So . . . How Do You Feel About God?

So . . . if you happened to have read my recent post A Storm is Brewing, then you might consider this post to be part two.

My mother-in-law and wife have a mother-daughter talk over the phone. I can only hear my wife's side of the conversation. And I hear something like:

I just don't like going to church . . . I dunno . . . I just don't feel comfortable there. I mean, I give you Mother's day, Christmas, Easter . . . I just can't come every Sunday. I just don't feel comfortable there . . . . No, no . . . it's nothing that anybody has done . . . No, I don't want to go to that church either . . . I know this is important to you and this is an important part of your life but I'm just not like you in that way . . .

Uh-oh.

Later, my wife told me what prompted her end of the conversation. Her mother asked her, "So, how do you feel about God?"

My wife totally went into politician mode on her and evaded the question by discussing a slightly different, but related topic. She just talked about not liking church.

So . . . the MIL is making her rounds. She asked her grandson . . . then next she's asked her own daughter. Now, I think my daughter and I are next on her list.

I guess I had better plan what I'm going to say. And I better hope my daughter doesn't out us from the closet.

The Goodness (and Evilness) of God

I ended up having to work late hours one weeknight. As a result, I overslept and my children missed the school bus (again). So, I had to take them to school (again) myself and then head on to work.

As I was returning to my car from signing the "tardy" sheet for my kids, I see another parent ambling along with his child into the school building.

Well, at least I'm not the only parent oversleeping.

I found myself staring at this guy as he was making his way down the sidewalk. But, I didn't know why. I felt like I was being rude, but couldn't help myself. And even stranger, this guy was staring right back at me. But the more I stared, the more familiar he looked. Then, in the tone of a question, he called out my name.

Suddenly, I remember who he was and we both became so excited to see each other. I decided to hang around my car until he came back out. We talked for over an hour! We hadn't seen each other in probably twenty years! We tried to catch up up on each other's life-- which explains why we talked for so long.

This poor fellow seems to have had a lot of hardship in his travels. I am not envious of him at all.

We met in a Christian youth group when we were kids, so I had to sort of keep my guard up. He still used Christian "language"-- now and then he hinted that he was still trying to grow his relationship with God and such. But he openly admitted that the evangelical persona that he projected years ago wasn't really him.

He was also quick to admit that he was quite baffled at how a person can endure hardships and suffering still make sense of the Bible after actually reading through it.

He seems to be where I was a years ago just before I abandoned my faith. He's reading his Bible-- I mean, really reading it and paying attention to the words. And as a result, he's noticed that God doesn't shy away from taking credit for creating evil, and perhaps even causing it.

Not many Christians that I know of will even let their mouths form such words!

He cited how King Saul was vexed by a spirit that God sent. He talked about how God admits to even creating evil. He talked about how he doesn't see things any longer as "good" verses "evil" and God verses Satan. Rather, he simply sees God causing everything to happen for what ever reason that he sees fit. Sort of like the way God treated Job by openly allowing Satan give him one helluva time.

Then oddly, my old friend concede that God must know what he's doing.

But curiously, he would often hedge his praise towards God with the phrase, ". . . I guess" throughout our conversation. Such as-- "God must know what he's doing . . . I guess".

He seemed hesitant and doubtful about mainstream Christianity now with his newfound insight flooding in interesting implications.

But despite the vibe I was feeling from him, I wasn't sure if he was ready for me to be totally honest and open about my current atheistic perspective.

So, I played along for the moment.

We exchanged numbers. I think we'll talk again soon (if I can find the slip of paper. I'm an idiot! I should have put it in my phone on the spot).

The evolution of his religious beliefs will be interesting to observe should we keep in touch. And should I ever revel to him my current beliefs, his reaction would be quite interesting to witness as well.

Read Each of the Following

I was performing the grueling task of making my son finish his homework today.

He had a language assignment that was designed to train him in discerning an author's purpose. Before reading the directions, the worksheet had a short paragraph explaining the possible purposes of the author.

For instance, if an author gives facts, then his or her purpose is most likely to inform. If the author is writing about how wonderful something is, he or she is probably trying to persuade. And, if the author is writing a story about fictional characters, then the author is probably making an attempt to entertain.

After reviewing that paragraph with my son, we read the directions which were as follows:

Directions: READ EACH OF THE FOLLOWING WRITINGS AND DECIDE WHETHER THE AUTHOR'S PURPOSE IS TO:

• persuade
• inform
• entertain

After wrestling with my son over matters of neatness, sloppiness, and coherency, something started to dawn on me.

If the Bible isn't trying to sell you something, then it's not trying to persuade. But, if it's not totally accurate historically, then it's not making a good attempt at informing others.

Ah! So then, it's for entertainment!

Ha! Now I get it!

OK, OK . . . honestly-- it's not that simple in my opinion. But, that notion sure has given me something to think about.

What was the purpose of any given author of any given scripture text?

That's an important question for everyone to explore each and every time we read.

Quiz Show

A funny (at least, I thought) video, compliments of NonStampCollector.

But, I gotta give a hat tip to Tristan for having other videos that lead me to this one.

Is Heaven in the Sky?

In the past, I have shared several dialogues between me and my son.

But today, I will share a dialogue between me and my five year old daughter.

My five year old attends the same day care that my son once did. The facility is quite good with the exception (in my view) that they will try to indoctrinate your child. After all, the daycare facility is run by a mega-church. What can one expect?

Now my daughter is finally starting to ask the tough questions about God. This day surly came faster than I thought.

While riding down the highway my daughter asks out of the blue:

“Daddy, is Heaven in the sky?”

“No sweetie. Heaven isn't up there in the sky. We've sent astronauts into space, we fly planes in the air all the time, and we have satellites floating around way up there in space. No one has bumped into Heaven up there. Pass the sky and you end up among the moon and stars. So between the ground and space where the sky is, we haven't found Heaven.”

I could have told her that Heaven was the sky. But I think the heart of her question was really, “Is God's home up there in the sky?”

Whether you're a theist or not, can you honestly say that God is sitting up there somewhere in the sky?

Anyhow . . .

My daughter thought about my answer for a moment. Then she asked,

“Well, what are all those clouds in the sky for?”

I guess she was wondering why clouds needed to float majestically in the Heavens above if Heaven isn't really “up there”.

“They aren't really for anything, exactly." I said. "The clouds are in the sky because water turns into a gas when it gets hot.”

“A gas?” She seemed to know what “gas” was, but was caught off guard with the idea that water could exist as a “gas”.

Time to introduce the fact that matter can exist in several phases.

“Yeah . . . you know what an ice cube is, right?”

“Yeah, but I don't like ice cubes. They hurt my hands and lips and I can't crunch them with my teeth. They hurt because they are so cold.”

“Right. Well, when water is really, really cold it turns into something like a rock. It becomes solid. When water is not so cold, we see it the usual way-- as a liquid.

“Daddy . . . what's a liquid?”

“Anything that is “wet” like water is a liquid. The juice you love to drink all the time is liquid like water.”

I paused for a moment, then continued.

“And if water gets hot, it turns to gas and floats into the air. As the gas keeps going up and up, it starts to cool again and forms the clouds you see. When a cloud gets too big and can't hold any more water, it releases that water to the ground. You know that that's called?”

“Rain!”

“Exactly!”

Then my daughter says, “I know that when I drink too much water, I have to pee. Just like the clouds when they hold too much water and start to rain!”

Hey . . . she came up with that one all on her own. That "pee" thing wasn't my idea.

Then she asked why she couldn't hold her pee forever. You know, it's such an inconvenience to stop playing just to go pee, after all.

So my son and I started to explain the purpose of a bladder.

And then that question turned into another conversation all together.

Notice that I did not tell my daughter that Heaven did not exist. I only told her the truth about the sky. We have not found Heaven up there and the clouds come from a cycle of evaporation and condensation. Have you heard any reports of Heaven being found in the sky?

This is no different than what I did with my son. I simply gave him facts and tried to encourage him to think for himself.  I'm now doing this for my daughter.

No crime or criticism can be found in that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By the way, below is an interesting graphic of "the Heavens" as depicted by the website Live Science.

[Source: Telescopes for Beginners for OurAmazingPlanet.com]

The Four Legends of Jesus: Part I

For all my life, I understood the gospels to be four harmonious accounts of the same events. Even after becoming an atheist, that idea remained uncontested in the back of my mind.

Not anymore.

First, let's apply the context that has shaped my new opinion.

The earliest of Christians (You know, Peter . . . Paul-- those guys) probably saw themselves more so as enlightened Jews rather than "Christians". And like most mainstream Jews in the first century, these "new Jews" were eager for the re-establishment of their former Davidic kingdom which was to be accomplished by the Messiah. Thus, the kingdom of God was initially an exclusive desire of the Jews. The first Christians, then, are best viewed as newly enlightened Jews who would follow along with their newly realized Messiah (Jesus) who will bring about the establishment of the Davidic kingdom of God. The establishment of God's kingdom would require the overthrowing of Roman rule. A defining quality of the Messiah is to accomplish the resurrection of the kingdom; mainstream Jews reject Messianic claims from anyone who accomplishes less than that.

So, these "newly enlightened Jews" believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the real Messiah. They trusted him and expected him to fulfill the required work of the Messiah by saving Israel from Rome.

But before anything significant happened against Rome, Jesus was executed.

No revolution. No Davidic kingdom. No overthrowing of Roman rule.


No Messiah.

So, now what?

I suspect that the words of Jesus suddenly needed new interpretation as his followers struggled to understand why he died without even sparking a revolution. They eventually rationalized that Jesus must rise from the dead; after which, he will return to Earth from Heaven and establish the new kingdom of God.

But, this peculiar fringe group of Jews were probably dwindling fast after the death of Jesus. And the truest followers who invested the most into Jesus were probably dealing with cognitive dissonance. Once they saw that Jesus did not immediately fulfill the required role of the Messiah, the key followers of Jesus rationalized that he would return to fulfill his Messianic requirements after making certain preparations in Heaven. In the meanwhile, the "new Jews" needed to recruit new followers. However, the Jesus-movement couldn't seem to bring in very many mainstream Jews.

Why not?

Because mainstream Jews were looking for a living Messiah who would establish the kingdom presently. Right then. Jesus did not fit that description. The mainstream Jews were not going to follow a "failed" Messiah. And as the decades turned into centuries, this "new Judaism" evolved into the familiar Christianity of today. And this Christianity is quite opposed to Judaism concerning the nature of God. Not only do Jews reject Christianity because of the failure of Jesus as Messiah, but Jews also reject Christianity because most (not all) Christians understand Jesus to be more than just the Messiah; Jesus is divine. Jesus is God. For many Jews, the Godhead has no room for Yahweh and Jesus, too.

Hear O Israel, the LORD your God is one LORD.

So then, the new Jews had little choice. Go ye therefore and teach those pagans!

Er, I mean . . . teach all nations . . .

The "new Jews" invited Gentiles into this new flavor of non-exclusive Judaism. Paul seemed to be the greatest champion of this cause. And as the Gentile base grew within the "new Judaism", it slowly became less Jewish and more Christian.

Keep in mind that at this point in history only the letters of Paul where being circulated. No gospels seem to have been written at this point. Perhaps a general document containing the sayings of Jesus was floating around, but the gospels as a literary work do not seem to be in circulation just yet.

While the "new Jews" were growing, tensions grew between the Romans and Jews of all flavors. This tension built up over decades until it finally exploded in Jerusalem in the year 70 A.D. The Jews in Jerusalem staged a revolt against Rome.

And the Romans responded with hot and heavy-handed anger. They brutally crushed the attempted rebellion of the Jews.

Many of the "new Jews" were probably expecting Jesus to return during the revolt to finally establish the kingdom. But instead, the "new Jews" and mainstream Jews alike were burned, maimed and killed in the streets. Those fortunate enough (unfortunate, maybe?) to survive these horrors fled out of Jerusalem for their lives.

Shortly after the revolt, the gospel of Mark appears-- the earliest of the four main gospel writings.

In my opinion, the historical context that I just presented sheds light on the true purpose behind each canonized gospel writing. I think this context also provides a better understanding of who Jesus and the earliest Christians truly were.

And with that, I will conclude part I of this post.

In the meanwhile, you can see where I'm coming from and where I'm going with this post by visiting the link below:

From Jesus to Christ

Stay tuned.

Mommy, Do We Believe in Jesus?

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Matthew 18:6


Did you read the quote above? Did you read the one up there?
Huh? Did you? Take a glance at it before you continue.

You read it? OK. Here it goes:

My darling little daughter asked the other day:

Mommy, is Jesus real?
(Ha! It's Mommy's turn to get some tough questions from the kids!)

Mommy replies: Well, for some people Jesus is real-- and for some, Jesus is like Santa Clause.

(Mommy phrased her answer this way because recently she told our daughter that Santa Clause is not real.)

Then our precious little four-year-old cutie digs even deeper:

Mommy . . . do we believe in Jesus? I don't think we do . . . do we?

Mommy's response?

Uh -- we'll have to talk about that another time, sweetie.

I find the fact interesting that my daughter asked if we believed in Jesus-- as if she is trying to fit in socially. Sort of like sitting at a dinner table watching everyone else while you try to figure out which fork to use for the salad.

She wouldn't know or think to believe in Jesus except that someone introduce her to the whole idea (read: daycare staff & grandparents). Just as you don't really think about a salad fork-- until you notice that you have two slightly different forks at the table. Which fork should you use?

Our daughter knows that we don't attend church regularly and that we do not insert ideas about God and Jesus into our nurturing-- unlike the daycare staff and grandparents. She notices this and she wants to fit in with us at home, too, apart from the religious indoctrination she faces.

People who believe their faith should spread tend to reach out to children. And parents who don't participate in the indoctrination process often receive a stern warning from believers in the form of the above quote.

The indoctrination process seems mindless and automatic to me. And the stern warnings sometimes come across as a cruel scare tactic.

My wife and I don't want our daughter to be helplessly enveloped by this process of indoctrination. We want her to be able to choose for herself with wide open eyes.

And honestly, I don't think my wife and I are the kind of parents that deserve to be drowned with millstones around our necks.

Where's Your Bible?

During our Thanksgiving festivities, I wondered if I would be asked to pray before we ate. I really hoped no one would press the issue. And thankfully, nobody brought it up.

But a different subject did come up.

My mother-in-law (who is a minister by the way), was sitting at our table waiting for dinner to be served. When out of the blue she asked, "Where's your Bible? I'd like to read something . . ."

I'm sure she saw the flash of panic in my eyes for I have no fucking idea where my Bible is.

None. Whatsoever.

I looked to my wife for help-- only to see the same flash of panic in her eyes.

Luckily, my sister-in-law came to the rescue. "Momma, I've got my Bible in my car . . . I'll just run out and get it real quick".

My mother-in-law has been trying to figure out what's "wrong" with me. And I think she asked for my Bible as a test. She knows that if I cannot even tell her where it is, then there is no way I've been studying it! I think it was a spiritual litmus test; and my spirit score was way too low.

I know she's becoming suspicious. She didn't bother to ask me to pray like at past Thanksgiving dinners. She assumed that role for herself this year. She didn't want to risk asking a backslider to bless the food.

And that's fine with me; I had no complaints about that.

Table Talk

While enjoying a slab of pizza with my kids, we chatted about the events of the evening.

My son proceeded to tell me about his afternoon:

"When Grandma picked me up from school today, she told me that I couldn't watch any TV at her house".

"Oh, really? Why? You get into some trouble?" (uh-oh)

"No", he replied. "Grandma said that she wasn't watching TV to prove her love to God (read: fasting from television). She said that she wasn't going to permit me to watch any TV since it's her house and her rules."

"Oh, I see. What did you think of that?"

-- I think I even stopped eating my pizza for a moment.

"I respect what she's trying to do and all, but I don't agree with it".

"Really?" I was astonished. What a mature answer for an eight year old!

"Well son, I'm curious now. Would you be willing to stop watching TV to get closer to God?"

"Nope. I like TV too much."

Ouch!

"But what if someone told you that sometimes it takes that sort of devotion to please God?" I tried to pick my son's brain.

"I dunno. I just don't agree with that idea. I respect it, but . . . . I mean, I don't even know if the Bible is real or not. I mean, who was there to write about the first man if nobody was around but the first man? That just doesn't seem to make sense to me."

Wow! Honest . . . I didn't tell him any of that beforehand. I don't even know where he got that specific idea from-- except that I've encouraged him to question ideas and to decide for himself what he thinks of God. I didn't think that anything I said would have caused him to respond quite like that.

He still seems to believe in God. That's fine with me. But he seems willing to question ideas-- even if the ideas come from an "authoritative source". That to me is most important.

He's thinking on his own.

I don't mind if he becomes (or remains) theist. I just want him to learn to think for himself, regardless. Many theists are quite capable of doing this.

And for that reason alone (that he's learning to think for himself), I am proud of my son.

(And I'm proud of my daughter, too. She's learning how to read!)

If . . . Then . . .

So, I started thinking to myself . . .

If God does exists, then God endorses a particular scripture text.

After making that statement, I wondered about the validity of it. Particularly, I wondered about whether God's existence necessitates his endorsement of a particular scripture text.

If God does exist and God does endorse a particular scripture text-- then, which text do I need to obey? By what criteria can we tell?

If we use miracles as our criteria, how do we validate these miracles if we were not living when they happened? We cannot exactly disprove them either. But, if we consider that miracles are hard to come by today, we cannot be blamed for thinking that miracles were hard to come by a long time ago.

If our criteria is prophesy, can we test to see if historical accounts of a secular nature also give testimony of the prophecy's outcome? Also, how do we know that the alleged prophesy was not written in hindsight?

What if the alleged prophesy was never written to even be prophetic?

If God does not exist then obviously no scripture text could ever be endorsed by him (or her) at all.

And that is precisely why scripture tends to be non-effective towards most atheists. If God does not exist, then he cannot endorse any religious text at all. Thus, all religion happens to be an anthropic phenomena.

God could exist and not endorse any religious text at all. Perhaps no religious text suits her (or his gender neutral) fancy and therefore inadequately informs us what God really wants out of us. That would then suggest that she (or he) doesn't mind much if we come to the wrong conclusions about religious faith. Or maybe we're all in for one helluva ride!

Hey, can "he" be gender neutral? "She" can't be gender neutral either, right? Not in English anyhow . . . I suppose . . . oh, never mind.


Reminiscent of the Sound-off segments from the Disevangelists blog, any thoughts about the above premises and it's possibilities:

A) God exists and endorses a specific scripture text.

Can we prove or disprove that. If so, how?

B) God exists, but God does not favor the scripture text that you read.

If that is true, can scripture still be inspired of God even if it only partially delivers the correct message to humanity? Do we just get the important lessons and try our best to have a good relationship with God and our fellow man? Or are we all in trouble because no one has been obedient enough to declare God's 'true' words yet?

C) God does not exist and all scripture is just made up.

Can one prove or disprove that scripture is made up? If you can prove that scripture is made up, does that still mean God does not exist? Which scriptures are made up and why isn't the one you favor legitimate?

On what grounds do atheists really say God is non-existent.

By the way, I miss you guys over there at Disevangelists. I know you've all been quite busy in your personal lives. I understand. I'm just sayin' . . .

Happy Atheist Day!

Since I'm in the closet, most people still think I'm a Christian. Well, as a result, I got this cute little e-mail forward in my in box:

FLORIDA COURT SETS 'ATHEIST' HOLY DAY

In Florida , an atheist created a case against the Easter & Passover holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians, Jews and observances of their holy days. The argument was it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized day(s).

The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, 'Case dismissed.'

The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, 'Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter, etc. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah, and Hanukkah. Yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays.'

The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, 'But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant.' The lawyer said, 'Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists.'

The judge said, 'The calendar shows April 1st is 'April Fools Day.' Psalm 14:1 states: 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned.

AMEN

Ouch!

Of course, that e-mail is just an anecdote designed to drive home a punch line with a little umph; the punch line being:

You're an idiot if you don't believe in God.

Yeah, the word fool is used. And I know, fool doesn't really mean idiot in the Bible. Fool generally means amoral, to my understanding. But clearly the sentiment of this particular e-mail is idiot.

Yeah, I felt a little insulted. I admit.

I won't resort to name calling . . . but theists who pass around this e-mail should be careful before implying insults against someone with an atheistic viewpoint.

Now, I had a nice little rant all prepared. But, after recently "preaching" about respect a day or so ago-- I guess I had better not.


Me and my big mouth . . .

Darwin Misunderstood

Today is the 200th birth anniversary of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the introduction of his theory of Evolution.

Darwin's works are largely misunderstood according to many biologists. And many magazine articles of late have made a huge point of this.

Once I heard an interesting comparison between the Bible and Darwin's works -- they were both the least read books on Earth.

And both are also the most misunderstood.

I think the most powerful misunderstanding that I once held was that evolution had little evidence to support it. I've come to change my mind about this. To me, the evidence is very convincing and plentiful. Another misconception I had was that Darwin's work supported slavery. I have also heard often that Darwin believed in slavery and expressed this in his works.

But this BBC news article says something quite different. Darwin seems to have abhorred slavery and quietly hoped his work would help imply how wrong slavery truly was.

Even if you don't agree with evolution-- Darwin Style, consider making sure you truly understand his works. That way when you agree or disagree with him, you'll really know why for yourself.

That goes for me, too.

I plan to do this by reading through Darwin's works for myself throughout this year. If I find that the BBC article was inaccurate in my reading, I'll try to do a post about it.

As a matter of fact, if I feel I need to retract anything I've written about evolution after reading it -- I'll try to do a post about it.

Nothing takes the place of knowing for yourself.

Doing this with the Bible isn't such a bad idea, either.


Happy Darwin Day!

Oh, and I'd also like to give a shout out to ol' Honest Abe. It's his bicentennial birthday, too.

Train Up a Child

I often wonder what to do about my kids. I want to teach them what I've now learned about the Bible. I want to teach them not to take the Bible so literally.

But at the same time, I do not want to forbid them the opportunity to believe in God if they want to do so. Nor do I want to forbid that they explore church. But, I want them to know up front what I know. I want church and the Bible to have the burden of proof in their minds, rather than they grow up believing in God, church, and Bible unquestioningly. I don't want them to assume that clergy and the Bible in particular are the ultimate authority on all things.

But being in the closet makes this very difficult. My mother and my mother-in-law both pump my oldest son with teachings about God. Yet, this only fills him with questions that I have trouble answering without giving away my non-belief. My daughter is very young -- that's primarily why I don't mention her as much as my son. But, she is going to a Christian based daycare. She gets bombarded, too.

I don't want to totally intervene and plainly tell them God is no different from Santa Clause. Who knows. One day, I may change my own mind about that. However, I don't want them to blindly obey a scripture text without knowing something about what archeology and history revel concerning any given scripture text.

Also, I know my son will start to leak my non-Christian views to my two "moms" and blow my cover should I start plainly sharing my views.

So, what should I do?

I feel like a coward sometimes by avoiding many of my son's questions. I feel selfish, too. I feel selfish for not telling my children what I think is best for them in a plain, outright fashion-- all because I don't want people to know that I've changed.

Yet, I also feel selfish for wanting to curb their developing faith in God. I want them to be their own persons and decide for themselves. But, I want them to posses the information that I have learned as they make their personal decisions about God.

Funny how the Bible says to train up a child and they will not depart from the path that you teach them. My mother did this with me; it didn't turn out so well thus far. And I secretly hope that fundamentalist Christianity doesn't work for my children, either.

So, what should I do as they grow up?

I suppose all I can do is teach my kids to think for themselves. Let them learn the Bible, but let them learn the faculties of reason and skepticism, too.

Otherwise, I 'm at a loss as to what to do.

Church Tradition

And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition . . . Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Mark 7:9 and 7:13

I've realized over these past few years that a disconnect exists between religious beliefs and actual written scripture. I've come to realize that churches simply pass down their religious doctrine to the next generation and mainly study from the passages that reinforce their traditions.

Ironic that Jesus himself makes this same complaint against Jewish leaders within the New Testament text. Yet, generally, Christians do not heed this warning.

If they did, they'd be in for a treat . . . or a shock.

Here are some common misconceptions that I grew up with due to Church tradition, but are not compatible with scripture:

Sunday is the Sabbath day for Christians

Tithing is required from the Church (Keeping parts of the Law)

Marriage to a new spouse is acceptable among Christians after divorcing the original Christan spouse

Nothing is wrong with Christians taking other Christians to court to settle a legal dispute

Woman are equal to Men in Church (Most don't want to own up to this sexism. But if you take many passages that speak of women being subject to men literally, can you really make an exception?)

The Lord's Supper consisted of crackers and grape juice

The Bible was a complete unit during the early Christians lives (I never would have admitted this verbally, but time had to go by before I could grasp the fact that scripture went through a canonization process where both Jewish and Christian leaders argued over which books would be included. This process happened for Judaism around 3 or 4 B.C. by many sources. For Christians, this happened around the 2nd century or so. That's 200 years after Jesus was crucified!)

The United States is a Christian Nation (First, the Bible doesn't even mention the United States! Next, the Constitution Separates Church and State. Before you disagree with me, read the First Amendment and Article Six of the Constitution. Many Christians want the United States to be a Christian nation because Israel is known as a Jewish nation and God did such a good job of protecting them because of it -- Israel being conquered by the Babylonians, the Romans, the Jews suffering during the Holocaust and the present day military conflicts make great examples of God's wonderful protection! The United States needs God's protection, too! So lets be a Christian nation just like Israel is a Jewish nation! Please!)

I could think of other examples, but I'll stop here. These traditions contradict scripture, but Christians do not want to surrender these ideas for various reasons.

Well, I only have one computer but my immediate family and extended family is waiting in line to use the PC.

I need my own laptop!!

The Unforgivable Sin

Growing up, I was one of those kids that not only behaved well in church -- I listened well, too.

And as a result, I listened to the preacher teach a lesson on blasphemy of the Holy Ghost.

WHAT-A-MIND-JOB!!!

From that night onward, I had compulsive thoughts run through my head about blasphemy. I couldn't control them. The more I tried, the worse it got. Blasphemous phrases ran through my head against the Holy Ghost.

That incident alone was reason enough to regret ever going to church!

I feared that I was damned -- and I was only 12 years old!

A 12 year old child shouldn't be worrying about whether or not he is damned eternally because he can't beat back compulsive blasphemous thoughts!

You can't ask for help. You're too ashamed. Besides, you think to yourself that seeking forgiveness is too late.

I wavered often, between whether god would forgive me and understand my circumstances, or whether my sin was permanently place upon my soul. Not even the blood of Jesus could wash away that stain.

Eventually, I just held firm that god would understand. I had no other choice. The only other alternative in my mind at that time was to accept damnation. But, that didn't make sense; I loved god and I wanted to be a Christian. I wanted to be filled with and guided by the Holy Ghost.

Jesus meant everything to me. How could he possibly condemn me for something I couldn't stop on my own.

I decided that my problem was sort of like a thorn in my flesh.

Those are difficult concepts for a 12 year old to deal with all alone.

In my high school years, I heard a preacher give an anecdote about a man who feared he committed blasphemy. The anxiety became so strong for this fellow that he went behind his house with a gun and prepared to shoot himself.

Yeah, it can get that bad worrying about your soul.

Are you worried about blasphemy?

Don't.

Life is way too short for that sort of drama.

If you're worried about it, then you have not done it! Compulsive thoughts and ruminations are a sign of serious anxiety. If you stop worry about blasphemy, then blasphemy will stop haunting you.

And if you stop worrying about the object of your blasphemy, the fear of hell will stop haunting you, too.

I don't know why I'm even writing all of this. I guess I just had to get this off of my chest.

*Whew*

History Repeats Itself

Nicolaus Copernicus wrote a book entitled On the Revolutions of Heavenly Bodies which stated that the Earth revolved around the sun and was not the center of the universe.

His book was banned by the Catholic Church.

Galileo Galilei agreed with Copernicus and wrote a book entitled Dialogue Concerning Two Chief World Systems which compared old views of the cosmos versus the Copernicus view. This book advocated and supported the Copernicus model of the world.

Galileo was taken before an inquisition and placed on house arrest for the last years of his life. He was forced to renounce his scientific findings and was labeled a heretic by the Catholic Church.

Today, various states have legislators who are trying to draft and legalize disclaimers on the flaps of public school text books that mention the theory of Evolution.

Again, someone wants to keep scientific findings quiet.

Opponents of Evolution claim that the science is bad. That's not really why they oppose evolution though.

Opponents against Copernicus and Galileo made the same claims.

But again, that's not really why they opposed these two great astronomers of the past.

Copernicus and Galileo had sound scientific observation on their side.

Their opponents -- the Bible.

Guess who finally give in and change their minds.

Hopefully, everything will come full circle and history will again, repeat itself.

Why do I say this? Because, like Copernicus and Galileo -- Darwin has sound science on his side, too.

Saint Nick versus Noah's Ark

I know Christmas is over now, but I can't resist making this point:

NORAD has a tradition where they "track" Santa Clause as he journeys across North America to deliver toys.

We know that this is only a tradition. Of Course Santa Clause cannot traverse all of North America -- let alone the whole world -- climb down someone's chimney, deliver toys, climb back up the chimney, get back on his sleigh, then stop again next door.

He can't do this for any home, let alone each home in North America before morning!

Don't get me wrong, we like to imagine Santa making his delivery; many of us still like to pretend. Fiction and fantasy are wonderful as long as we keep these elements in their place.

But, keep in mind, the same kind of physical impossibilities that prevent Santa Clause from going to each home across North America -- and the whole world -- are the same type of physical impossibilities that Noah faced when trying to get a pair of every species of every animal (and in some cases seven of each clean animal) onto his ark. Animals that don't even live in his climate had to somehow find their way to Noah and board his boat.

Lets not even go into the sanitation problems he'd have on the ark. A pair of each animal from all the animals of earth trapped on a boat with only eight or so people?!

The animals outside of their climate would die. And what would the carnivores eat? They'd starve to death after breaking loose and eating Noah and his family.

And the other animals on board, too.

Whoops, their goes humanity!

And I'm not sure, but I don't think there is even enough water to cover the surface of the whole earth anyway? At least, not from rain. Not even from busting out from under the ground, either.

Santa Clause has a better chance of being real that Noah's attempt to save the world -- and what we pretend about Santa is certainly impossible!

Oh well . . .

The Oath of Office

Keith Ellison is the first Muslim ever elected to the United States Congress. Ellison swore in with the 110th United States Congress using a copy of the Koran which once belonged to Thomas Jefferson. This decision drew a lot of criticism. One of the most notable critics of Ellison's swearing in ceremony is Dennis Prager. In November of 2006, Prager's criticism raised a controversial question:

Why doesn't US law only allow the Bible to be used during oath of office ceremonies?

Prager basically argues that American government's core values are based upon the Bible; therefore, using the Koran in it's place is un-American and unconstitutional.

Prager apparently has never read the First Amendment.

Also, Prager probably has never heard of the Treaty of Tripoli.

I've said this in a recent post . . . I don't mind our currency and our Pledge having "God" included. I don't even mind swearing on a Bible -- although the Bible has a few scripture passages which expressly forbid swearing or taking oaths. Check out Steve Wells' blog entry about swearing oaths at Dwindling Unbelief. He does a good job of making the same point I'd like to make about using the Bible in oath ceremonies.

But in the end, none of this should matter. Ellison should get to use his Koran. And let Prager use his Bible. Should more atheists become a part of Congress, let them use thin air (as many Congressmen already do --regardless of faith). Or maybe atheists can use Steve Wells' The Skeptic's Anontated Bible.

Now that would be a great leap forward in the freedom of religious expression!


With President-elect Obama's inauguration drawing near, I wonder what text will he use. People have accused Obama of being a Muslim all this time; people fear a Muslin taking high office and derailing America through abusing the executive powers of the office of President.

I wonder how many people would explode if Obama were to swear on a Koran.

I hope Obama would choose to use nothing at all. But even that action may incriminate him in the eyes of his critics.

So to be safe, Obama will probably follow suite with the other Presidents before him and take his Oath of Office on a Bible.



Hell . . . in the end, that's fine with me.