Where Is Your Faith?

Hebrews 11:6 speaks of how pleasing God is impossible without faith.

That faith spoken of in Hebrews-- I have lost it.

Faith seems to be described as its own evidence when I read Hebrews 11:1; It's the substance of things hoped for-- the evidence of things not seen. Faith is the certainty of something that has no visible evidence. Perhaps author and philosopher Peter Boghossian describes faith best as pretending to know things you really don't.

Regardless, I have lost the stuff. For I cannot sit and listen to preaching and buy into any of it any longer. I remember the first sermon where I couldn't swallow what the preacher was feeding to me from across the pulpit. He was preaching an Easter sermon and expounding on how so many people saw Jesus Chris after he rose from the dead. He spoke of it as though it were verifiable fact-- as though he were there too and saw him along with the host of people he named! Something in my brain started to reject the notion that we can know with any certainty that the gospel accounts were true. I just couldn't do it any longer. A switch flipped in my brain. Perhaps I have been turned over to a reprobate mind.

Each time I darken the doors of the church, I hear the clarion question-- Where is your faith?

I don't know. I lost my faith along the way while trying to justify it long ago-- when I actually had it! Now it's gone; I don't know where.

And I'm not so sure I want it back any more, either.

How ironic! Merely trying to prove faith destroys its unquestioning, trusting nature.

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.

Perhaps It's None of Your Business

On my way into the grocery story, I overheard a mom speaking with her son-- who appeared to be around the age of five or six. They were walking right along beside me, so I wasn't trying to eavesdrop. Their proximity made hearing this tidbit impossible to ignore. I've changed the names for privacy sake.

son: Tony is mean to me.

mom: Well, don't play with Tony . . .

son: I wasn't playing with him. He was just mean. I play with Sally.

mom: How is Sally doing? Did you ask her why she didn't come to church Sunday? Did you tell her we missed her?

Huh? Did you ask her why she didn't come to church? 

Admittedly, their conversation was none of my business. But perhaps, that notion answers her question just as well.


I wonder sometimes if the majority of issues between believers and non-believers could be solve simply by people minding their own business concerning matters of faith.

A Storm is Brewing

A storm is brewing; I think I may be outed soon.

See . . . evangelical Christians have a duty to evangelize. As a former Christian, I was trained to share my faith, my mom was taught this way, my mother-in-law believes this and practices this, and passages like Matthew 28:19 imply this duty. Over and over, I've heard that parents are charged with teaching their children "the faith"; Christians who are seeking a spouse are admonished to avoid marrying non-believers (1 Corinthians 7) and convert their spouse if neither of them were in the faith before entering matrimony.

To make this duty towards evangelism more complicated, the various flavors of evangelical Christianity have their own outline of creeds and articles of faith which detail the preaching and obtaining of salvation and how to introduce the gospel to others. Some evangelical Christians can accept the differences of other Christians sects while other Christian groups cannot. So then, a strong drive to teach others about the correct Christianity can be seen in some believers. They will attempt to convert anyone outside of their belief system-- even other Christians outside of their specific denomination.

When I stopped looking through the lens of Christian duty, I found it curious when various Christians claimed they are under attack by secularism, the "new atheism", Islam or the government. I say this because many Christians are unaware that they sometimes go beyond simply sharing their faith; rather, they find themselves imposing it. And when non-believers (theist or not) push back in order to maintain their liberty to worship as they please (or to not worship at all), some Christians can become offended by that.

Since Christendom contains members who assume their faith is the only correct viewpoint, such believers tend to unwittingly posses a sense of entitlement for preferential treatment-- for no policy can exist outside the ultimate authority and bridle its overstep; for without their faith, there could be no good or correct policy in the first place. So naturally, these kinds of Christians feel attacked when others simply remind them that the world shouldn't be required to follow suit and adopt their religious faith.

All of which brings me to the problem at hand.

My mother-in-law approached my son about matters of faith recently-- behind closed doors. My son told me and his mom about this incident shortly after it happened. My mother-in-law cornered him and asked him if he believed in God. My son has told me in the past that he does not, but he responded to her question with an emphatic yes. He even recounted that he tried to use such a tone in his voice that made her inquiry sound crazy. She proceeded to tell him that he doesn't need his parents' permission to have a relationship with God. And well . . . I don't dispute that. What worries me is that her probing implies that she doesn't trust that we, his parents, are doing what we should and she feels now that it's her duty to impose Christian faith on our children since we don't seem to be doing so. I also hate to see my son caught in the middle of this issue. He's being pressured to deal with matters that shouldn't be of his concern, yet. Neither of my children deserve that.

My wife, on the other hand, became incensed to the point of planning a day to confront her over this issue. She seems quite ready to revel that she's done with church and God and wants her mother to leave our kids alone concerning matters of faith.

Me . . . I'm not ready to have that talk. I don't want my mother to know that I'm no longer a believer in Christianity-- let alone God. I don't want to deal with all the questions my mother-in-law will have as to how or why I could have come to be this way. And worse-- I'm not ready to deal with my mom's feelings at this point in our lives. I know I don't have a lot of time left with my mom relative to how long I've already had. I don't want to ruin what may be the last years of my relationship with my mom.

Also, I feel my son is grounded in what he does and doesn't believe. I am not opposed to him being a believer; my only hope is that he thinks for himself. I have not forbidden him from believing in God. I have only asked him to make sure that whatever group he connects to, he thinks for himself and chooses which ever deity he worships for himself. I am also teaching my daughter this way. So, I'm not too worried about my mother-in-law converting my children as much as her dragging them off to church when they have decided for themselves that they are non-believers as well. That will become hard to explain and forcing them both to play along for years to come isn't fair to them.

And finally-- right or not-- I feel that I would face discrimination upon being outed concerning my non-belief in God. My place of employment often appears in a local, Christian-based business magazine. Upper management assumes everyone is a believer and they take the liberty to forward pro-Christian e-mail chain letters with the tone that anybody is stupid who disagrees. I've seen non-believers lose their jobs for reasons that to me, seemed to boil down to their being too outspoken about their unconventional thinking. To be fair, I only think one person actually lost their job for being openly atheist on YouTube while in the same breath mentioning his place of employment. Dumb move. But, I think when you make yourself open about non-believe, that becomes a marker against you and may be the deciding factor should you ever find yourself being re-evaluated by management.

It seems an unfortunate destiny awaits me-- that duty bound Christians will continue to pry until they pry away the door to my closet. Waiting for this day is like watching a brewing storm; I worry about the damaged relationships the storm might leave behind in it's wake.

The Poo-Poo of Our Children

The movement against homosexuals in Uganda is growing worse, despite the fact that the Uganda Parliament still has not passed that horrid anti-homosexuality bill which still remains in limbo.

I used to hear in church a lot, "Love the sinner, but hate the sin".

This is just plain hate.

I had embedded a video here at one time from the former Current TV where an evangelist stated that the homosexuals eat the "Poo-Poo of our children". I thought at the time that was such an outrageous statement and somehow embodied the ugliness of hate mindless hate that people sometimes harbor towards others for no good reason.

The Sovereign Lord over America

I ran across another one of those crazy e-mail messages that I sometimes get.

Here are some quotes from it:

Since assuming office, President Obama has consistently misrepresented this country's religious heritage and our commitment to Christianity.

On his first trip abroad, Barack Hussein Obama told the Turkish Parliament: "Although we have a large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

Who is the "we," the president refers to? According to a 2009 survey, 62% of his fellow citizens believe America is a Christian nation.

Another quote:

Look at the currency in your wallet, Mr. President. Do the bills say "In God We Trust," or "In Allah We Trust," or "In the Ideals and Values That Bind Us As a Nation We Trust"?

Listen to our national Anthem, which contains the stirring words, "Then conquer we must when our cause it is just. And this be our motto, In God Is Our Trust." (Even the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most liberal in the land, just ruled "In God We Trust" is constitutional.)

President Obama can hardly leave the White House without tripping over monuments to our Judeo-Christian heritage.

And the quote that really caught my eye:

For the first time in our history, atheists recently met with White House officials. No one knows if the president popped in to greet the God denying atheists. It was just one more in a series of moves that are apparently designed to de-Christianize America. Frightening when you consider the list of blessings and cursing associated with whether or not our country honors God listed in Deuteronomy 28!

And the goal of the e-mail:

Please consider signing our online petition reminding our President that this IS a Christian nation and urging him to once again acknowledge that the God of the Bible is the Sovereign Lord over America.

The problems with this whole thing?

• Fundamentalist Christians don't realize the danger in making our country a theocracy. Should it become fully Christian, what sort of "Christian" will it be? Will being the wrong kind of Christian become a crime? Will non-Fundamentalist Christians lose rights because they don't deserve basic freedoms? Are non-Fundamentalists lower than other human life? But what happens when the government stops liking your kind of Christian? What happens when the face of Fundamentalism changes and leaves you behind?

• Fundamentalist Christians don't realize that this nation is not (and was not) meant to be a theocracy. Read a little bit of your Constitution sometime. Oh . . . I'm sorry . . . so you haven't read any of that document either, huh? (OK, OK, that's not fair-- but it's so fun to say . . .)

• Fundamentalist Christians don't realize that "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" were *not* always on our money or in our pledge. Congress didn't add these mottoes until the mid 1950s. Why didn't the Founding Fathers establish this precedent if they were so pious and religious while supposedly meaning for this to be a Christian nation?

• Fundamentalist Christians don't realize that atheists can run for office, too. Though some states may still outlaw atheists from running for public office on paper, this can be corrected with a quick visit to an appeals court. This freedom for an American citizen to run for office holds true for Muslims, Jews, Mormons, as well as all other religious groups and ethnic races who are American Citizens*. And it's not necessary to swear on the Bible to take office, either. That's just a tradition.

Say it with me: ˈsi-tə-zən

• Fundamentalist don't realize that the curses in Deuteronomy 28 do not apply to us. If you're Christian, they don't apply because that was to the people of Israel back in the bronze age or something like that. The United States is not Israel. And if you're non-Christian, then Deuteronomy 28 never mattered to anyone.

This mindless drive to Christianize our nation bothers me deeply. The drive to make everyone adhere to "Christian" values . . . to force everyone to be as religious as you are by force of law . . . such a drive is reminiscent of despotism and hate.

This kind of Fundamentalism is hate hiding under a Christian blanket.

* As for "citizens" who commit acts of terrorism against the nation in which they live-- such people don't deserve the rights of citizenship in my opinion. I feel that statement should go without saying . . . but someone might think I support the citizenship of anyone who commits a terrorist act or is involved in some plot against the United States. Well, nope, I don't. Absolutely not.

The only thing that person deserves is jail.

The Four Legends of Jesus: Part II

In part one of The Four Legends of Jesus, I stopped with the Jewish revolt of 70 A.D. ending in massacre by the hands of the Romans. Shortly after the failed revolt, the gospel of Mark emerges as the first written gospel. Recall the possibility that Jewish Christians and mainstream Jews alike were expecting a Messiah to rise up and secure the new kingdom during the revolt against Rome. While Jewish Christians were possibly looking for Jesus to return and establish the kingdom, the mainstream Jews were probably looking for a different Messiah to rise up from among their ranks.

Either way, the revolt failed and Jerusalem was sacked; the Temple--so precious to the Jews of Jerusalem--was desecrated and laid to waste.

Mark

The "new Jews" probably needed new encouragement to help them endure the deep disappointment of an absent Messiah. But what could facilitate healing after such a brutal pounding from the Romans? The survivors lost loved ones in a bloody massacre as well as their central symbol of God's presence-- the Temple.

Many scholars of textual criticism point out that the gospel of Mark is short and abrupt relative to the other canonized gospel writings. Consider the original ending of Mark before it was edited. The women who want to anoint the body of Jesus with spices are last seen frightened and fleeing the tomb, telling no one what they saw. Also, we find that Jesus is absent from the tomb, said to be away in Gallilee.

Jesus was absent from the revolt, too. He didn't make his way back down from Heaven.

The traditional ending of Mark found in the typical bible was added on later. Mark actually ends in chapter 16 verse eight. Someone apparently didn't like how Mark originally ended and needed to smooth over Mark's bewildering ending. But in doing so, the editor of Mark may have covered up an intentional literary device by the original author.

The goal of Mark seems to be consolation towards the followers of Jesus after the failed revolt. Again, someone needs to smooth over the disappointment caused by failed expectations of prophesy. The gospel of Mark seems to depict Jesus as a reflection of the people who suffered through the horrors in Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans. Also, Mark seems to reach out to the diasporic Jews who saw the outcome of the failed revolt from afar. Mark attempts to help the followers of Jesus feel as though he identifies with and knows their sorrows. For instance, Jesus falls prostrate in the garden before he is crucified, begging God to take the cup of suffering from him. He exclaims to his disciples that he is overwhelmed with sorrow, to the point of death before he is arrested. Likewise, many of the people who endured the punishment of the Roman army no doubt fell prostrate, begging not to be slaughtered by the sword.

The women leave the tomb during the resurrection scene not knowing what to think and terribly afraid--wondering where Jesus could be. In like manner, those who endured the failed revolt were probably thinking the exact same thing. Those who were "new Jews" were probably afraid and wondered where Jesus could be. Why hasn't he returned like he said? Yet, the mysterious man standing at the tomb insists Jesus is alive somewhere. Perhaps Mark also attempts to leave a subtle glimmer of hope concerning Jesus. Maybe he's challenging the reader. Will you continue to look for and hope for Jesus? Will you go to Gallilee and find him? Or will you run away in fear, never reaching past his empty tomb?

On a side note: the prophesy of the demolished Jewish Temple was added in hindsight in my opinion. If the disappointed early Christians can be persuaded that Jesus predicted this, they may very well accept that he has a higher purposes and meaning to his words than they could have possibly understood. But if none of this was divine to begin with, the only way the "prediction" of the Temple could appear in Mark is for if the revolt happened first.

Matthew

Matthew seems to work towards depicting a new kind of Jesus-- Jesus, the King of the Jews. The dating of Matthew is debated (as well as Mark), but many think Matthew was written next. In this gospel, Jesus often speaks of fulfilling the law and acts as a literary type of Moses by going up into the mountains and coming back down to the people with a message or miracle from God. Jesus has a pedigree that links him directly back to Abraham. The actions and words of Jesus are quite often a fulfillment of an alleged Old Testament prophesies (many of which Jews contest or claim to be gross misinterpretations by Christians). The author of Matthew is attempting to attract mainstream Jews into accepting Jesus as the real Messiah. I suppose the first failed revolt left a bitter taste in their mouths and Jesus' promise needs to be fulfilled soon. In the meanwhile, an appeal needed to be made to the rest of Israel to rally behind their soon to return Messiah.

Luke

Later comes Luke. Again, the dating is debatable. But since so much of Mark is contained in the other three Gospels, Mark is considered a literary source. Unlike Matthew, Luke is written largely to a pagan audience. Luke takes time to explain Jewish laws to his audience, which wouldn't be necessary with a largely Jewish readership. Luke also traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way to Adam-- who is the son of God. Luke alludes to the divinity of Jesus in somewhat of a pagan manner-- reminiscent of mystery religions in my view. Jesus is the son of God, much like Caesar was probably seen as the son of God. Human, yet divine.

Luke also tried to stress to the Greeks that one could still be safe under Roman rule while converting to Christianity.

Honest. The Romans won't become suspicious of you if you openly became a Christian.

Honest.

According to many scholars of textual criticism, the gospel of Luke is written with pristine Greek-- the finest of the whole New Testament canon. Luke is said to write on the level of a Classical Greek novelist. I'm sure this helped to hold the attention of his sophisticated, Greek audience. Also, many people forget that the book of Acts was part of the gospel of Luke. And with Paul often depicted as a missionary to the Gentiles, he appears in Acts. Paul's "Roman" citizenship is played up a few times in Acts. His citizenship even prevents Paul from getting flogged or mistreated by Roman guards when he's arrested. The Book of Acts even ends with a "happily ever after" feel as Paul preaches the gospel in Rome unhindered.

But secular history tells us that Paul returned to Jerusalem just before his arrest-- years before Luke and Acts were even written. The Romans arrested Paul as a rebel rouser and executed him. Likewise, the Romans went after Peter and the other leaders as well because they suspected this fringe movement of Judaism was creating dissension towards the Roman government.

Yeah, being an early Christian in Rome was really safe.

John

In the gospel of John, Jesus is sometimes depicted as a superman. Jesus embodies the full divinity and majesty of God. Contrasted with Mark-- Jesus delivers a beautiful prayer in the presence of his disciples before he is arrested (John 17). When the Roman guards finally come to arrest Jesus, they inquire of his whereabouts. When Jesus responds, all the Roman guards fall back onto the ground! To me, this expresses that Jesus willingly goes away with his captors. These guards clearly didn't have the power to apprehend Jesus; he is only letting them take him away and nail him to the cross. Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. Compare the story of Jesus' arrest with all the other gospels within the context I've presented so far. Do you still see four people telling different angles of the same event? Or do you see four different "Jesuses" pitched to four different audiences, written by four different authors who have four different religious or political agendas?

Another fascinating feature of John (and perhaps found in the other gospels) is the constant rivalry between Jesus and the Pharisees. They argue with Jesus constantly when he claims authentic Judaism. But . . . if Pharisees were truly Abraham's children, they would love Jesus-- not hate him. But the Pharisees don't love Jesus at all. So then, the Pharisees cannot be the real Children of God-- but rather only the Children of the Devil.

But according to some historians, Pharisees weren't prominent until years after the Temple fell and synagogues became more important than ever. Interestingly, this phenomena seems to match the time that John was probably written-- decades after the fall of the Temple. So then, Pharisees seem to become some sort of anachronism within the gospels.

Hmmmm . . . .

As the synagogue and Pharisees became more important in Judaism, the mainstream Jews were finally making a full split with Christians as John was being written. The gospel of John was the final cry of an outcast group demanding to still be called Jewish as they were being thrown out of the synagogues. By now, the mainstream Jews had a new Messiah by the name of Bar Kokhba and strong tensions for a new revolt were forming again.

Eventually, Bar Kokhba was believed to be the true Messiah and lead a second Jewish rebellion that was also smashed by the Roman government.

The "new Jews" sat out on this failed revolt. By now, they were too Christian to be Jews and were too smart to be creamed a second time by the Romans. Christians now have their eternal, divine Jesus as their Messiah. His return is still soon, but he is otherworldly now and can flutter down from the Heavens to establish the kingdom whenever he sees fit. At this point, many first generation Christians were passing on. So then, the return of Jesus and the establishment of God's kingdom finally needed to transcend time and place so that Christ's followers could still maintain hope in rising above any political situation that kept them oppressed.

If it had not been for Constantine, Christianity would perhaps be regarded as nothing more than a myth or legend by now. Probably not too different from the ancient mystery religions or the ancient religions of Greece and Rome that finally fizzled out from that time period. And if Christianity did hang on without Constantine, I have a feeling the believers would only make up a very small religious order.

With this new perspective, I don't see Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the four gospels any longer. I now see them as the Four Legends of Jesus.

I don't think I could ever bring myself to become a fundamentalist Christian again.

Just so you know I didn't make all of this up on my own, you can see the documentary that inspired this post:

From Jesus to Christ

DISCLAIMER

I also want to stress that I'm mainly stating my opinions based on what I've understood from the documentary, some extra reading, and a few suspicions I've held in the back of my mind since my deconversion. I don't make any claims at being a biblical scholar and I understand that my analysis could be wrong in many places. But, I personally feel like my presentation is a rough idea of how Jesus evolved from a Jewish political rebel, to the Messiah, and then into the very person of God in the flesh.

I believe the followers of Jesus changed who he was over time-- from a fringe group's Messiah to the Christian's Jesus Christ.

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.

You Can't Have Your Cake and Eat It, Too

Obama gave an address to school children on September 8th. I didn't watch it. I didn't really need to watch it. But, I might catch it later on-line or something. We'll see.

However, I did watch parents on local area news stations say that schools should not show Obama's speech because they do not want their children politically indoctrinated by that liberal, closet Muslim snake our President.

And schools in my community (from what I hear) refused to show his address.

I admit to making an assumption here. I assume that most people who did not support Obama, do not want his address to be shown in public schools. Yet, many of these same people would still argue that prayer and religious indoctrination should remain in schools.

Ah! But now, they finally get it!!

No more excuses. In order to protest against Obama's address, one has to also grasp the reasons why the courts keep religious indoctrination out of public schools.

Well at least, such people should finally understand.

Because-- when they concluded that they didn't want Obama to brainwash address their children, they inadvertently and inescapably admitted that any sort of indoctrination of our children by the State is problematic. The State should not even have leverage to indoctrinate our children with "wholesome" activities such as cooperate prayer during school hours or Intelligent Design (so that our kids won't grow up thinking they're monkeys).

And to be honest-- was Obama really trying to indoctrinate our children with anything more than the "stay in school" mantra we constantly hear as children?

I'm not sayin' . . . but, I'm just sayin' . . .

Sorry, Obama-speech haters-- you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

My Personal Problem with Pascal's Wager

I'm willing to bet that many tomes have been written on subject of Pascal's Wager.

Therefore, I am NOT going to try and reinvent the wheel. I'm just sharing my personal feelings about Pascal's Wager. No formal, scholarly arguments here.

In a nutshell, Pascal's Wager suggests that due to the uncertainty in all things, deciding God's existence comes down to a coin toss. If that is the case, one would be safest to err on the side of caution and believe in God.

Sounds good and reasonable.

But taking his approach can quickly get complicated and defeat the purpose of taking a "safe bet".

Pascal's Wager, to me, is recursive to the point that our uncertainty can never be banished. So-- unless you simply choose a belief system or tailor your own, you will always be plagued by the problem of Pascal's Wager.

If I did decide to believe in God again based upon Pascal's Wager, in what manner shall I believe?

If I begin to worship God as Ganesha, a Muslim can easily come along and propose Pascal's Wager to me with his or her specifications. Should I err on the side of caution and become Muslim now because Allah will punish me for remaining an infidel?

And when I convert to Islam, what do I do when a Christian comes along and presents a Christianized version of Pascal's Wager? Do I then convert to Christianity and risk the ire of my former Muslim brethren?

And when I then become a Christian, what do I do when a Pentecostal comes along and gives me the Pentecostal version of Pascal's Wager? And what do I do when I get the Pentecostal Apostolic Faith version? And what do I do when the Church of God version tells me not to accept the Apostolic Faith wager?

And the rabbit hole goes even deeper. But, I'll stop there.

With that perspective, my "soul" is no more at risk with me being an atheist than being a theist.

Anyway, maybe I'm off base. Regardless, that's my personal problem with Pascal's Wager.

Daddy, Does God Care About Me?

Children can ask questions that require answers way beyond a parent's comfort level. You worry that your child isn't ready for the answer you really want to give. You worry that what you really mean will get lost in his or her lack of experience with life. Maybe your child will get the wrong idea and develop some sort of anxiety, neurotic complex, or compulsion over a completely benign issue.

So, I tread lightly when my son asks me a deep question. And I worry over when my daughter will start asking deep question, too; I am safe for now since she is still in pre-school. But of course, that will change all too soon.

While out on vacation, my mom asked me to take her to a Christian book store. As she browsed the merchandise in search of a gift, my son and I wandered just out of her earshot.

Just then, my son accosts me:

"Dad, what's a Christian anyway? I mean, is all this stuff in here Christian? It all looks so boring. Why are we in this store anyway?"

I gave him that look. You know, that glare that parents give their children when they are talking too much.

But he persisted.

"What?"

He tried to claim innocence as he shrugged his shoulders.

"What did I do? Did I say something wrong? I just wanna know what a Christian is."

My son, who should already be a Christian in my mom's view, is asking what a Christian is.

Very loudly.

In a Christian bookstore.

With my mother nearby.

That's bad news if my mom hears that kind of talk from my son. She'll know that I haven't been "training him up in the way that he should go".

I told him that we'd talk about it later. But for now, he needed to keep his mouth shut.

Then I gave him the parent glare again. This glare was a bit meaner than the previous one.

That time, he got the point.

Luckily, I remembered to keep my word and started talking more about religion with him a few days later. Because unbeknown to me, my son had another tough question coming down the pike. Our initial little talk would form some important groundwork for the next tough questions that was formulating in his mind.

I prefaced our first discussion by warning him that I would break his thumbs if he went back to his grandparents and talked about the things we would discuss concerning religion.

Okay, okay, I didn't tell my son I would break his thumbs. That's cruel.

But, I did explain to him that people can be very, very passionate about religious faith. He needed to realize that while his mother and I are very open, his grandparents are not and will become deeply hurt if he asked them certain taboo questions or misrepresented (or tattled about) something I said.

I'm taking a risk here. But, I think he got the picture this time.

I think he understands because he then admitted to thumbing through a copy of Babylon Religion that I have. My son claimed he found a story within that book where someone's arm was sawed off for believing in the "wrong" religion.

He said that after seeing that, he fully understood that people can get really mad about religion.

How the hell did he find that book anyway? I thought I put it away out of his reach.

Oh well . . . better for him to find that book than to find -- oh never mind.
(What? I was referring to my copy of The God Delusion.)

Unbelievably, he kept his mouth shut to listen to what I had to say. That doesn't happen often. He must have been really eager to have this talk.

So, I started discussing religion with him from a "history class" point of view. I explained to him that there are many faiths in our world. I told him that you'll find as many different ideas about God as you'll find cars in a Super Wal-Mart parking lot. Some of the followers from different religions get along with each other, whereas others do not. The same holds true for followers within the same religion. I told him that he needed to respect other people's beliefs and that he was responsible for finding his own sense of religious belief. And I told him that I would love him just the same if he ever decided to have no religious affiliation at all.

I also mentioned (as casually as I could) that many people do not believe in God at all. I told him that such people shouldn't be looked down upon, just like you shouldn't look down on anyone else of a different faith.

I told him that the three most noticeable religions today are Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. I told him about their most basic differences in a simplistic fashion. I told him that Christians are followers of Christianity.

Then I explained that Christianity is simply a religion where followers worship Yahweh. But, to please Yahweh, you must believe in the sacrifice made by Jesus Christ. I also tried to explain Judaism and Islam in similar, simplistic terms.

I also pointed out that other religions and belief systems are widely practiced. I mentioned Hinduism, Buddhism, and Wicca as other examples.

Eventually, he asked me why so many religions seemed to end with "isim".

After talking with my son, I sense that he is a theist at the moment. But I don't think he realizes Christian influences are being pushed onto him. He doesn't seem to see himself as Christian exactly. Just someone who believes in God. He only speaks of Jesus because he hears others throw that name around at church, at his grandparent's house, or on religious programs.

He didn't even realize that when he says "grace" over his food, that he is praying a Christian prayer. I even had to point that out to him.

But I also sense that my son has doubts about theism.

How do I know?

Well, the whole religion talk we had was about a week prior to this post.

And even more recently, my son asked his toughest question yet:

Daddy, does God care about me?

How does a closet atheist answer such a question?

Why, you answer such a question with a question!

"Son", I ask with parental tenderness (ha, ha), "why do you ask such a question?"

"Because," he replied, "I ask God to do things for me and I pray to him, but he never seems to answer or say anything."

Ah, I see.

I know exactly what you mean.

Well, at least, that's what I thought inside my head.

But I didn't divulge my thoughts completely. Instead, I drew in a deep breath as basically said:

I can't answer that one for you, son. You have to decide what God means to you for yourself. I won't share my (non) belief about God with you right now. When you're older, I'll be more open with you. But for now, you need to decide how to believe in God.

You ask an important question, however. Don't feel ashamed for asking it. I have asked that question myself.

He sat quietly for a moment. Then went on talking about his favorite comic books and video games.

He can see that if he asked his Dad a question, he gets a response. Daddy cares.

But when he asks God for something, all he hears is silence.

I can certainly see why he wonders whether or not God cares about him.

I just hope my son doesn't develop feelings of worthlessness simply because he can't get an imaginary person to answer him.

I might need to bring up atheism to my son sooner than I though.

The Atheist Test

Bad enough that I had to give away my left arm to get my car out of the mechanic's shop. But now, this other guy-- he's trying to force a conversation with me. I wasn't quite in the mood and his chattiness added to my frustrations. I was about to give away my precious arm in exchange for the repairs on my clunky car.

Couldn't he just let me suffer my pain in peace and quietness?

Don't get me wrong, the guy was very friendly. Very likable guy under any other set of circumstances.

But the moment I walked up to the counter, I knew deep within myself that he had an agenda. I just wasn't sure what that agenda was.

And I didn't feel like dealing with whatever agenda he had while preparing to give away my left arm.

He went on about how hot it was outside.
He went on about how cool it was inside.
He went on about how the fellow sitting behind me had been waiting a very long time to retrieve his car.

(Oh great. That means I'll be waiting a while, too.)

Then almost on cue, the mechanics pull up with the fellow's car. The poor guy that was waiting all this time is finally set free. He waves goodbye as he leaves me all alone with "the talker".

Now the guy goes on and on about how the other fellow finally retrieved his car and can now go back to work.

I finally give in --

"Yeah", I say. "Now he's got to hurry back to work so he can earn enough to pay for his car repairs."

"Ain't that the truth. Man, you know, it's good that we're finally in the middle of the year. Now your finally making money for yourself".

I suppose he saw a puzzled look on my face, so he continued.

"Did you know that half the year we just work to pay our taxes? You only make money for yourself in the second half of the year".

I began to wonder to myself what he was trying to sell.

And I knew it was coming, whatever it was.

Some financial service? Some medical plan? A dental plan? Expired meat from the trunk of his car?

He wanted something from me. What was it?

My other arm?

"Man I tell ya, these taxes are getting so high. Why, when I was doing missionary work in . . . ."

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

Ah Ha! He was gearing up to witness to me! I knew it!

" . . . when I was doing missionary work in (some foreign European country) the people complained about paying super high taxes. All the socialist programs took up half their money. That's where we're headed here in America before too long".


What was taking that clerk so long to come to the counter?

Maybe losing a left arm won't be so bad after all.

A quick glance at the notebook resting in his lap reveled yet another book tucked inside. I caught a glimpse of that unmistakable image of a cross on the cover of his book.

Now, I must say again that the guy was very kind and friendly. He even got the clerk's attention for me so I wouldn't have to keep waiting. A very kind gesture. I had no idea the clerk was sitting in a little room just behind the cash register.

So, I have nothing against the guy.

But I knew he was trying to force a connection with me from the moment I walked in. I knew he wanted to try and convince me of something before we parted ways.

And for some reason, that realization bugged me.

I made my transaction for my vehicle and bled money all over the counter.

Then I started out to my car so that I could hurry back to work. Now I gotta try to stop the financial hemorrhaging.

Couldn't get out the door fast enough.

"Oh, before you go, I'd like to leave you with something . . ."

I'm too nice to say "no", so I took his little pocket sized religious tract.

I thanked him and shoved it into my pocket.

What an odd feeling! I've witnessed to so many people in my life. So awkward to be on the receiving end!


When I arrived back to work, I sat in the parking lot for a moment. I pulled out the tract and took a glance.

A picture of Einstein, a banana and a coke can jump out at me, along with the tract title:


The Atheist Test.


"Ooooh boy", I thought to myself. "Now this is going to be fun".


So, my next few posts will discuss the arguments against atheism found within that little religious tract. Then, I will share my reactions to those arguments.

And of course, your reactions are welcomed too.

Feuding Faiths?

Again, I'm sharing another e-mail forward. But this time, I'm contrasting this e-mail anecdote with words from President Barack Obama.

First, the e-mail:

Subject: Muslim Belief, why Jesus trumps allah

This is a true story and the author, Rick Mathes, is a well-known leader in prison ministry. The man who walks with God always gets to his destination. If you have a pulse you have a purpose.

The Muslim religion is the fastest growing religion per capita in the United States , especially in the minority races!!!

Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each
of their beliefs.

I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say.. The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video.

After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers. When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked: 'Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the
world and, that by killing an infidel, (which is a command to all Muslims) they are assured of a place in heaven.. If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?'

There was no disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he replied, 'Non-believers!'
I responded, 'So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded
to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can have a place in heaven. Is that correct?'

The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.'

He sheepishly replied, 'Yes.'

I then stated, 'Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all
Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr.. Stanley ordering all Protestants to do the same in order to
guarantee them a place in heaven!' The Imam was speechless!
I continued, 'I also have a problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me!

Let me ask you a question: Would you rather have your Allah, who tells you to kill me in order for you
to go to heaven, or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to heaven and He wants you to be there with me?'

You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame. Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the Diversification training seminar were not happy with my way of dealing with the Islamic Imam, and exposing the truth about the Muslims' beliefs.

In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President! I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with ACLU, there is no way this will be
widely publicized, unless each of us send it on! This is your chance to make a difference...

Rick Mathes maintains that this event actually happened from sources that I've read.

Now contrast that events of that e-mail with an excerpt from President Obama's speech in Cairo, Egypt June 4th, 2009:

I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world — tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do — to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar University — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words — within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores — that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations — to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

If you're interested in the rest of President Obama's speech, I highly recommend watching it or reading the transcript. He says a lot of timely things in my view.

So, which does our world more good? Stories like that e-mail I shared, or words like that of President Obama?

Why I Still Can't Bring Myself to Believe Again

Much was brewing in my head, but I had no time to pour it out.

But now the time has come.

A frequent commenter here at this blog, Tandi, recommended reading an article: Why I believe again.

Tandi is a Christian who holds on to her faith. She also hopes that perhaps one day I will consider returning to the faith. Despite our present differences, I have high respect for her and I can understand her desire to win back the apostates of Christianity.

And since I have respect for her, I try to follow up on her reading recommendations.

So, I read the article that she suggested.

I will expound upon my feelings concerning the article in a "round about" and verbose way.

I wanted to keep it short, but I just don't know how. I was dreaming when I wrote this, so sue me if . . .

Ah, never mind.

If it helps, read my post in small chunks or parts.

Or I suppose you'd save more time by not reading my post at all, huh?

Um, let's not go there.

Well if you do stick around, I will start with an event that happened a week ago from this post.

I went to church Easter Sunday. Yeah, me. I went to church. Really.

Don't get too excited, though. I did it for my mom. My brother usually drops her off at church on Sundays but lately he is, er . . . incapacitated. So, I took my mom and my kids. My wife went the previous Sunday with my mom, so she refused to visit church this Sunday-- and forget about it being Easter.

Gee, Easter could have even been part of the reason for why she didn't want to go to church.

All in all, I guess it was finally my turn.

The church visit wasn't what I had expected; why, Church was actually quite pleasant!

I didn't realize that I had missed all the familiar faces. I also had to acknowledge that I missed worship and praise (just a little). The running around, the jumping and the hollering of praise at the top of one's lungs! Spontaneously running laps around the sanctuary-- people trying to keep a lid on their exuberance, yet they can't help themselves.

What a rush! I remembered when I was like that.

And the singing was beautiful. I was reminded of songs that I used to love and cherish.

I even sang along with some of the songs.

At service, we sang a favorite hymn of mine: Because He Lives. In the past, I was so convinced when I sang that song . . .

Because He lives, I can face tomorrow.
Because He lives, all fear is gone.
Because I know, He holds the future.
And life is worth the living just because He lives.

But this time when I sang along, I wasn't so sure.

And I wasn't so sure when the preacher kept repeating himself while trying to retell the Resurrection story. He was trying to give the Gospel accounts more life, but his message to me fell quite flat.

Sitting through the sermon was the worst of it. So, that is to say the church visit wasn't all that bad. I can forgive a bad sermon. I've sat through plenty in my life. One more would not hurt.

When it was all over, I walked away wondering why I had a nice time. Maybe it was time to go back to church again. Maybe turning to atheism was too rash of a decision.

Decision? Can belief (non-belief) be a decision?

Anyways . . .

I thought hard about my Easter Sunday experience for the next few days.

I reflected on how I could have ran around and jumped up and down like everyone else did. I felt that same energy I felt as though I was still a believer. But I didn't participate because I know that in my heart I didn't believe as I once did; I didn't want to be sacrilegious. To express that kind of praise and spirit-filled exuberance while still holding on to an atheistic mindset would be something of a mockery to their worship experience. I didn't want to do that out of respect.

And, I didn't want anyone to think that I had made new commitments to church again.

That realization reaffirmed that I was only a spectator.

I also noticed something else. I only enjoyed church because it was a welcomed distraction from the uncertainties I'm currently dealing with in my life. The running, the shouting, the songs of certainty all causes one to feel better.

I found myself thinking of my church visit in the context of the daunting personal problems which have recently started staring me in the face.

Life springs up fortune and misfortune. Blessings and catastrophe. Opportunity and famine. Life and death.

So then, certainty and uncertainty becomes the backdrop in which I reflect on my church visit. I noticed how in church, Christ is certain to have been raised from the dead, he is certain to return for his church, and his followers are certain to rise again through the same resurrection power of Christ-- unless while living they should look skyward and witness his return upon the clouds.

I am certain of death. I've seen it. I've seen my loved ones go the way of all the earth. I slowly and reluctantly trod the same path of my father and uncles while drawn by the same inexorable pull. I see my mother closer and closer to death, daily. She, following her husband. Me following my mom with my wife by my side. And our kids are not too far behind. We all are shackled together while being pulled to the grave-- like a line of inmates chained together so as to prevent any escape from incarceration.

Yes, I'm certain of death. But, I remain uncertain about what will happen to me after I die. Let alone, what will happen to me (and other loved ones) while I (and they) still live.

And now, I am beginning to think that religion is simply an anesthetic for the guaranteed pain and uncertainty of a life that must end in death.

In and of itself, using religion as an anesthetic is fine. But if that's the case, religion isn't the only worthwhile brand of anesthetic available in life. And I've come to terms with accepting the fact that life is indeed uncertain, fragile, volatile, and defined in the context of certain death.

Somehow though, I personally feel that I am better informed and more self aware after acknowledging that this life might be all that I get. I can stare back at the face of life and respect it-- daunting problems and all.

So when I read the online article in the New Statesman, the author seemed only to say that belief in Christ answers all uncertainty and is therefore the truth. The whole of life is best enjoyed when one believes in a creator and is therefore the truth.

I disagree on both points. Christ does not answer all of my uncertainties. He answers all questions, but I am not convinced of his answers. So, such answers are of no help to me personally.

And I find that I enjoy music, arts, and the nighttime sky perhaps more now than as a past theist. I love my favorite music and enjoy it all the more because I don't feel condemnation for listening to it any longer! (if it wasn't gospel music, it was ungodly in my former belief system. And sometimes certain gospel songs weren't even holy enough!). And for me, not knowing how the universe began and how the stars fell in place makes the nighttime view more magical to me. How fascinating that we may exist only because matter was simply doing it's thing! A billion-to-one chance out of billions upon billions of planets!

I also don't look down on creation as I once did as a believer. This is not to say all believers had this perspective. But, I know that I certainly did once. I looked at the world as the sinful leftovers of a fallen universe because Adam, Eve (Lilith?), and the serpent introduced iniquity into existence.

I see now that this universe may very well be all we have. We had better cherish it and enjoy it. Trusting in a next life, I found myself severely restricting myself in what could probably be the only life I will get to have. That is the mistake that I was personally making. I can only speak for myself and of my own Christian experiences.

Your millage may vary.

Some people do not want to face this uncertainty. And I suspect religion numbs this painful, unpredictable embrace between life and death.

That's fine with me. Nothing is ignoble or backwards about being attracted to religion for this reason. Just don't force your beliefs on others*. Share your beliefs-- but don't force them.

* Among those who have commented on my blog so far, I am not accusing anyone of this. I'm only trying to underscore my overall gripe towards fundamentalism of any sort.

Religion is a better anesthetic than hurting others and hurting oneself. But when it comes to dealing with life's uncertainties, being hurtful isn't the only option to practicing religion.

As for me, I numb the pain with enjoying my life while I can, assigning purpose to my life, loving my family, and doing the best I can to leave something behind for my kids.

I also numb the pain with coffee abuse, blogging, and good reading.

That "laughter stuff" is a good antiseptic, too. A very occasional drink helps me out. A fun movie. Even the routine drudgery of work. No matter how much I complain, I do like my job.

And there are some other things that I won't mention here. You know. I don't wanna be accused of TMI and all that.

So at this point in my life, I still can't bring myself to believe again. Religion doesn't help me with my uncertainties because I'm still uncertain about what the ancient religious texts assert.

In light of all this, I'd rather just face the uncertainties of life head on. Even death.

But I do appreciate reading the article in the New Statesman. While I do not agree with the author, I still respect his point of view.

Belief works for him. Non-belief works for me.

Perhaps my feelings about his article could be summed up as simple as that.

An Ancient Mindset

Clement of Alexandria was an early Christian who believed the Mystery Religions existed to prepare the world for the Christian faith. As many modern Christians see Judaism as a foreshadowing of Christian faith, Clement of Alexandria had a similar outlook concerning Mystery Religions.

I ran across a statement he made in one of his letters that caught my eye:

For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.

Now, I realize that true ideas can be misrepresented in a false sense.

And as a former Christian, I can understand imploring someone to never agree with Satan, even if he seems to be saying something true.

But this piece here caught my eye even more:

. . . . nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.

If human opinion suggests that HIV could be controlled in Africa by condom use, should the "preferred true truth" still prevail?

That was just an example.

What happens when a valid human opinion does come along that contradicts someone's "preferred true truth"?

Regardless of the ideology-- whether religious or non-religious, I think this is a mindset that hinders the progress of society at large.

And when I consider that the Mystery Religions and Christianity seemed so similar in Clements view, I wonder on what grounds or by what criteria did he judge Christianity to be the "true truth" as opposed to truth that only seems true? I figure that all he had was faith.

I will venture to say that this sort of thinking brings about the harmful aspects of fundamentalism. Not faith. But adhering to a "true truth" that ignores contradictory, verifiable facts. And I will also venture to say that fundamentalism can be found in any ideology-- whether religious or non-religious.

Everyone should endeavor to avoid this mindset, in my opinion.

Yep. that includes me, too.

Eh . . . I'm working on it.

The Ancient Mysteries

In my last post, I wrote about how some members in Hellenistic society started to become skeptical of Zeus because of changes in their society and way of life. Then, I attempted to draw a parallel between the atheos of antiquity and the atheist of today.

Since then, a commenter pointed out that perhaps I stretched the usage and interpretation of the word atheos. Perhaps my comparison of the atheos of antiquity and the atheist of modern times was not appropriate. I will leave that for everyone to ponder. Personally, I'm still chewing on this idea. I have not made up my mind. Yet, that point is worth mentioning and reviewing. I don't want to spread continue to spread a false notion.

Regardless of whether I misused the word atheos in my previous post, members of Hellenistic society started to have new ideas about the gods as their society changed. I'd like to mention one particular result that came about due to these changes in their society. A group of obscure cults known as the Mystery Religions or the Ancient Mysteries grew in popularity. For me, leaning about the cults eventually disturbed my religious faith.

Mystery Religions usually (not always) focused on one deity. Often, the divine nature of a Mystery Religion deity was a human or animal incarnated. (Hey, was that redundant? Human or animal incarnated? Aren't humans animals?)

Sometimes the deity was incarnated as human and animal both at the same time-- like a human and a bull, in the Mithras cult.

The deities were also closely tied to the cycle of life and death. Often, these deities metaphorically died and rose again in accordance with the harvesting of crops. The death of such deities brought about newness of life on some level. Sometimes this new life only came in the growing of crops from season to season. But sometimes this new life came in the form of rebirth for the followers.

Usually the initiates of Mystery Religions engaged in some sort of ceremony or religious rites to become a follower. Activities like baptism, sacred meals, sporadic moments of euphoric prophesy and / or ecstatic speech (like tongue speaking) often happened during initiation. This could also be part of normal worship practices, too.

Initiates identified with their deity by having some symbolic or even literal eating of the incarnated flesh and drinking of blood from their deity. This symbolic or literal eating the flesh of their deity allowed the initiates to become partakers of the life-death-rebirth experience. Symbolic, sacred meals often utilized bread to represent the flesh of their deity; water or wine (sometimes mixed) would represent the blood. And as I said before, some deities were personified as an animal. Thus, the raw flesh of the animal was eaten to partake of the divine nature. Also, the death of the animal brought the expectation that new life. For example, one cult depicted pictures of a bull with wounds that would spout grain-- life literally growing out of death. The human incarnation of the deity would pierce the animal version of himself, spilling blood that brings life. Spouting grain that represents new life as a result.

When Christianity finally came along, early Christian apologists had to deal with criticisms from the initiates of Mystery Religions concerning the claim that Christianity was unique. Converts between various Mystery Religions and Christianity accused each other of being an imitation of the truth.

Personally, the similarities between Christianity and the Mystery Religions were disturbing to my former faith. Learning about them has forced me to consider that Christianity is a product of the Hellenistic period rather than a divine revelation from God.

Should anyone find a solid way to reverse my outlook on this topic, they could potentially cause me to rethink my deconversion process.

That won't be easy, though. But if you've "got the goods", I'd like to see 'em.

The Ancient Mysteries pre-date Christianity by a few hundred years. That bothers me, too. Were these Mysteries counterfeit versions of Christianity? Was Christianity the true Mystery Religion and the others were only shadows of the truth?

Or was Christianity just one more variant of a string of pagan beliefs?

The Odd Coupling

For me, embracing atheism has been rather recent for me.

I considered theism in a generic sense. Paganism became particularly attractive for a short while. Yet, I couldn't summon the drive to worship God in any sense.

I just slid into a posture of atheism.

Since then, I never really gave the philosophy of atheism serious thought until lately.

Upon doing so, I noticed something odd . . .

The coupling of omniscience and omnipotence as qualities of God become quite problematic.

With omniscience, God knows everything. He knows all of history. He also knows all future events. He knows which door we choose to open and which path we take throughout our lives.

Omniscience suggests that God's knowledge transcends ours. Yet we tend to desire the kind of rationality that makes sense only to us rather than to God. Besides -- if God made us, we are that way because of it. So, either God built into us a drive for inquiry, or our powers of rationality and intellect was honed by evolution.

Regardless, we humans are a curious bunch. Thus, I cannot resist asking some hard question about God.

If God knows everything, at what point do I truly chose my own path in life? If God knows everything but cannot do anything about our choices, then he is not omnipotent. But if he is omnipotent . . . why does he allow certain evils in the world?

What does God understand that I don't about allowing people to starve to death?

Every single day?

What greater good does God see in things like that? I would like to know.

Free will doesn't convince me. If someone attempts to commit suicide, people who care will violate that person's free will to save his or her life. A person who is suffering in the final stages of a terminal illness cannot seem to easily exercise his or her free will to perform euthanasia; people won't readily allow it. We breach the free will of others all the time for what we think is the greater good. Why doesn't God? Why does he get an excuse?

Why do doctors have to study stem cells and learn how to grow new organs for people when God can effortlessly heal everyone?

Why do people try to thwart evil in the world, yet God sees all things and seems to do nothing about it -- so far as I can tell?

When we say that God knows all things and can do anything . . . God's goodness and purity turns into a philosophical quagmire.

Examine the idea of God creating a person, yet he knows that person will die and go to hell.

For what? Why? I'd rather have not existed, than to be born only to spend eternity in hell.
My life span next to eternity? Can you even imagine how lopsided that is?

And when a person gets to heaven, what will make him or her different from today? How can humans who are prone to sin really be different in heaven? After all, Lucifer (Satan) is said to have lived in heaven as an angel. He was sinless and holy at first -- until he fell.

What will keep people from that same danger, even in heaven? Will God? Why will he do this for us, yet punish Lucifer for eternity?

And remember that mankind ultimately fell, too. What will keep him from falling again? Will God finally lock down our free will when we get to heaven to keep us sinless?

What about the Pharaoh in Exodus? God hardened his heart to receive glory for himself. What if Pharaoh's heart had not been tampered with by God? Was Pharaoh doomed to be swallowed by God's wrath no matter what?

Isn't that rather harsh for an omnipotent God to pick on a measly human?

I know many of the typical answers Christian apologists would give to my questions.

And when I believed in the Bible, such answers would easily dismiss such questions from my mind. But when I lost faith in the Bible, these questions resurfaced. And this time, my mind could not ignore them any longer.

For me, the omniscience and omnipotence of God is an odd coupling indeed. I am now baffled by this strange union of self-opposing attributes.

My musings leave me to think that should God exist, he (or she) is confided by a series of laws from nature, just as we.

Either that, or God is a tyrannical, illogical despot.

Then there is this last alternative . . .

Perhaps God doesn't truly exist.

The Gossip Game

I love my son, but sometimes I just don't believe a word he says.

He comes home from school and tells me that kids are selling cocaine on his bus!

Yeah, cocaine.

While that is possible these days . . . keep in mind that my son is in second grade (at the time of this post).

Second grade.

C'mon.

C'mon now.

In a town that has virtually no major crime reported.

In the second grade!

C'mon, now.

So, naturally, I start asking questions.

• me: How do you know they were selling cocaine, son? (keeping a straight face)
• son: The bus driver said it. (remember that statement . . .)
• me: The bus driver?
• son: Yeah, the bus driver wrote them up and then suspended them from school.
• me: That's an extraordinary claim, son. Do you know what I mean when I say this?
• son: No . . . . . *shakes his head*
• me: What if I told you I saw a purple dog flying through the sky while wearing a cape? Would you believe me -- even if I really sounded serious about it?
• son: No . . .
• me: That's what I mean by an extraordinary claim, son. So, tell me what happened. Start from the beginning.
• son: Well, K stood up on the bus and shouted.
• me: Uh-huh . . . so, what did he say?
• son: K was talking loud about J. and said that J's name sounded like a girl's name -- but J. is a boy. The whole bus heard and everybody started laughing.
• me: OK. What next?
• son: J got mad at K.
• me: Why was K bothering J?
• son: K was just being mean. Making fun . . .
• me: So . . . . what next?
• son: The bus driver stopped the bus and went to the back. Then J got written up. I think he got suspended.
• me: Why did J get into trouble? He was being picked on . . .
• son: He put up his middle finger to K.
• me: Oh, I see . . . J threw the bird atK. (sounds like K asked for it . . .)
• son: Yeah . . .
• me: So, did K get into trouble?
• son: No.
• me: No? Hmmm . . . that's sounds unfair. OK, well . . . what next?
• son: The bus driver got back into his seat and started driving again . . .
• me: OK, then what?
• son: That's it.
• me: *incredulous silence*
• me, again: Where does cocaine fit into all of this?
• son: L said that they were selling something in the back of the bus.
• me: Was this during all the commotion between J and K?
• son: No . . . but a few days ago our bus driver said we shouldn't sell things to each other on the bus.
• me: I don't care about a few days ago. I mean, I'm not disputing that you shouldn't sell things. I'm not disputing what your bus drive said. But, I want to know about today and you're claim that someone sold cocaine.
• me, again: Did you even see anyone sell anything?
• son: No . . . I was sitting in the front of the bus.
• me: Son, do you even know what cocaine looks like?
• son: It looks like cigarettes.
• me: How do you know?
• son: Well . . . that's just my opinion.

Yeah, my son and I have had the "fact and opinion" talk.
He's slowly learning to call things his opinion if he knows he doesn't have any facts to back up what he's saying.

I guess he's still learning this lesson, huh?

• me: So far, only J is in trouble. Did anyone else get into trouble? Did anything else go on?
• son: K got in trouble for selling.
• me: You know this because?
• son: L said they were selling stuff.
• me: Who is L?
• son: The girl that was sitting with me on the bus. We were sitting up front together.
• me: How did L see what was going on and you couldn't? You were both in the front of the bus.
• me: Anyhow, did you stop to think that K got in trouble for taunting J, while J got in trouble for throwing the bird. After all, you said that K shouted loudly. The whole bus heard him. He didn't go unnoticed by the bus driver. It makes sense that they would both get into trouble. Wouldn't you agree?
• son: Yeah, I guess he would have gotten in trouble, too. They were both really mad at each other and causing a ruckus.
• me: So, where does the cocaine fit in all of this? Is this something you only heard from L? You said that the bus driver said this, too. Is that really true?
• son: The bus driver was really mad and told everybody on the bus to shut up because we were so loud.
• me: Are you trying to say that because he was so mad, they were selling cocaine?? Did youpersonally hear the bus drive say anything about cocaine?
• son: No . . .
• me: Son, I have one more question . . . why should you believe what L has to say? I didn't believe you because you gave sketchy information. If I L were here to make the same claims you originally made, I'd ask her the same sort of questions I just asked you. I wouldn't believe her, either -- especially if she gave me the same kind of answers you gave. So, why should you believe what she has to say about this?
• son: *sits quietly* (Imagine that!)
• me: I'm not fussing at you, son. I'm not even accusing you of lying. I just want you to think more about what people tell you, before you go spreading around potentially harmful rumors to everyone else. OK?
• son: Okay . . .

That discourse got me to thinking: Is fundamental Christianity a harmful rumor that everyone keeps spreading? Is Evangelical Christianity really the Gospel, or just a huge Gossip Game? Why believe the sketchy information of the Bible and the extraordinary claims of 2000 year old stories without at least some question?

If you do believe the stories, that's certainly your prerogative. But at the very least, check up on your facts from history, first. Otherwise, you're only playing the Gossip Game.

And remember . . . rumors can produce a lot of hurt.

Not Fair; You're Cheating!

When I was little, my big brother started teaching me how to play chess. I learned the moves, but my brother always stomped me when we played.

Big brother used a chess board to beat up on his poor little brother.

How shameful!

He left me wondering why I could never win. Why could he always make certain moves whenever he wanted, but I couldn't. The rules always seemed to work for him, but never for me.

I felt like he was always cheating.

But as I got older, I improved enough to see that my brother was simply a better chess player. After all, he was much older. He understood the game and knew how to use strategy within the rules and crush me. He know how to limit my movement on the chess board until he trapped my king -- which is the ultimate prize in chess.

I slowly learned to hold my own against him in chess. He remained the better player, but I could get him now and then.

However, when I tried to match wits against my big brother in religious discussions (back when I was a Christian), I would get that same felling I had when he was teaching me chess. I felt like the rules always worked in his favor -- hardly ever in mine.

"Not fair", I'd say to myself. "He's cheating".

Today, I know better. My brother was never cheating at all. He simply knew something that I didn't.

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!!