths are. It’s time they fleshed out their “word.”

Personally, I recommend "none of the above," and as each religion rejects the "proofs" of another's beliefs, I reject them all, since none of them has any. But . . . , they have megatons of words.

There is an answer when I am asked, "How do you live without God?" Answer: Everyone lives without God, because there isn't any. But, everyone has imagination, and nobody lives without imagination. The proof can be found in words.

The Free Will Argument

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:55:52 PST

By Klym ~

I am fairly new to the ex-xtian community, so I still struggle to explain my nonbelief to Christians. How do you reply when they give you the free will argument to explain evil? Aside from wanting to ask them if they really have two brain cells to rub together, the answer seems pretty obvious to me.

Christians seem to have no problem believing that a human being can be "possessed" by the devil. Why then, do they believe there can be free will? If we truly have free will, then neither the divine nor the demonic could control us, right? And, free will seems such a convenient way to explain away horrendous suffering and crimes that human beings should be angry about. It seems to just give Christians an excuse to do nothing about the injustices in the world.

Does a severely mentally ill person really have free will? I think only to the extent that their brain chemistry allows it. Now, don't misunderstand me, I do think we have free will to some extent, but it is influenced by where we were born, the culture we were brought up in, our level of intelligence, and many other variables that cannot be easily measured.

That's one of the things that bugs me about Christianity. I LOATHE easy, trite answers to the difficult questions of life. Like the following:

"There but for the grace of God, go I."

How sickenly arrogant!!!

"God's grace is sufficient."

For WHAT?

"God will not give you more than you can bear."

This one makes me so angry I can't even find words to qualify it.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture. As I said earlier, I am still fairly new to the atheist world, and I seem to be in the "phase" where I just want to scream at people when they say such stupid things. Does this phase pass? I don't want to become as judgemental towards Christians as they are towards us. I don't want to be a "bitter" non-believer. I really want to be tolerant, seeing as how I used to be one who thought and believed such stupid things in the past. (I hope I didn't say them out loud very often, though.)

How did you all handle these feelings in the beginning? And what are your thoughts on the free will debate?

Spiritual Naturalism

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:55:52 PST

By Paul So ~

It is often believed among Christians that non-believers who have no religion cannot have true spirituality; the reasoning behind this is not mere bigotry, rather it is the assumption that spiritual life is wholly dependent on a relationship with God. However I want to go beyond this assumption by arguing that spirituality can be independent of religion (including Christianity). I will argue this by expounding on a naturalistic/atheistic world-view in which Nature is the source of spirituality, not God. However before I do this I want to define or elaborate on what spirituality is; I know that spirituality cannot be thoroughly defined in an exhaustive manner, but at the very least I want to elaborate on the general idea on what spirituality is in order to further explain why it is possible without God. I also want to elaborate on what Nature is in the most simplest way possible…after that I want to relate them together to see how the pieces fall together.

Spirituality is the cultivation of the mind through the activity of the mind that leads to tranquility or equanimity (I’ll use the word equanimity), and this cultivation lies in understanding who we are and understanding our relation to Nature. By Nature, I don’t mean “Gaia” or “Mother Earth”, I mean the entire face of the cosmos which the Atheist French Philosopher Andre-Comte Sponville called “The All”. Spinoza called it “Eternal Substance” or “God”, and Einstein also called it “God” but we can just call it Nature (with the capital “N”). Nature is “The All”, according to Sponville, in that it is a totality of existence that is “unconditioned” (does not require a cause) where as all little nature (planets, stars, universe, multi-universe) are conditioned by the totality of existence (in other words, by conditioned, it means it is dependent on Nature). What this means is that all thing are dependent on Nature, but Nature itself is independent; all things are part of Nature, but Nature is not part of anything else.

To be spiritual is to practice a way of life that brings equanimity to the mind, and I believe that this practice is trying to understand ourselves by understanding Nature. By understanding Nature, we understand ourselves as a part of Nature, as a contingent or dependent individual beings on of whole reality itself. Without Nature, we wouldn’t exist to occupy any reality. By understanding Nature, we see ourselves as being part of something that is exceedingly greater than us; Because Nature contains all things that exist, and there are almost infinity of things that exist, Nature is just so vast and ineffable…there are over trillions of trillions of atoms in the universe, which make up those trillions of stars in the universe, and there are still more billions of galaxies that are made up by those same stars…When we compare ourselves to this universe, we are just a speck that is part of a whole greater reality, and who knows maybe our universe is part of a chain of multiverses that is part of a chaotic inflation. If this is true, then we are infinitely finite compare to the “Totality of All Existence”.

“It is not that we have a short space of time, but that we waste much of it. Life is long enough, and it has been given in sufficiently generous measure to allow the accomplishment of the very greatest things if the whole of it is well invested.”How does this bring a peace of mind? By accepting reality, I think we become less intimidated and insecure; we tend to see ourselves separately from Nature by being preoccupied with our daily lives; there is nothing intrinsically wrong with living our daily life, but to live our life without realizing how vast the universe is, our mind will tend to be more unsettled by events in our lives that are pale in comparison to infinite reality. Our mind is always occupied with the more limited aspect of our life, and in this preoccupation all we ever see are things that are right in front of our eyes. What we tend to forget is that both the things that are right in front of our eyes and ourselves are also part of something greater in the perspective of Nature. By shifting our perspective from the ordinary life to reality as a whole, I think we will see our own ordinary life into a different perspective. All our mental events is part of the totality of events that are dependent on Nature; our sorrows, jealousy, hatred, anger, fear, hope, love, joy, laughter are all part of Nature. Not only are they connected with each other, but connected to everything else around it. We affect things around us, and things around us effect us. The Self is nothing more than a transient feature of a persisting reality; it is a chain of physical and mental events, and underneath this chain of event is a substratum of Nature, or the “Ground of Being”

In other words, we accept death as a part of life, because life, by being part of Nature, is a transient feature of Nature, since everything that exist in Nature is impermanent in Nature, while Nature as a whole remains strangely permanent in so far as it still exist. I am not saying that by accepting death we should kill ourselves or allow things to kill us; we should avoid death when it is in our finite power to do so, but precisely because our agency is finite within the mist of infinite causes we cannot always avoid death. When death comes to us in inescapable circumstances, we should try to face it with equanimity and courage. A Stoic Philosopher once said that “Philosophy is really about learning to accept Death”. I agree with this, although I humbly admit that I am far from achieving this.

But it is precisely because of this acceptance that life can be lived fully. We being to see that life is an opportunity to spend our lifetime wisely in order to achieve equanimity and happiness. Life is spent wisely to achieve happiness and equanimity by loving one another and loving humanity. It is spent wisely when we love Nature itself by understanding it, but want nothing in return from Nature; likewise we love other people selflessly without wanting anything in return. But instead we waste our lifetime in prejudices, superstition, hatred, violence, envy, selfishness, and many other vices; by wasting our life in our vices we are making other people’s life miserable (or letting their lives remain miserable). Seneca, a Roman Stoic Philosopher, once said this “It is not that we have a short space of time, but that we waste much of it. Life is long enough, and it has been given in sufficiently generous measure to allow the accomplishment of the very greatest things if the whole of it is well invested.”

This quote seems to imply another important message…instead of being discontent with the brevity of our life, we should be accept that life is sufficient enough for us to spend it wisely rather than waste it. We should be content with ourselves rather than being merely discontent. We should realize that Nature in its capacity has only produced intelligent life that can only live in a certain period of time; instead of complaining how futile or meaningless life is, we should try to spend it wisely to make our life worth living, as well as making other people’s life more bearable.

So how does this apply to my life? I admit that I do not always see myself as a part of Nature, but many times when I examine myself, that is my thoughts and emotions, I realize that by understanding and examining them I become more calm and accepting. By understanding myself, I realize that I am part of a contingent history that is related to other things that circumscribe it. I also try to understand other people sometimes, and it helps me see things from their perspective, from their contingent history, and that calms me down too. Now that is somewhat close enough to seeing myself as a part of Nature, but not exactly there yet to be honest. However I strongly believe that by understanding myself in relation to Nature, I can develop equanimity. Understanding consists in accepting reality, and acceptance of reality leads to the stability of the mind that use to be unstable because of its ignorance. But since understanding minimizes ignorance, it optimizes equanimity as it ingrains the understanding of reality into the mind to the point that it accepts it more. This is when I realize that True Love is Understanding; True Love also consist in being selfless and accepting, and Understanding seems to fit into this description; it fits in because by understanding ourselves we ironically become detached from ourselves (selfless), and by becoming detached from ourselves, we become less biased about our self-conception and see ourselves as who we are (acceptance).

So how does this relate to spirituality and Nature? Well, to understand our place in Nature we also accept it, and by accepting it we become content with it, and by becoming content with it we achieve equanimity and practical wisdom that motivates us to treat other people in kindness, and this way of life is a life well spent. This is my own spiritual view on Naturalism, but I don’t always practice it because nobody is perfect. I use to think that life is meaningless without God, and the peace of mind is impossible without God. I realize that I was wrong; peacefulness is not found from beyond, but it is found within; it is found not in heaven, but here on earth, in this reality, and more specifically it deeply lies within the capacity of our mind to achieve it. So, I want to spend my life achieving equanimity to see life differently, rather than being discontent and unhappy just because there is no cosmic sky father.

Righteous Abortion: How Conservative Christianity Promotes What It Claims to Hate

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 03:06:09 PST

By Valerie Tarico ~

One of the great ironies of American society is that most abortions in the U.S. are caused by conservative Christians. Read the statistics: Forty nine percent of pregnancies in this country are unintended, a rate that has been painfully stable for almost 30 years. Almost half of those pregnancies end in abortion. Or, to turn it around, over 90% of U.S. abortions are the result of accidental pregnancy. U.S. rates of unwanted pregnancy and abortion far exceed any other country with similar economic development. So does our rate of religiosity. The fact that we are outliers on both is not a coincidence.

Three aspects of conservative Christianity promote abortion: pro-natalism, an obsession with sexual sin, and an emphasis on righteousness over compassion.

Biblical Christianity is not pro life. It is not even pro human life. Steven Pinker recently estimated that the Old Testament alone describes 1.2 million deaths at the hand of Yahweh or his servants. It is, however, pro-birth. Be fruitful and multiply. (Genesis 1:28) Women will be saved through childbearing. (1 Timothy 2:15). Martin Luther, leader of the Protestant reformation, put it in his own words: “If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her only die from bearing; she is there to do it." Christian competitive breeding, a strategy for increasing adherents, is at the heart of the Catholic anti-contraceptive stance and the Protestant Quiverfull movement.
Mama’s baby, papa’s maybe. We all know what it means. By the time the Abrahamic religions emerged, the male desire to invest in only their own offspring had taken the form of men owning women. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. (Exodus 20:17) Women caught in adultery (or missing their hymens) were killed by the ancient Hebrews, just as they are by conservative Muslims today. The Christian obsession with sexual sin or rather with female purity has produced the American virginity myth. In contrast to more secular, open societies, American teens typically don’t seek contraception for a year after becoming sexually active. Contraception would make them guilty of the sin of premeditated sex.
38,000. That’s the number of Christian denominations. Ever wondered why? Traditional Christianity is about right belief, orthodoxy, not about right living. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. Acts 16:31 Contrast this with the central virtue of Buddhism, ahimsa, or non-harm. “Catholic” (meaning universal) and “Orthodox” (meaning right belief) are competing turf stakes from one of the first splits after Christianity beat out paganism. But schism and fracture are just one consequence of beliefism. Many believers would rather be right than in community. They’d rather be right than compassionate. They’d rather be right than solve problems. They would rather oppose abortion than prevent it.

The numbers are in. The most effective way to reduce abortion is to de-stigmatize sexual education, de-mythologize virginity, and invest in broad access to the most effective contraceptives available. In the secular Netherlands, that formula has knocked abortion down to 7 per 1000 women annually, one third the U.S. rate. So why does the Religious Right keep their focus on restrictive laws instead of contraceptive access? Why do they promote person-rights for zygotes, in contradiction to the very essence of personhood? Why do they oppose medically accurate sex ed? Why do they pledge to defund Title X family planning? Because they’d rather be right than solve problems.

And because abortion isn’t really what interests them. They want purity. They want righteousness. They want designated breeders. Even those who don’t overtly promote more births are unable to see that competitive breeding was baked into the desert religions from the beginning.

The world is on the cusp of a contraceptive revolution. Compared to the best birth control available to your parents (the Pill), latest generation long-acting reversible contraceptives, also known as LARCs, drops accidental pregnancy by 10 to 50 fold. Each year one in twelve women on the Pill gets pregnant. Over a lifetime, that’s two or three extra pregnancies per woman – unsought children or abortions. With a Mirena IUD or Nexplanon, that drops to one in 500, because a LARC toggles the fertility default to “off.” If that wasn’t enough, some LARC’s also get rid of that messy monthly uncleanness (Leviticus 15:19-24) brought on by Eve’s curse.

Abortion isn’t really what interests them.Someone who wanted to prevent abortions would advocate showcasing LARCs in every teen health class in the country. They would be making sure that the most effective contraceptives available were available to all. They would be more focused on wise childbearing than on virginity. Those who say they are all about ending abortion, don’t—because they aren’t.

This is Trust Women Week, a week to honor the moral and spiritual wisdom that women invest in our reproductive decisions. Join the virtual march. Listen to Deborah or Deb or Angela or Joy tell her abortion story at the 1 in 3 campaign. If you are ready, tell yours. And spread the word!

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light and Deas and Other Imaginings, and the founder of www.WisdomCommons.org. Her articles can be found at Awaypoint.Wordpress.com.

The Music of the Spheres

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:57:01 PST

By ToonForever ~

I saw an article on the behavior of dew drops on leaves.

Image via Wikipedia

It seems so very simple. My short interpretation is that the dew drop seeks a state of rest, which sends the dew to the tip of a leaf, even if doing so defies gravity. Such a tiny little natural phenomenon creates such spectacular beauty in a meadow on a cool morning.

If I’m being honest, it’s thoughts like that which keep me agnostic. The majestic beauty of nature in uncountable ways, from the vastness of space and the stars, planets, nebulae, comets, to simple dewdrops upon a field of grass or upon a spiderweb.

While there is no doubt in my mind that any god that might exist is not YHWH or Jesus, I could ponder an intelligence behind the beauty of the universe.

To an extent.

Here is where a Christian would extrapolate the idea of such beauty into a discussion of such symmetry requiring a designer – The way nature works to create such majesty can only come from the mind of an intelligent, all-powerful designer.

I believed that at one time, without reservation.

But like so many of those types of conversations, they’re really not comprehensive. Because nature, while it contains so much beauty, also contains a significant, possibly equal, possibly greater amount of ugliness, horror, pain, and suffering.

Nature is vicious, merciless, and indiscriminate.

On the beach in Hawai’i an ocean wave crests and crashes onto the narrow beach, washing over the feet of two lovers walking hand-in-hand.

On Christmas eve, 2004, an ocean wave ravages across the Indian Ocean, killing 240,000 people in one chilling day.

The wonder of cell division is a basic and necessary factor in the propagation of all life on earth.

The wonder of cell division becomes a horror as a simple genetic switch is shut off, allowing uncontrolled mitosis, and loved one dies of cancer.

Warm and cold air swirl together in the desert, creating an impudent little dust devil.

Warm and cold air swirl together high over the Midwest, creating a massive tornado that decimates a city in Missouri.

A breeze drifts across a meadow, bending the plants and the flowers, dusting the field with the next generation of green and gold beauty.

A breeze becomes a mighty wind over the ocean, swirling into a hurricane that devastates a coastal city.

A herd of gazelle bound across the Serengeti in beauty and grace.

One gazelle is not fast enough, and dies brutally as it is taken down and eaten by predators.

The insect world is infinitely beautiful – think of the fireflies as they dance and light up the trees at dusk in the deep south.

The insect world is infinitely deadly – think of the Latin American Kissing Bug, which has a cute name, but whose bite can transmit the devastating and incurable Chagas disease.

An egg is fertilized, cells divide and divide until one day a little baby is born. His mother names him Martin Luther King, Jr.

An egg is fertilized, cells divide and divide until one day a little baby is born. His mother names him Adolf Hitler.

Nuclear fusion brings us sunlight.

It also brings us the hydrogen bomb.

Things of beauty in this world can hide untold horrors, and I would venture the opposite is sometimes true. In the same hospital where a baby’s birth brings tears of joy, a loved one’s death brings tears of bitter grief. The supernova that lights up a telescope viewing from millions of light years away may have destroyed a planet buzzing with life – sure, not instantaneously, but as part of the process. The Lion King may have tried to dress it up anyway Disney could, but the Circle of Life is ferocious and knows no boundaries.

Christianity tries to explain the beauty of nature as evidence of God’s wondrous design. Christians also try to explain the horror. Some say that all pain and death is caused by Adam’s sin, and that no pain or death existed before that point.

Scientifically, of course, that’s patently ridiculous. I actually had a person from the Institute for Creation Research tell me that the teeth of the lion were ideally designed for — wait for it — eating melons. There is an entire mind-twisting rationalization for the existence of clearly carnivorous species in a perfect, deathless perfection.

But one only has to look around, look through the beauty and see that the beauty and the pain are elements of one thing – survival. All of these things are just what you would expect in a complex ecosphere where every life form is grappling for survival.

Enjoy the beauty, revel in it, but never lose sight that just under the surface, nature is an untamed and sometimes vicious beast.

And there's no god in sight.

Family and Coming Out of the Closet

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:57:01 PST

By A ~

I’m facing a bit of a difficult decision with which I would appreciate the insight of the ex-Christian group.

I come from a Christian family. We may not have been fundamentalist or anything, but Christianity permeated our lives as long as I can remember as a child. We went to church regularly and, even if some of the Bible was interpreted figuratively rather than literally in our household, yet we were taught that the only way to a needed salvation was through Jesus Christ. My father is a controlling man. Not violent or openly abusive or anything of that nature, but deeply controlling. He wants what is best for his children, but he simply can’t let people live their own lives and offers strongly worded advice at every turn. And he never misses an opportunity to point out how wonderful life is when you put your faith in Jesus. I’ve seen him do this both with family and in general with others. In the years after I first left home, all his letters to me were full of encouragement to put my trust in God and he would bless me in life.

Fast forward a couple of decades, and I found myself in my thirties going through the doubts that many of us have experienced, and eventually I completely rejected Christianity and religion of all forms and embraced atheism. But, I didn’t share any of this with my extended family. My parents and siblings and I all live in different places, so reunions were very, very rare. I’ve often gone several years without seeing my father, not through a particular emotional distance, but only because we live in different countries. This allowed me to go about my life without the issue of religion really ever being discussed. The occasions when I did see family were so few and far between, that time was spent catching up on other aspects of our lives and there wasn’t time to sit around and philosophize about our religious beliefs, nor for family members to realize that I’d walked away from Christianity. I felt no particular need to share my position with my family if they didn’t ask. Sometimes, when my belief in Christianity was assumed far too much, I considered making my position and lack of religious beliefs known. But, in some ways I chose not to share my de-conversion with family to protect my mother. She and my father have been divorced since I was a child and, although she is very religious, she is much less pushy about it. She seems to accept that other people have different points of view, and I value my relationship with her and don’t really want the issue of religion to be something that gets between us or that causes her unnecessary grief. She’s been through a lot of pain in her life and I know that finding out one of her children is no longer a Christian would cause further hurt. So, since she has never pushed the issue, I didn’t feel the need to either.

Partly because of the distance and partly because I’ve slouched towards middle-age, the frequency of the proselytizing from my father had diminished in the past decade of so. I thought, perhaps hoped, that either he was mellowing a bit on religion, or at least he was starting to accept that his children might not see things his way, and perhaps be OK with that. I assumed in recent years, that I have found a comfortable existence in which there would never be a need to share my position with any family.

But recently there has been a resurgence of my father’s pushing of religion. I’m not sure why. It may be that he’s reaching old age and sees his own mortality. It may be the result of a few health scares he’s had recently which have re-kindled the fire of his own faith. It may be because he senses that some of his children are not following Jesus the way he thinks they should (I have at least one sibling who I think has left religion behind though we’ve never actually discussed it). Or it may be any number of other factors. Whatever the case, letters to me (or more accurately, emails in this day and age) have started to include the odd paragraph proclaiming the need to put trust in God. The funny thing is, his preaching to me has always been more of an affirmation than a true proselytizing. His tone has always been a mix of: “You are so wise to put your faith in God” (an assumption that I do so on his part), combined with “You must put your faith in God in order to be blessed in life.” Perhaps subconsciously he recognized that I was not a true believer and he needed to convince himself.

In any case, recently I had an email from him in which he told me about a vivid dream he had some 15 years ago in which I was seriously hurt or killed. He told me about the dream at the time it happened as well, and even then I dismissed it. I have long since put it out of my mind. He called it a vision rather than a dream, and both times in his interpretation of it, he assumed that I was in some grave danger (which obviously never materialized the first time around). Both previously and this time he has reminded me that he prays for my safety regularly and that I am in God’s hands. To me, this seems like the classic old trick of delusion surrounding religion and prayer, and of older generations trying to control younger ones with authority and fear rather that discussing things in a rationale manner.

So, the position I find myself in is a tricky one. Do I say nothing, carry on receiving these types of letters and put up with them, and just wait it out knowing that I will never have any quality relationship with my father because of the huge discrepancy in our beliefs and my inability to share mine. Or do I open the closet door and jump out? I’m still leaning towards the former option, partly because it is easier and partly because I just don’t think I need to share my position on religion unless I am openly asked. And I know that if I choose to make my atheism known, I’ll face all kinds of ramped up energy on the attempts to convert me back again, which might be something I regret in the sense that it will bring even more of the kinds of letters that I’m annoyed with in the first place. But, there’s only so much a person can take without saying something.

The Day I Saw the Light

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:56:08 PST

By Lillian ~

I come from a Catholic family and I attended Catholic schools for 13 years. I studied my catechisms, attended Church daily and on Sunday. When I was 18, I found myself pregnant by a man that I knew would not take care of me or our baby. Knowing that abortion was wrong, I stayed pregnant. Both my mother and a good Catholic Aunt said "Why don't you have an abortion?" I was too far along by that time to do it.

My baby was handed over to strangers. I had put him into "God's hands". Over the years I prayed to God knowing that He would take care of my son because I had made the ultimate sacrifice. I received a call 17 years later telling me that my son had committed suicide. That was the day I saw the light.

When I realized that my entire upbringing was based on fairy tales, I took responsibility for every decision I made. I think that is one of the reasons that people go on believing after their prayers have not been answered. When you realize that you and you alone are in charge of your destiny, the world can seem like a frightening place.

I don't intend for this to be a sob story, but an example of how religion and the Church can damage us in ways we couldn't even imagine.

I don't get it.....

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 03:06:52 PST

By Klym ~

Ok, I just finished watching a video on Fox news about the child who "went to heaven" during an appendectomy. The family wrote a book about the child's experiences called "Heaven is Real." How can an experience like this be explained rationally? Do you think he was already indoctrinated with the Christian religion? Is it a brain thing? He said Jesus had clear blue eyes....weird, considering Jesus was Middle Eastern, if he existed at all. I don't believe in an afterlife, so this type of thing baffles me.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

More: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368467/I-met-granddad--wings-Colton-Burpo-went-heaven-speaks-relatives-book-Heaven-For-Real.html

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42154263/ns/today-books/t/heaven-real-one-boys-astonishing-account/#.Txq1E_mYUsw

Discovering Freedom, Denouncing Christianity

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 03:06:32 PST

By Valerie ~

I was born into a Christian, non-denominational family...one that is self-righteously spiritual. I thought myself to be a Christian, and even formally asked Jesus into my life when I was 11 years old. Having parents that pushed God as my ticket to heaven and an exit from Hell was the binding component in my faith.

I didn't learn that my relationship with "God" was actually just negative reinforcement until I became a 24-year-old senior, majoring in psychology, and minoring in philosophy. I realized that I chose a relationship with God because I was fearful of a possible Hell.

In my best philosophical effort to understand my newly- formed doubt over Christianity, I began analyzing the details of my relationship with God. If God existed, and I worshiped Him merely to escape the perils of Hell, then I worshiped a God based on no positive love, or respect. How could God possibly accept me, a woman only worried about escaping Hell, into Heaven...a place specifically designed for those who have accepted Christ as their savior? My Christianity was never about Jesus. It was about escape. So if God existed, I formed the conclusion that my relationship with Him was ill-suited. How could He still allow me into Heaven if I was merely worried about escaping and not focusing on the love I have for Him?

I realized that even if God existed, I couldn't please Him. Science taught me that a mere lack of evidence (the existence of God in this case) can not result in God simply not existing at all, because that would be an assumption. Science has saved me.

I'm not a rebellious person looking to get attention by turning down God. I am first and foremost a scientist looking to find evidence. I still have anxiety over this new found freedom from Christianity. I have not learned yet how to be confident in purely myself, because for my entire life I was taught that I am nothing without Christ. When I was in my early 20s, I suffered from depression, which was partially due to untreated PTSD caused by a nasty car wreck in winter conditions. A few months into depression, I asked my highly "Christian" mother if I could meet with a psychologist. Her answer? "No. If you think you have depression, then you aren't keeping up your relationship with God--only He can fix your problems...not a psychologist." I felt immediately guilty for being a "bad" Christian. Even more so, I felt guilty for becoming a psychology major. I felt as if I wronged my mother.

So I prayed. I tried to be a strong Christian, but it was a relationship that was laced with my mother's acceptance. It wasn't about God.

The point I want to make is that I believe many relationships people have with God are not formed out of a true love and respect for Him. I propose these relationships are out of need for social acceptance, or escape from the possibilities of Hell or being rejected by one's Christian family.

It's only been a few months since I've formally denounced my Christianity, and I'm newly experiencing how it feels to discover enlightenment.

I hope my testimonial will be a light to anyone searching for hope and strength. Let philosophy be your guide.

TO THE ATHEISTS THAT HATE ME....

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:07:08 PST

By the ReligiousAntagonist ~

As I'm sure you're aware, I get a lot of flack from atheists saying that I go "too far" in my videos and border on exploitation. This video is kind of a fun jab centering around the "atheist tone debate" .......with the christians as the clue-less bystanders.

Spirituality after Christianity?

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:07:03 PST

By Eva ~

I’ve been avidly reading through a lot of posts on this site since I found it about a week ago. I am a recent exChristian, and while I relate to many posts, I also find my heart going out to many of you who have been so hurt by religion, as I also have. I have a very long and complicated story, but a bit of it can be found on my blog at
http://alivetoreality.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/why-i-stopped-going-to-church/.

I say I’m a recent exChristian, because it’s only over the last few months that I stopped using the title Christian at all to refer to me, but leaving religion has been a process that has been going on for years. For the last three years since I stopped attending church, I’ve been popping into sites and listening to forums of others who’ve left church but still hold to certain aspects of Christianity or believe in God. My favorite is the Free Believers Network founded by expastor Darin Hufford. I love listening to his podcasts because he’s entertaining and says a lot of things that would have struck me as heretical years ago. I find consolation to my irreverent soul when I hear these “heretical” things. I mention that because I want to be honest about where I’m coming from, but please don’t assume that I believe everything the way Darin does, if you’re familiar with him. He’s just someone I’ve found helpful on my path, and I like to interact with things he says.

I have been in Christianity since before I was born as my parents were extremely active fundamentalists in the Church of Christ, a branch of Christianity that doesn’t recognize other branches as being saved and going to heaven. So I experienced one extreme and in my 20’s veered to another by joining Charismatic groups and seeking experience with God.

From reading posts and comments on this site, I realize that sometimes Christians come on here and try to insult you all by claiming that your Christianity was never valid. It seems that these are people who are trying to stay blind to the faults of their religion and so cannot admit that people who have had the kind of problems we all have had were actually Christians. I want to be clear that I disagree with these people. I’ve had many of the same problems with the Christian religion that you all have talked about, and I was about the most passionate committed Christian there could possibly be both in my teens in the fundie church and in my 20’s in the Charismatic ones. My whole life there has been nothing more important to me than my relationship with God or my spiritual journey, however I have chosen to phrase it.

I was just reading through a thread started by Oatmeal Panda in early December (“An Honest Question”), and in it she talks about her question with whether you experienced God in Christianity, a question many of you found somewhat offensive. I wanted to mention that I’ve read that thread because I have a somewhat similar conversation I’d like to start, but one that I feel differs significantly from hers because while she questions whether you’ve had genuine experiences with God in the past, I want to share my perspective that offers another way to interpret those experiences. I don’t know if my specific ideas have been discussed on this site because to find out would require many more hours of reading, but I do want to write about my thoughts on spirituality after Christianity.

I noticed that many of you have become atheist upon leaving Christianity. Others use the word “agnostic” to describe their current position. Initially I found it strange that people who leave Christianity would head straight to atheism, but the more I read your posts, the more that switch made sense.

The God Christianity introduces can come across as evil, especially if you believe the bible has the true revelation of God, which is my main problem with fundamental Christianity. The podcaster I mentioned earlier, Darin Hufford, has a book called The Misunderstood God: The Lies Religion Tells About God in which he mentions a bunch of characteristics of God taught by Christianity that completely oppose the idea that God is love.

I thought this comment by Renoliz in the post “Irreconcilable Differences” to be very insightful:

“Did he love me? I have thought about this. I can tell you this, it wasn't a true love or an agape love. It was a controlling, threatening love. God was never a love child. God never said, ‘I love you so much that I will set you free. If you return to me fine, if not I will miss you and wish you all the best.’ No, God said, ‘I will do whatever I will to you and if you leave me I will imprison you forever in Hell.’ What a scary guy. If this is love then I don't need it or want it.”

I wanted to post my perspective after reading things like that because I have a very different experience to share. Like most of you, I’ve been introduced to the God of the Bible, and shuddered at atrocities he commanded. But I also became aware of the spirit world. I have had numerous conversations with a being that seemed to be in the spirit world who I always assumed to be God. One conversation that brought me a lot of freedom was when I heard, “I’d rather have you be yourself than worship me.” The essence of that message seems to me to be what Renoliz was looking for God to say, and she never heard God say it to her. Ever since I heard that, I’ve given myself permission to try to be me, and not to worry about pleasing God anymore. I blogged about this at http://alivetoreality.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/how-to-attract-god-by-being-yourself-or-why-more-of-you-less-of-me-doesnt-work/.

Some of you have talked about spiritual experiences you’ve had that you now dismiss as emotionalism, based on your beliefs that there is no God. I want to point out that there are other perspectives that could possibly be real or true besides Christianity and atheism or even agnosticism, and that some of these may be helpful in explaining the spiritual experiences I have had and many of you have had.

I think it’s a mistake to assume there’s no spiritual world just because we can’t stand the way Christianity portrays God.

About two years ago I met a woman who was to become a best friend. The only problem I had with being friends with her was that she was not a Christian and instead was into new age ideas. I was scared of that, because I knew that I was drawn to new age ideas and feared that being friends with her would end in me leaving Christianity altogether. I chose to be friends with her despite my fear. I wanted to really see where she was coming from, and I saw a lot of love in her. She said she believes in God, but her idea of God is not a personality the way Christianity presents it. To me it seems more like an idea that there is a spiritual world she calls the Universe that runs through all living things, and we are a part of it. In other words, she believes in a spirit world that includes all humans, but not an intelligent being/creator who rules the world and makes things happen and keeps things from happening.

The first time I tried to put on her beliefs to see how it would feel, it made me sad and lonely to think there’s no distinct person/being who created everything and cares for the world and for me. I couldn’t handle it, so I put that idea aside for a time. Still, I have kept looking into other options. The book Eat, Pray, Love: One Woman's Search for Everything Across Italy, India and Indonesia really captured my attention because Elizabeth Gilbert experienced some of the same kinds of interactions that I did. But she described them differently due to her different background.

I think if there is truly a spiritual realm and even a being that can be called God, anyone who accesses the spiritual realm from any religion will report back some similar things. While the world of religion and beliefs is extremely divided, I believe spirituality at its core is extremely unifying. That’s why I hope to show through whatever comments I make on this website as well as in my own blog how fundamentally different spirituality is from religion.

Perhaps it would help to picture spirituality as a rope descending into a limitless well and religions as cords of different colors that run in various directions above the well. At some point or even a few points, these cords may touch the rope, but then they move away. Religions claim that they are the way (often the only way) to spirituality, and indeed they touch spirituality at various points. But they move away from spirituality at most points, because they aren’t really about that. They’re more about human control and power.

Say you’re a Christian fundamentalist teen who really wants to meet God, and you go to a camp meeting. At the service, the worship team plays, and you “enter in” to the song. You let yourself go in the music, seeking to worship with your whole heart. Maybe in that moment there is a part of you that opens to the spiritual world, and you get a glimpse into it. You immediately interpret that as God, the one you read about in the bible, and use the experience to bolster up your faith. That’s what happened to me a lot as a teen and young adult, and even more after I left the more fundamentalist group to look for experience of God in Charismatic settings. I interpreted spiritual experiences I had based on what I believed about God as taught by my religious leaders and the bible. But there are other possible ways to interpret those experiences.

Human beings are more complex than just mind and body. There’s a spiritual part of us that resonates with the rest of the spiritual world. There may or may not be a God as Christianity describes it, but there certainly is a force, an energy, there’s a spiritual world that when you enter it with your awareness, you feel truly alive. I think that’s what the Buddhists call enlightenment. The Hindus meditate their way there. Catholic monks and nuns contemplate and find the inner light. The testimonies I’ve heard from people who’ve experienced that sound similar. One day my new age friend told me about a problem she was having with a family member. Without even talking about it, I went into this realm, listening and hearing for her. I was still aware of her in the room, but I was also aware of the other world. And when I let my awareness slip fully back into the physical plane, I had encouragement for her. And it was normal for her and for me, because we knew what the other meant. It had nothing to do with religion.

There’s a spiritual world, and the only way to encounter it is through our spirits. Religion tries to categorize, codify, and control it. Enter the bible. While the spiritual realm/God cannot be controlled, the bible can be controlled, because it’s able to be interpreted. Now the text of it is pretty set, but back in the day, people could add and take away and even put out their own book, starting with the words, “I, Paul” just to make sure it got heard. But even today, people pick and choose and interpret what they want to from the bible, and they use it to control other people who haven’t studied it as well. (I pick and choose too, but I think of the whole thing as a work of man, so that’s not as hypocritical.)

Yesterday I showed a Christian friend a verse in 1 Timothy 2:15 that says women have to have children to get saved:

“But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”

Christians don’t teach that because they know it’s ridiculous. What would Christianity look like if they said only women who bear children get to go to heaven? Too bad for the poor women that can’t find a husband. They’ll just have to have sex with anyone they can find so they can have a baby, but then they’ll go to hell for sexual immorality. Thank God for in vitro. Modern husbandless women still have a chance, but if they’re infertile, they deserve the punishment they’ll receive of burning in hell for all eternity. Sick. I say whoever wrote that verse was a sicko. And it was the same control freak who wrote a couple verses before that “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” Maybe I better just shut up right now and go have some more babies so I can do my part in overpopulating the planet.

That paragraph has always troubled me, but it finally got to the point that I knew I could not accept the entire Bible as inspired if it meant I had to accept that passage as from God. My friend yesterday said we must just be interpreting the passage wrong. That’s the only sane thing to say if you want to stay a Christian. Thank God a lot of Christians are thinking enough to realize it’s wrong to tell women to shut up and get pregnant, despite what certain verses say about it.

So before that tangent, I was saying that the bible can be controlled, but God cannot. People can and have written and used the bible to say all kinds of horrible things about God. A few people in the religion of Christianity got quiet enough to hear God for themselves. I used to read their stories. Theresa of Avila, Therese of Liseaux, St. John of the Cross—they were Catholic mystics, but now I want to look into mystics of other religions.

I believe spirituality at its core is extremely unifying.I’m a mystic myself. For years I’ve had a practice where now and then I get really quiet with a pen or keyboard and listen, and write what I hear. It doesn’t always go that great, but often I’m met with a feeling of eternity, and often there’s some words to write, and they seem pretty profound to me. The encounter fills me with peace. It could just be my own spirit I’m becoming aware of, but I have a feeling that spirituality is complex and as limitless as the universe, and I think that’s why my friend refers to God as the universe.

I like how she prays too. Christian prayer for things or others always bugged me because it was so imaginary and seemed to take for granted that God is not good. Please help “so and so” get over “name that” sickness—I stopped praying those prayers years ago because there’s no life or connection with anything spiritual in them. What I would do is let my awareness come into my spirit where I sensed I am with God, whatever that means.

But I like my friend’s idea of prayer because it is setting your intentions out there. I intend to receive a job or contract that brings money writing or editing on topics I care about. I say that because I love myself and I believe that kind of work is for me. And it’s good for society when we do things for work that feel like something we were born to do.

So my question to this community is, do you think it’s possible that there is a spiritual world that has been badly represented and only hinted at within Christianity, and if so, would you find it interesting to investigate that?

Shit Christians Say to Atheists

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 06:55:10 PST

A video by HealthyAddict ~

“You’re an atheist? But you’re so nice!”

“Do you believe in Satan?”

Image by rafaelm via Flickr

“Your life must be bleak and meaningless.”

“So why do you even bother to live?”

“You were never a true believer.”

“Why do you hate God?”

“You’re just going through a phase.”

“Deep down, you really believe.”

“Just wait till you have children of your own.”

“I’ll pray for you.”

“But what if you’re wrong?”

“It’s not meant to be taken literally.”

“Have you ever read the Bible?”

“You still believe in Jesus, though, right?”

Got any more good one-liners? Add them below!

Einstein's and Sagan's "God"

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 06:54:53 PST

By DealDoctor ~

Leaving behind a childhood and teenage viewpoint on religion. Religion is a fact of life on this world and everyone religious or not encounters it just like they do McDonald's hamburger stores on almost every corner of life. Life is full of religious shit and we as ExChristians must deal with it like it or not because it is just there. We need to be grown up about it. Perhaps Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan, two people most of us ExChristians who respect reason and science admire can give us a balanced "grown up" view of religion from the perspective of reason and humanism. They certainly were not Christians.

Grown ups are rare. It seems that children are in total dependence upon their parents and they all but worship the big parents as "gods". It is so very bad when someone grows up with awful parents because so much of what they learn is wrong because their parents who are teaching them about reality are screwed up too. Some people never are able to move out from under the shadow of their parents and become little carbon copies of them when they are older throughout their own "adult" life. This is sad because it is as if they never grow up to become their own persons and only became poor copies of their screwed up parents who once again pass along the tradition of ignorance. It even seems to get worse like the old copy machines that ran copies but each copy made was just a little worse than the one right before it.

There are some people who decide they want to grow up and no longer be like little children. They decide to be different from their parents and the war of the teenager with their parents begins. It has its own kind of Declaration of Independence. At this point the parents look more like the Devil to the teenager than like the god they nce saw as a child a few years before. It is as if the teenager must still be connected to their parents or there will be no war of independence for them to fight and be the winning hero. Now it is if they are wedded to their parents in a game of war rather than a game of follow the leader. There is no true independence yet. The teenager is not really grown up and from a grown up perspective able to see some good and some bad in their parents who were always far from perfect but not quite otherworldly demons either but just flesh and blood human beings. Whereas the child saw only good in the parents as supernatural gods the teenager is often just as unbalanced and sees only evil in their parents like a supernatural devil.

It should be clear by now that both the child and the teenager are not grown up. They are both equally attached psychologically to their parent but from opposite sides. One sees the parent from the front and the other from the back and neither has a well rounded view of an adult perspective. The parent's brother or sister, their uncle or aunt, will usually see both some good and some bad in their sibling because they are two independent equals but the little child or teenager of the very same person who is their parent not their sibling will all but have an absolute , black and white, view of their parent as all good or all bad. What's new. That's life.

When someone really does grow up and become an adult and they look at their own parents they are able to have a more balanced view.seeing the good and the bad, the angelic and the demonic, the smart and the dumb in their own parents. Hey, they might even have become a parent themselves by this point. Forgiveness and compassion become an option at this point. The war is over and real independence has been won. America and England can life in the same world without always sending armies to kill one another's citizens. they are however totally sovereign states by this point, grown ups.

The stupid religious shit some parents or other authority figures can dump on someone can scar them emotionally for life if they remain in a childish or teenager mindset about it. Most do and it does. A dumb mean person can abuse someone and they can be traumatized for life. Others who are equally traumatized outgrow the real pain, scars and trauma of their abusers and go on to live lives of joy. That is not easy. It really does requires going beyond a stupid childlike embrace of obedience to or reactive guilt. It requires us to outgrow a constant teenage like argument and battle with the now obvious stupidity of Christianity. Enraged teenagers are usually not very happy and they game they play of always fighting with their parents is not as much fun as growing up and having real independence. Happiness only comes to those who leave childhood dominated by religious indoctrination and their teens dominated by war with religion, become fully independent adults who know what they do believe and it makes them happy even if there are stupid religious people on every corner. They can find peace. They know themselves what they do believe their own perspectives to be important and they act on their own values. They feel good. They are authentic adults. Kids and teenagers only seem to be playing one game or another with their parents. ExChristians really do need to move on beyond Christianity. They need to be more than the ex kids or ex teenagers of the Church. They need to be free, grown, independent and happy. The church, like bad parents will still be in the same world. Fact.

Albert Einstein had a view of "religion" and the dude was fully grown up. Carl Sagan had a view of "religion" and he was grown up too. Their view was not Christian, it was not war with Christian. it was awesome and it inspires. It will not leave you feeling like an abused child or an enraged teenager. It may make you feel like a grown up in an awesome grown up world. Watch these videos on Einstein's and Sagan's "religion" . It might be yours as well. Is there a religionless religion? WTF!

Albert Einstein on Religion

Scientist Carl Sagan's Larger Perspective

I am so very sorry for causing the tornado

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:44:54 PST

By QuestioningFaith ~

I recently had an article posted where I told some of my personal experiences regarding my path to agnosticism. The article was posted at a national South African news service, and I would love all your comments regarding what I had said there. The comments from strong Christian believers are also shown there, and the comments they make are ones I am sure you have all seen many times before. The link to the article is: http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Reply-to-RationalBeliever-20120105. The text of my article is below.

I am grateful for your letter (on science and religion written by RationalBeliever), which I found thoroughly insightful.

You are indeed correct: science asks questions of things in the material world, and can only be expected to find answers, for events, in the material world. But you must realise that both science and religion attempt to answer questions that we humans pose. The problem we have is that the answers religions come up with can be wrong, if we aren’t careful. Let me demonstrate by example, but before I do I want to make this point very clear: religion has always been man’s attempt to explain why things happen: and more often than not, bad things. Whenever the Israelites suffered, a prophet was able to give a reason for this suffering (either God is angry, or their faith is being tested).

Today we find similar reasoning in the faithful. Why did God allow a tornado to destroy houses in South Africa? Well, obvious, of course, because He is angry: why? Well, just a week before we had Gay Pride. And those sinful sodomites deserve to burn, right? I know, this is being crass, but this was a comment that someone made on News24 and it hit right home because I myself am gay. I am so very sorry for causing the tornado that hit the houses, last year I even attended pride!

If God exists, He must hate my guts because I don’t believe being gay is a sin. The fundamentalist readers will tell me if I don’t repent, I’m doomed! There is even witness testimony on the internet: gay individuals had religious conversion experiences where Christ himself appeared to them and told them if they don’t change they will burn in hell, and who am I to be sceptical of such 1st person experiences? Are those not directly revealed by the Holy Spirit?

Is that not the point of Christianity that personal revelation happens via the Holy Spirit? Was this not part of the purpose of the reformation, that individuals can directly experience God, and that a priest and confession are not essential?

Now recently a five year old girl suffered a horrible lot. Her parishioners had come to the conclusion that she is possessed. And if you followed the story you will know, she died during their attempted exorcism. If you believe in the Christian God, certainly you also believe in the Satan, the adversary? Is the existence of Satan mythical, or not? Does Satan have supernatural powers?

Does he have the power to cause possession? (By the way, if he is supernatural, and you belief that God and Satan are supernatural entities with opposing wishes for humankind, is it still correct to talk of a monotheism, and why not a bitheism? I have always wondered about that? I understand God created everything, but if He gave Satan supernatural power, then we clearly don’t have a monotheism any more, or do we? If we do, are we in some sense acknowledging God’s willingness to let Satan do his bidding, or is it His bidding?)

Now the parishioners’ faith in Christ and Satan, and their analysis of the behaviour of this child, had convinced them that their actions are warranted. Scientists have studied these incidences and have established that epilepsy can be mistaken for demonic possession. But here is the real question I have for you: which would you trust? Science, or faith? Clearly it is not entirely impossible that what appears on an EEG could not feasibly just be a “side effect” of possession. But now it so happens that with the right medicine, we can largely cure the epilepsy.

So this is why I am agnostic. I am also a scientist. I understand that science cannot prove or disprove God’s existence. But it does change the answers people have for things that happen in the material world!So did the material medicine somehow “affect” the spiritual dimension? Can demonic possession be cured by epilepsy medication? If you want to determine whether you should trust either science, or faith, the best initial stance to take, is of being sceptic of both! You need objective evidence to decide which explanation you will believe in. Both science and religion tries to explain events in the here and now, in the physical, not just the spiritual, dimension.

And this brings us to the point, which John Loftus makes, and which I think you will find very informative, in his books, see http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com for more information regarding Loftus’ ideas: he developed the outsider’s test of faith. You see, you are also an atheist to all gods of all the other religious teachings, the Sanskrit, Hindu teachings.

You are an atheist regarding the teachings of the Koran (and by the way, while Christians typically accept human “mistranslation” may happen in the Bible – including the pseudepigrapha, which are in fact a whole other kettle of fish; in Islam, the Koran in its original language is considered entirely without any error). Loftus merely requires you to consider statements of faith you take for granted in your belief system (i.e. in the Bible) with the same scepticism that you do when you hear of other faiths. Remember, either Christ has risen physically as Christianity teaches, or he was merely a prophet and ultimately died, as believed in Islam.

Both faiths cannot be simultaneously true in that extent. That means any archaeological finding that tends to confirm the Islam belief that Christ actually died, will be met with severe scepticism on your part – this scepticism, by the way, is a result of a well-known psychological phenomenon, which is called cognitive dissonance. You will easily recognise it as an almost painful emotional reaction that you experience whenever evidence appears that in some sense go against your most deeply held and cherished beliefs.

Anyone interested in this phenomenon should make an effort to read Festinger’s When Prophecy Fails. It is an eye-opener!

Now you will quickly counter that we have the Bible, which is all the evidence we need! I had believed the same for the longest time, until I read the Malleus Maleficarum which was written during the period of the inquisition and speaks of many attested cases of witchcraft. A more recent case is the Salem witch trials. What the Malleus Maleficarum and those trials teach us, is that witness testimony is not trustworthy at all!

The witch trials occurred in recent enough history that we have detailed accounts of all the witnesses describing in detail the believed bewitching of the innocent, and yet today we know that what happened there did not involve woman flying around on broomsticks, if you get my drift. Mass hysteria and hallucinations seem more likely when you read the accounts with today’s medical knowledge.

So you believe in God? As a rational believer would you still prefer to use science in the case of the girl that ended up dead during the exorcism? Would you believe that “blind” forces of nature ultimately lead to the tornado that destroyed the houses? If you do, you are in some sense a cherry picker, because there are many people that will be able (or try very hard) to site the Bible to prove their point.

And there is more: since you interpret some of the Bible as literal, and some of it as symbolic, the question is clearly how to tell which should be interpreted how. Carl Sagan’s maxim of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is exactly the kind of method one would use, if one were sceptical. However, applied to issues of morality for which the Biblical authority is often sited and translated literally, though sometimes symbolically, if you are saying that you can tell the difference then either (i) you are extremely arrogant for believing you were given this kind of insight more so than other people or (ii) you didn’t need the Bible in the first place to establish you own inner morality.

Worse yet, in your liberal stance you will try to tell other people that they have misinterpreted the Bible, and remember, modern science has not been around for very long, which implies many people throughout the ages have interpreted the Bible wrong, and here you smugly tell them that you now know better. In the fundamentalist world view this is seen as dire liberal arrogance which is exactly what fuels the fundamentalist need for transforming the world to their evangelical views.

And so another Ugandan gay man dies as American fundamentalism spreads to African countries. At least here God was very clear in His command. If you find that I am myself here “putting words” into the Bible, then you have to understand that it is rather moot that we should have to quibble endlessly over exactly how the Bible should be interpreted, while this gay-issue is currently clearly shredding the church in two.

If God had any foresight, which I am made to believe He has for being in some sense omniscient, why did he not just say it in a matter that no-one questions? Why should it all be down to translation, interpretation, and reinvention? Why, exactly, are there over 33000 different Christian denominations, and if only one is right (think Pascal’s wager), how will you know that yours is? If the Bible said “And God made a spherical earth”, there would have been no scientific heresy! If the eleventh commandment said “Let thee not take for thyself any slaves”, this would never have been an issue.

Regarding slavery: here is at least one example of where modern morality trumps that of the Bible. And yet God Himself apparently dictated the Decalogue? You can maybe begin to understand why I have difficulties in believing in this God that would allow slavery to flourish for so long! And that is also why I don’t take the Levitican laws too seriously: you should read what Leviticus says God allows you to do to slaves should they be mutinous! I almost want to say: thank God modernity, that separates state from church, is better than that!

There is another issue I have with your letter: you mention that science is material and God is spiritual, so science can say nothing about God, but there is a problem here. I would think if God existed, He would not have a problem with making His presence known in an objective fashion? And “objective” necessarily means occurring in the material world.

The Bible talks of an altar burnt to cinders after Elijah prayed to God (after Elijah mocked the priests of Baal for being unable to succeed in setting their altars alight), so clearly He was not opposed to objectively proving His existence in the past. Now had I not been sceptical about events in the Bible, this would be the best evidence in the world for His existence!

If God had any foresight, which I am made to believe He has for being in some sense omniscient, why did he not just say it in a matter that no-one questions? Why should it all be down to translation, interpretation, and reinvention? Why, exactly, are there over 33000 different Christian denominations, and if only one is right (think Pascal’s wager), how will you know that yours is? If the Bible said “And God made a spherical earth”, there would have been no scientific heresy! If the eleventh commandment said “Let thee not take for thyself any slaves”, this would never have been an issue. And at this point I should mention that modern archaeology is not a friend of the Bible – I suggest you read Paul Tobin (www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/) for more information, so your arguments for archaeology are not all that convincing, unfortunately.

I guess you will not agree with their attempt, but the medical fraternity has more than once tried to show that prayer may be beneficial. Here the idea is simple: if God is willing to make His presence objectively known, then a double-blind test, which is the modern standard of scientific testing we have developed to ensure we don’t fool ourselves, should be able to pick up on His benevolence statistically. Is this a form of sacrilege?

Is it wrong for people who have doubts to want objective evidence? You may like to think this is a farce, but terminally ill patients were prayed for. This was not merely a silly attempt to prove God’s existence, it was performed with a heartfelt hope that prayer will help some patients, even if science cannot understand why! The study involved grouping the ill patients into three groups two of which were prayed for, and one of those two groups knew that they were being prayed for.

To everyone’s surprise; and, I must admit, even to my own, there was no benefit observed between the groups that were prayed for and not prayed for when they were unaware that they were part of this study. The group that did know was worse off! It appears that knowing you were prayed for, resulted in unnecessary stress in patients thinking they need to perform better medically, and this in turn resulted in a higher incidence of complications.

So this brings us to the question that you will typically find in the agnostic’s mind: why not just settle the matter and show us You exist in an objectively knowable manner? People talk of religious experiences, of being “filled with the Holy Spirit”, but even these events also occur outside of religious institutions, in fact, in cognitive science they are called “transcendental hallucinations”, and they occur for a number of reasons other than faith-based. I know this for a fact, because during a fairly recent infection I suffered a number of epileptic seizures.

Had I lived two thousand years ago, I might have ended up writing the books of Paul, because the experiences I had were entirely consistent with descriptions made in the Bible of directly experiencing God, and yet I also now know that those experiences coincided with epileptic seizures of the left temporal lobe (often called ecstatic seizures, you should read up on Geschwind syndrome, it is very interesting and something I understand very well these days). Ironically, during those personal experiences I was made keenly aware that God loves me as I am, and that my being gay does not make a difference to Him as long as I live in transparency, i.e. as I am, living already accepted by my family, friends and people I love and hold dear to my heart.

I can only imagine had I lived in a congregation where who I am was sorely rejected by people close to me, my hallucination would also have involved a knowledge of how I am going to hell if I don’t change, sound familiar?

Getting back to the actual seizures, again what should I trust: science, or faith? Those mental states were so severe at some points that they were disabling. Medicine overcame their intensity. Did God give way to modern medicine when the seizures ended as the drugs took hold? Should I not have been sceptical of these events in my own mind? Again: I can never prove that these hallucinations were not in fact God-given, it may well be that these “hallucinations” are God’s way of showing us His presence through the Holy Spirit (maybe it even has to coincide with seizures in my case?), but without any objective evidence, you could not disprove the paranoid schizophrenic that he is not being followed, all the time.

All it takes is a rational mind attempting to make sense of irrational and emotional experiences to derive a consistent worldview that is, unfortunately, ultimately delusional, and I am sure no-one wants to be imprisoned by delusional mind-states. I know this is true, otherwise the Bible would not refer to itself as “truth”.

So this is why I am agnostic. I am also a scientist. I understand that science cannot prove or disprove God’s existence. But it does change the answers people have for things that happen in the material world! In some sense you can never really know, for sure now, can you? Science may never disprove God, but what of superstition? If you trust the Bible there will be elements of superstition in your beliefs, or you must consider those tales to be legends.

Again, if you claim to know how to distinguish, you are being arrogant! So maybe it was possession? Maybe it was epilepsy? Maybe they are one and the same thing, merely different reflections of some kind of underlying spiritual/material reality. But why is it that the epilepsy, no matter how often and deeply people pray keeps coming back, but the medicine cures the underlying neural illness?

Is it really fair to say that they “just didn’t believe hard enough”? To me that is an atrocious thing to say to someone in severe pain and need, because therein in a statement of severe arrogance, in that your faith is as strong, but theirs is not; why don’t you pray for their need? And if you do, and it still doesn’t make a difference, because God chooses not make Himself known objectively, then what will you believe? And how can you be angry at me, for honestly doubting His existence?

Trapped in the Closet

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 07:05:19 PST

By Black Freethought ~

I have followed the path of reason now for about eighteen months. However I have only shared my deconversion with a few close family members. I have felt, to quote an R. Kelly song, "Trapped in the Closet." I come from a strong, close knit,christian family where I have many relatives who are pastors, evangelists, and church leaders. My parents are also ministry leaders. My mom is a preacher(who says she hasn't been called yet) and my father is a deacon. My parents are well respected in the baptist church community here in the Motor City.

So out of respect for my parents' notoriety, I have kept silent. Keeping silent has proven to be most difficult. When I would visit them, they would talk about god and how he sits on the throne. I would just nod my head. However, I would really want to say, "No he isn't because he does not exist in reality outside of your thoughts!" But I don't want any trouble or be accused of disrespecting the faith of my ancestors who trusted god.
My sister(who is a non-christian deist) advised me against telling my parents. She said the devastation could potentially send them to an early grave.

Let me give a bit of context. My parents reared and trained me to be a church leader, i.e. a pastor. I was giving speeches(mini sermons) at the age of five. By the time I reached eight, I was teaching bible lessons to adults and children. I was being prepped for church greatness. In my early twenties, I was chosen to go to Zimbabwe and perform christian rap at the World Baptist Alliance Youth Conference. Until 2007, I worked in church as a ministry leader, Sunday school teacher, and director of the music ministry. My parents know that I no longer attend church, but they think it's just a phase...So for me to tell my parents, that I no longer believe would be difficult at best. What is even more difficult is sharing that I no longer believe any gods, christian or otherwise.

In my community(the African-American community) like in many other communities, folks don't attend church on a regular basis, but they believe in Jesus and pray often. At a minimum, they believe in some type of higher intelligence that designed the universe and everything in it. Christianity in the black community is tied to the legacy of slavery as well as the hope for freedom. To step away from that emotional baggage takes lots of courage. I am free from faith, but I fear; like many others who have similar stories, that I will lose the respect of my parents,, family, and loved ones. I know they will love me, but what good is love without respect?

The New God

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:24:22 PST

By Carl S ~

The label, "The New Atheists" is being batted around, sometimes derisively, sometimes with curiosity or questionably by other atheists. One new target batted around like one hitting stones with a baseball bat enjoys.

Atheists aren't really new, they've been around as long as religion, probably longer, but recently, they have scientific evidence on their side (didn't they always?), as a sound structure and weapons stockpile against superstition and ignorance.

What about the "New Christians"? They're the ones who don't talk about Hell anymore, Divine wrath (the "Dies Irae" disappeared from the Catholic funeral mass ages ago), serious evil. They have replaced the O.T. god with a warm, fuzzy, nebulous figure who's always looking out for his chosen ones in his special clubs.

How did this come about, that this embracing of the new improved God sneaked itself into the 21st century? Let's posit that the Old and New testament god are the same made in the image of man, and that since we've found out about our natures, he's been adapted to fit our self-understanding. When this started, who can say? Maybe the Enlightenment thinking or Freud's probing of the unconscious, psychosis, motivations, in psychology, or ensuing sociological studies, where the proper study of mankind led to an understanding of man/gods. But, religions are loathe to address one of the connections of mankind to a god - personality : the absence of sexuality with a father - god, of all things.

Religion, being "spiritual" with immaterial beings, has no place for one of the strongest expressions of being: sexuality. Freud made us more aware of our sexual drives than anyone previously, or at least had the strongest influence on society by doing so. No matter what, sexuality does not transfer to a non-material being; even the "mother of God" is sexless. Considering this, it's pretty sickening when you think about it: because of elevating "spiritual" above sexual prevailed for thousands of years, being neuter, asexual, castrated, has been taught to be desirable!

On the human sexuality realization, the New Christians can't relate to their "New God". But they do adore him the more he becomes the person they create him to be in their newfound image of themselves. And I'll bet that the more they accept gays, abortion, equal rights for minorities and women, the more they will find the New God does too. (The old God was content with genocide, slavery, revenge, etc., etc.) One would hope that the New Improved God might become a memory from a nostalgic past, as we advance to be more self-accepting (in spite of religion's force not to) and intolerant of intolerance.

Who would have predicted that the primitive barbaric deity of millennia, who enjoyed and enjoined the burning flesh of sacrificial animals, witches, and heretics, would become such a wimp? He is now the teddy bear father with the ever-lovin', perfectly combed hair, blue-eyed sweet Jesus-son. Who would have guessed that the religion of the KKK in the U.S.A., of the rich, well-fed, well-padded televangelists hawking Good Vibes, would sell better than fire and brimstone?

I had a conversation with a believer recently. I mentioned that her doctor is a Unitarian, and asked her what that meant. She was on the ball. Reading up on Unitarians myself, I said that she was pretty close. They were noncommittal about dogmas, concerned more with the Golden Rule, ethics, brotherhood. Her synopsis, "All about feeling good." Later on I thought about this, and concluded that not only theirs, but hers, and perhaps all religions have come down to this for the majority : feeling good. Fed enough "spiritual" junk food, many Christians are already ready to topple the justice and other government systems in our own country, so that we can also participate in their good feelings, or at least be subservient to them, to keep their highs. "For God" that is. Hmmm...Well SOMEBODY has to speak up for God, defend him, poor God, he's defenseless. His people must do the dirty deeds he won't or can't, but that should be no problem; they've been doing this forever. For this too, they must ignore the New God sometimes, pick and choose whatever from his past that will suit their present purposes. The New model, as always, says, does, nothing. No comment. Tradition, smadition. No matter which model, your god is still superior to anything else man has created, right? By association, you've gotta be, too.

This god, old or repackaged, has a history, has never apologized, ergo, can't be trusted, and believers have a real problem, because none of them wants to grow up and make their spokesman grow up to stop making excuses for their god; they're still doing it, and it's probably going to take that eternity they're expecting for them to do so - it's so sick and entrenched in their mind-sets. I won't hold my breath. Humans may improve and do, but that God is "yesterday, today, the same forever."

The O.T. god is reputed to have said, "I would that you be either hot or cold (toward me), but because you are lukewarm, I will vomit you out of my mouth." How much better, I am, after being vomited!

Looking for help

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 07:04:29 PST

From Joy ~

I do not know if you can help me but I have been a Christian for almost 40 years. I am currently working as a secretary of a Baptist church. I got the job by default. It began as a temporary job but then they unexpectedly fired my boss and gave me her job.

I have been involved closely in two local churches and have in the last 6 years been deeply troubled about what I see and believe. I have read books on former Christians after a friend left the faith. I realized I no longer believe either and have been a fool. However the main means of my support is the church job. I know I am a hypocrite and they have no idea. I have (and still am) looking for other jobs but in this area they are hard to come by.

I am writing to you to ask if there are any organizations whom help people such as myself who are in the process of transitioning away from religion? Any support or advice groups or email contacts that can help me?

Thank you for your help,

Accepting change, still a doubting Thomas!

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 07:04:10 PST

By Mike ~

Raised in a strong catholic sense, I always believed, even if I didn't 'see'. I used to pray for things, and many of them came to be true. Others simply were put into 'god's hands' into the mystical queue. I am a truly lucky man with more than I could ever ask, for I am the husband of a loving, beautiful devout Christian wife, and the father of a happy young boy.

Image via Wikipedia

Things eventually became clearer, or unraveled depending on one's views. A couple of years back, my Catholic dedication waned at the lack of real leadership within the church at the higher echelons (kiddy fiddling, contraception, no real choice in the matter etc etc etc), and the constant niggling that worship should be truly joyous, and not a Gothic sombre and macabre (a constant view across the board).

So without further ado, I jumped onto my wife's evangelical, happy baptist, pentecostal, charismatic, band wagon sweeping western nations off their feet. Talking in tongues, faith healing (falling over included) and even anti-demonic chants; the list goes on! Keeping a blind eye on this, I attempted to get to the root of the problem, and study the Bible.

The struggle of Job, the rise and fall of the Kings, the doldrums, the missing years, manna, prophets, Jesus, a whacko traveling nutcase named Paul. In the end I needed some time alone to think it over. To summarise, a list of truths, versus some things that cannot be reconciled. The nays had it!

The wonder of earth and nature is still the same. The human body, and childbirth are jaw dropping. DNA in its complexities truly astounds me.

Yes, I still believe that we aren't here by chance, (the number of random particle collisions to create single cellular life are astounding (even in a C/N/O rich environment) and almost infinitely massive to say the least).

Whether a God, seen or unseen, created it is beyond the point. Do we need to bow and worship him? Probably not. If anything, sit back and enjoy what we have for the infinitesimally small, pee in the ocean that our lives are within history.

Parents: If the world is a better place for your kids once you leave it, in my opinion, you have earned your place amongst humanity.

I now know/believe that (begin rant):

a. God/supreme commander-in-chief exists (Why? Because I do; not because I have to for heaven's sake, and I am definitely not here to preach to the reconverted :))\
b. Jesus did exist, and did die (he was human after all), possibly at the hands of angry jews, or roman crucifixion. Then again so did Ramses II, and the bad guys in the Lethal Weapon films.
c. the Bible is an imperfect interpretation (thus cannot be truly divine) and full of too many contradictions, impossible feats, and is cherry picked by believers to prove their points
d. My wife is deluded, but not through her own doing. I still love her all the same.
e. My son is condemned to parents that do not believe the same things, and will be confused until he really makes up his own mind (ages 16 to 21 on average).
f. Suffering and pain are part of life, and not part of a quest for immortality.
g. The ark was too small, and there would be evidence of such a catastrophic end of life if it were true...we would all look like bearded hobbits that could sail the seven seas.
i. There are lessons to be learned from ALL faiths, but some true evils to be ignored. Religion simply seeks to ruin this by saying 'we are right'.
j. End rant

Sound familiar to anyone?

There endeth the lesson in my departure from religious life. Any questions?

Do not attempt to correct my spelling (it is real English, not the butchered yokel from across the ditch :P ). In all seriousness, the biggest thing for me is to find some sort of method to dealing with the family split in theology.

Not A True Christian

noreply@blogger.com (webmdave) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 04:18:45 PST

By Paul So ~

The strange thing is that while I was born as a Christian, I was never born into a Christian family that held the attitude that once someone is a Christian, that person will always remain a Christian as a True Christian. My family was, at the very least, a little tolerant enough to consider Catholics to be Christians (which is not always common among conservative protestants). However after my deconversion, I begin to meet other Christians and ex-Christians who talk about the notion of being a “True Christian”. I would often hear the “no true Christian” argument from many Christians, and I would also often hear frustration among other ex-Christians (as well as secularists who were never Christians) about the fallacy of this argument. I could almost never relate to this argument, but at the same time I am sympathetic enough to write an essay that would refute this kind of argument to show the inherent fallacious-ness. As a philosopher (or just plainly a philosophy student), I am going to use my critical thinking and logic to demonstrate why “Not a True Christian” is an overrated argument that no one should resort to.

The popular preconception that many Christians have is that to be a true Christian is to be a genuinely devoted Christian who does not doubt the fundamental teachings of Christianity. Not only does the person have genuine conviction of the belief, but such a person would also continue to believe in spite of all circumstances. Such a person would not merely believe, but would also act in accordance to such beliefs. So far this seems like a reasonable assumption on what a “True Christian” is. However, the adjunct belief is that a True Christian is someone who is authentically divinely inspired by God to the extent that such a person cannot disbelieve in it at all. So, there are several assumptions on what many Christians understand to be “True Christian”. I will go over these assumptions to see if they ever stand up to scrutiny.

The first very popular assumption is the moral assumption: “A person is a true Christian if and only if such a person is moral by following the moral commands of God”. This would also include having correct or justified moral beliefs in the eyes of God. So by this line of reasoning, Hitler cannot be called a “True Christian”, since he had incorrect moral beliefs (Racism) and committed many atrocities. However this line of reasoning is very peculiar because it leads us to ask an interesting question: What exactly disqualifies a person from being a true Christian in regards to the moral assumption? So far what is implicit in the moral assumption is to have the correct moral conviction (including moral belief) and the correct moral action that follows from obeying the divine command. But this becomes problematic when we consider another fact based on observation: nobody is morally perfect. If nobody is morally perfect, this only means that nobody acts and believes consistently in a moral manner. If that be the case, then in one moment a person is a true Christian, but in another moment the same person is not a true Christian. If person X has moral conviction Y and performed moral action Z in a certain point in time T1, in regards to the divine command Q, then he is a true Christian. But if person X at a certain point in time T2 lacked a moral conviction Y and performed an unethical action –Z, against the divine command Q, then such a person is not a true Christian at time T2. So there are times when a particular person was either a true Christian or not a true Christian. This seems to go against the preconception that once a person is a Christian, remains a Christian.

A possible objection to this argument is that it is incomplete because being a true Christian does not only involve obedience but also involves having a spiritual disposition or desire to please God and being forgiven by God through Christ. Thus a True Christian can at times be disobedient but remain a True Christian since he (or she) still has the desire to please God and is forgiven by God. There are some problems with these objections. First, one can have a misguided desire to please God in that the person is convinced that he or she is doing something for God. This is very well exemplified in religious fanaticism as well as terrorism motivated by religious zeal. Many Christians may continue to insist that such a person was still not a True Christian, but this is not consistent with the assumption that one has to have a desire to please God. What seems to lie beneath this objection is that the desire to please God logically entails actually pleasing God. However it’s obvious that this does not follow because one could have a desire to please God, but still be ignorant about what actually does please God. Such ignorance could arguably be inevitable since God is ineffable being. Second, there is a possible theological problem with the presumption of forgiveness: Just because one is forgiven, is it always the case that one will continue to remain forgiven? For some Christians, there is a possibility of “back sliding” in which one was forgiven, but returned back to the sinful life. Many evangelical Christians may object to this arguing that the person who experienced repentance and forgiveness will never return back to the sinful life. However this theological belief implies that there is virtually no freewill involved on the part of the person to either return to the sinful life or to embrace the spiritual life. This also seem to imply the theology of predestination in which the individual is permanently elected by God to be a True Christian.

The “Not a True Christian” argument also seems to be committed to the a priori understanding of being a Christian. Now, A priori is a philosophical terminology that means that something is true by definition: A triangle is three conjoined lines with three angles, A bachelor is an unmarried man, a husband is a married man, etc. In other words, the notion or term is true by its own meaning. When I say that a bachelor is single man, it is true by definition. This is not only true by definition, but it is so self-evidently true that rejecting it would sound ridiculous to anyone who knows the true meaning. Likewise, many Christians seem to have a similar view on being a Christian. I call this an a priori assumption. For many Christians, to be a true Christian is to have an inerrant view on the bible (although some Christians who are liberal Christians may deny this), believes in the holy trinity, believes in salvation, incarnation, virgin-birth etc. I think most of you get the point here…A Christian by definition cannot disagree or doubt anyone of these doctrines. Thus if a particular person calls himself a Christian but disagrees with the inerrancy of the bible, many Christians would argue that he is not a “True Christian”. However this approach is very problematic for several reasons. First, there are so many conflicting beliefs among Christians on many important matters that it is difficult to infer what it means to be a “True Christian” in any pure or a priori sense. I may meet someone who does not believe in creationism, but believes in theistic evolutionism, but still believes in the resurrection of Christ (such as William Lane Craig). Such aberration occurs within Christianity, they are still called Christians. The fundamentalists may insist that someone like William Lane Craig who believes in theistic evolution cannot be a true Christian, but from the outsiders point of view who is a true Christian? Is William Lane Craig a true Christian or is the fundamentalist a true Christian? In the early centuries when Christianity was new, there have been Christians who believed in many things that most Christians nowadays would not believe in, but which Christians in which time period are True Christians? The problem here is that it is not entirely clear which criterion we should use to assess which Christians are True Christians. It may seem self-evident to the protestant fundamentalist which Christians are true Christians, but to the conservative Catholics it is equally obvious which Christians are “true Christians”. They are using two different sets of Criterion which no one can agreeably decide which kind of person is a True Christian. Now, this doesn’t warrant the conclusion that there are no true Christians, but it does point out the weaknesses on the “True Christian” argument which is that there is no clear cut definition on what constitutes a Christian nowadays, thus being a “True Christian” could just amount to being an ambiguous Christian.

The third and final assumption is what I call the divine inspiration assumption. According to this view, to have a genuinely personal encounter or experience with God would make it impossible to turn away from God. It would also make it impossible to deliberately mistake to reject the existence of God after the personal experience had taken place. To have such an experience, but to continue to live a normal sinful life is unthought-of. So…what’s wrong with this assumption? First, the argument is question-begging because it makes an initial assumption that can be disputed; for example, such line of thinking assumes that 1) There is a God 2) There is a possible religious experience about that God 3) religious experience entails permanent belief. Because it assumes that there is a God whom anyone can have a personal experience with, through which permanent belief is formed, it concludes that nobody who has a personal experience with God could ever reject the existence of God. This line of thinking is problematic precisely because it makes certain assumptions that could be disputed philosophically, but many other believers deny it simply because they believe that the initial assumptions are absolutely correct. In the literature of Philosophy of Religion, many philosophers have strongly disputed about whether religious experience is possible at all, or whether coherent propositional knowledge can ever be formed reliably on the basis of religious experience. There is also an epistemological problem on how we know that what we experience is a religious experience, or how we know that what we interpret in our religious experience is a correct interpretation. Like, how do I know that my interpretation that a particular experience is a personal experience with God? What warrants this interpretation? Another problem with religious experience is the recent discovery in Neuroscience that religious experience has Neurobiological explanation in conjunction with other independent explanations: for example experiencing a presence of a being can be explained by being exposed to high level of electromagnetism that affects one’s temporal lobe. Many other kinds of religious experience, even near-death experienced, are progressively being explained through the eyes of neuroscience. Now, it is a given that the explanations are not exhaustive because neuroscience is still a recent science that is currently developing. So the problem of religious experience already makes the assumption of genuine personal experience with God dubious. The existence of God is also being assumed by many believers who appeal to personal experience, and this is obviously circular since personal religious experience already assumes the existence of God. The existence of God is an assumption that can be disputed by anyone on multiple reasonable grounds (i.e. problem of evil). If both of these assumptions are problematic, then it follows that the third assumption of permanent belief is also problematic. What if the permanent belief that I have just turned out to be false? After all, just because the belief is permanent does not mean that it is true, since permanence and truth are not always related (there are permanent falsehoods such as “Santa Clause Exist”).

A more general problem with the “True Christian” argument (including the moral assumption and a priori assumption) is that it commits a “not scottsman fallacy” proposed by Anthony Flew. Anthony Flew, a recently deceased Atheist philosopher, argued that the “True Christian” argument commits a “no scottsman fallacy”. He illustrates this by using an example of a patriotic Scottish who was horrified of the criminal behavior of another Scottish. He exclaims “No true Scottish would do such a thing”, and concludes that the particular criminal Scottish is not a Scottish. This is blatantly fallacious, since in spite of his criminal behavior, such a person remains a Scottish person. Similarly, Anthony Flew argues that the same fallacy goes with Christians. The whole point of this fallacy is to show that the standard universal claim can easily be changed to exclude particular members who did not fit into someone else’s preconception on what being a “True X” is, just as a Scottish patriot can easily changed the universal claim about Scottish people to exclude a criminal Scottish man. Now there are possible objections to this argument: nationality is not the same thing as religious identity, since religious identity involves more than being born into a particular nation. This objection is partially irrelevant since it misses the point that Anthony flew was trying to demonstrate the similarity between Scottsman and the Christian in that both of them change the standard universal claims to either exclude or include any individual member in order to into the preconceived notion. Such preconception that abuses the universal claim is not only presumptuous but circular. It also should be challenged.

I know this has been a very long essay, but the point that I am trying to make is that the “True Christian” argument is obviously a very bad argument for the reasons above. People who make such an argument are trying making themselves immune to any criticisms such that it seems to exempt them from critical thinking and rational discussion. It is often the case that people who do make such arguments are not interested in having a critical and rational discussion, but rather are only trying to convert other people who “were never True Christians” in their eyes. I am also trying to present you more reasons why the “True Christian” argument is not a very logical one, because it is a circular argument that changes the standard universal claims that fit into their preconception of “True Chrisitan” to exclude those who use to be genuinely dedicated Christians. I hope you guys enjoyed reading the essay…