A message to anyone who has lost religious faith:
If doubts have replaced your religious faith, please understand that you are not alone-- regardless of your age, gender or race.
Some people embrace non-belief at a young age and feel very comfortable with the idea of godlessness. Other people grow up non-religious and never know what it's like to lose religious faith. And then, there are those like me whose faith was everything until it came apart like wet cardboard.
If you're new to losing your religion, try not to be afraid. Others have faced the same fears you have and end up fine. If you do feel afraid and alone, search for a local support group; or consider an online group where you can safely explore and express your feelings while you gather your thoughts. Processing these new emotions is important. Unfortunately, I must add a disclaimer here: I assume you're living in a somewhat free society-- and even free societies aren't always as free as advertised. So, don't expose yourself if you honestly think expressing your thoughts will endanger your life.
And to that previous point: While the non-religious community needs more of us to become visible and vocal, you don't have to come out of the closet immediately-- or ever. Only you should decide when to open up about your non-belief. Do not feel ashamed if you want to avoid losing your livelihood or a close family bond. Again: try making some non-religious friends through local groups or in online groups while you gather yourself. That way, you don't endure feeling alone while remaining in the closet at the same time.
You have a right to decide the manner in which you come to terms with your newfound non-belief. After all-- your private and personal beliefs shouldn't be a public debate. The day may come where you have the courage and need to come out of the closet. Fantastic! Just realize that a heavy price may come with being open-- depending on your circumstances. But also know that you will also bolster a community in need of further acceptance and understanding by modern-day society. Such a display of courage can bring about great rewards for yourself and others, too.
I hope one day the subject matter of my blog is laughable to all. When that day comes, people will no longer remain fearful concerning their privately held non-beliefs.
Until then, may comfort, camaraderie, and inner peace replace the religious faith that you have lost.
Showing posts with label ex-christian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ex-christian. Show all posts
Thursday, February 8, 2018
Sunday, September 21, 2014
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
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:
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.
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.
Monday, August 12, 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
The Christian Ex-Atheist
Jesus was not the first character to be born of a virgin, to be adored by wise men, and to heal the sick, to suffer and die on a tree or a cross, to be buried in a tomb, and to rise again on the third day only to ascend into the sky. This had happened before. This is an old story. And Christianity's way of dealing with this problem is to ignore it.
-- The God Who Wasn't There -- movie trailer
Despite my beliefs concerning god's non-existence, I still think one may not be able to disprove (or prove) god's existence. Also, deconverting from Christianity does not mean one's only option is to become an atheist. One may certainly remain theist while still discarding religious practice -- or choosing some other set of religious beliefs to replace the former.
But, I'm particularly puzzled at how an atheist can deconvert into a Christian. The ex-atheist seems to have been genuine in his or her former skepticism; no different from my former and genuine adherence to Christianity.
But after that similarity, the experiences of the ex-atheist seems to be the inverse of my experience as an ex-Christian.
What happened? How does the ex-atheist make such different decisions with the same information that I now have? Or, did they every have the same information after all?
As for me, faith is a veil that hides facts and observations. People ignore alternative ideas when they blindly hold to faith -- regardless of how much truth may be in the alternative way of thinking.
I'm an ex-Christian because I finally learned about textual criticism, archeology, and that the bible is quilted together by various authors with various agendas -- none of which are divine. I've learned about the mystery religions and that actual contradictions do exist within biblical scripture.
How does someone develop a new trust in Christianity if such facts never change?!
How does an atheist one day turn around and allow faith to take over their reasoning? How does one start ignoring such evidence after seeing it?
I'll admit, one doesn't have to become an atheist after discovering the fallibility of the bible. And one doesn't have to remain atheist if something causes that person to suddenly believe in god.
And of course, anyone has the right to become a Christian ex-atheist.
But just remember . . . converting to Christianity from atheism requires actively ignoring a lot of important facts.
I guess that is why Christians walk by faith and not by sight.
-- The God Who Wasn't There -- movie trailer
Despite my beliefs concerning god's non-existence, I still think one may not be able to disprove (or prove) god's existence. Also, deconverting from Christianity does not mean one's only option is to become an atheist. One may certainly remain theist while still discarding religious practice -- or choosing some other set of religious beliefs to replace the former.
But, I'm particularly puzzled at how an atheist can deconvert into a Christian. The ex-atheist seems to have been genuine in his or her former skepticism; no different from my former and genuine adherence to Christianity.
But after that similarity, the experiences of the ex-atheist seems to be the inverse of my experience as an ex-Christian.
What happened? How does the ex-atheist make such different decisions with the same information that I now have? Or, did they every have the same information after all?
As for me, faith is a veil that hides facts and observations. People ignore alternative ideas when they blindly hold to faith -- regardless of how much truth may be in the alternative way of thinking.
I'm an ex-Christian because I finally learned about textual criticism, archeology, and that the bible is quilted together by various authors with various agendas -- none of which are divine. I've learned about the mystery religions and that actual contradictions do exist within biblical scripture.
How does someone develop a new trust in Christianity if such facts never change?!
How does an atheist one day turn around and allow faith to take over their reasoning? How does one start ignoring such evidence after seeing it?
I'll admit, one doesn't have to become an atheist after discovering the fallibility of the bible. And one doesn't have to remain atheist if something causes that person to suddenly believe in god.
And of course, anyone has the right to become a Christian ex-atheist.
But just remember . . . converting to Christianity from atheism requires actively ignoring a lot of important facts.
I guess that is why Christians walk by faith and not by sight.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
What If?
Contrariwise, continued Tweedledee, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.
That's logic.
-- Lewis Carroll
Someone asked me once, "What if you were not born in America? Do you really think you'd still be a Christian"?
I stuck my chest out, "Why, of course I would! I know God would lead me to this way".
My challenger pressed me a little harder, "So, you mean to tell me that if you were born in Saudi Arabia or in Africa, or anywhere that Christianity was not main stream -- you'd still magically be a Christian"?
The incredulous tone in his voice caused me to reconsider my previous reasoning.
"Well . . . I supposed not. But, I'd like to think God would reach out to me and show me the way". My response even sounded weak to my own ears.
"So then" he replied, "what of all those who never see the way? Why would God reach out to you if you were born into another religion and not do this regularly for everyone else?"
Hmmmm . . .
So, what would I be today if I were born in a non-Christian environment?
Why did I get this "privilege" while others who were born in non-Christian environments have an increased chance at being doomed to hell?
I was forced to realize that I grew up Christian only because my dear mother made me one; I didn't choose Jesus. Jesus didn't choose me.
Momma chose Jesus for me.
That day, I decided to become a Christian for myself by my own choosing.
That was also the day I (unwittingly) proceeded to unravel my ties to religious faith.
So then . . .
If I was born Jewish, I might still be; and if I were born Muslim, I would still be; but as it isn't, I grew up a Christian. And, now . . . I ain't.
Thanks to logic.
That's logic.
-- Lewis Carroll
Someone asked me once, "What if you were not born in America? Do you really think you'd still be a Christian"?
I stuck my chest out, "Why, of course I would! I know God would lead me to this way".
My challenger pressed me a little harder, "So, you mean to tell me that if you were born in Saudi Arabia or in Africa, or anywhere that Christianity was not main stream -- you'd still magically be a Christian"?
The incredulous tone in his voice caused me to reconsider my previous reasoning.
"Well . . . I supposed not. But, I'd like to think God would reach out to me and show me the way". My response even sounded weak to my own ears.
"So then" he replied, "what of all those who never see the way? Why would God reach out to you if you were born into another religion and not do this regularly for everyone else?"
Hmmmm . . .
So, what would I be today if I were born in a non-Christian environment?
Why did I get this "privilege" while others who were born in non-Christian environments have an increased chance at being doomed to hell?
I was forced to realize that I grew up Christian only because my dear mother made me one; I didn't choose Jesus. Jesus didn't choose me.
Momma chose Jesus for me.
That day, I decided to become a Christian for myself by my own choosing.
That was also the day I (unwittingly) proceeded to unravel my ties to religious faith.
So then . . .
If I was born Jewish, I might still be; and if I were born Muslim, I would still be; but as it isn't, I grew up a Christian. And, now . . . I ain't.
Thanks to logic.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
A Broken Friendship
I do admit -- sometimes I miss god.
Sometimes.
He was my friend.
He gave me comfort and I felt secure when I trusted him and stopped worrying about imagined and actual problems I faced in life.
I could cry out to him and feel better. I could praise him and fall into a world of euphoria. I could fall out before him and have a cathartic outburst and feel relieved.
He was a true friend to me.
Among my favorite hymns was What A Friend We Have In Jesus. I would sing that song and wonder why anyone would ever feel troubled. Just pray. Like the song said:
When I first realized real evidence existed against the Bible, my heart sank.
Whoa! All that time and energy I spent!
But worst of all . . . I lost a really good friend.
God changed from a Person into an imaginary friend.
I didn't want to stop believing in god at first. But, once you have that moment -- that stroke of insight and reason -- your mind just stops believing; your faith just shuts off. This is really no different from realizing your parents were playing the role of Santa Clause all along. You catch them wrapping your gifts and placing them under the tree as you sneak into the living room to catch Santa visiting your home.
After that, you just can't go back to believing Santa Clause exists.
I lost a friend when I lost my faith in God.
But, that's okay. With a little time, I could happily move on.
And so I have.
Sometimes.
He was my friend.
He gave me comfort and I felt secure when I trusted him and stopped worrying about imagined and actual problems I faced in life.
I could cry out to him and feel better. I could praise him and fall into a world of euphoria. I could fall out before him and have a cathartic outburst and feel relieved.
He was a true friend to me.
Among my favorite hymns was What A Friend We Have In Jesus. I would sing that song and wonder why anyone would ever feel troubled. Just pray. Like the song said:
Oh what peace we often forfeit! Oh what needless pains we bare.My troubles would melt away.
All because we do not carry, everything to God in prayer.
When I first realized real evidence existed against the Bible, my heart sank.
Whoa! All that time and energy I spent!
But worst of all . . . I lost a really good friend.
God changed from a Person into an imaginary friend.
I didn't want to stop believing in god at first. But, once you have that moment -- that stroke of insight and reason -- your mind just stops believing; your faith just shuts off. This is really no different from realizing your parents were playing the role of Santa Clause all along. You catch them wrapping your gifts and placing them under the tree as you sneak into the living room to catch Santa visiting your home.
After that, you just can't go back to believing Santa Clause exists.
I lost a friend when I lost my faith in God.
But, that's okay. With a little time, I could happily move on.
And so I have.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Soon and Very Soon . . .
What if another century goes by and Jesus never returns?
What about another millennium?
Two?
What if during that time, a cure for cancer is found? What if cloning technology allows us to make genetic material from scratch and clone humans? What if we eventually map out DNA in all life and then discover how to turn off the aging and "death" signal to our cells? What if mankind eventually achieves immortality?
What if our conscience could be uploaded from our minds and one day downloaded into a new clone of ourselves -- allowing us to not only live forever but also move forward into time?
Okay, that last one might sound far out.
But think about it. What if Jesus never comes?
I know what some nearby Christian is thinking, "What if he does come? Then you'll burn in hell!"
When I read comments like these from Christians on message boards across the Internet, I get the feeling that they relish the idea of non-Christians burning in hell for eternity.
This eagerness and enjoyment sounds sick, vengeful, and evil to me. If you can't wait to see me burn in hell, then you should wonder whether or not you're saved.
Ah, I digress.
Growing up in church, we often sang a song:
And after converting to Pentecostalism, we were bombarded with the idea of Jesus coming at any moment.
Could that moment happen right now while I'm writing this?
Could that moment happen right now while you're reading this?
Has Jesus come and gone already and I didn't even get to finis . . .
People have been waiting for Jesus for a long time. Some argue that the disciples expected Jesus to come in their lifetimes. And since Jesus obviously hasn't . . . well . . . I guess that would be the end.
In the Pentecostal church I once attended, people felt certain that Jesus would come in our lifetime. That was back when I was a teenager. Well, sure it's still my lifetime. But, people didn't think the pastor of that generation would fall ill and die after reaching just over eighty years of age. People thought he was too close to God and too important of a spiritual leader for him to die before Jesus would come.
I've read a saying that circulates on the Internet among other skeptics:
How long until Christianity becomes commonly known as mythology in the United States?
Not very soon, I'm afraid -- especially since Jesus' 2000 year delay is still considered soon.
What about another millennium?
Two?
What if during that time, a cure for cancer is found? What if cloning technology allows us to make genetic material from scratch and clone humans? What if we eventually map out DNA in all life and then discover how to turn off the aging and "death" signal to our cells? What if mankind eventually achieves immortality?
What if our conscience could be uploaded from our minds and one day downloaded into a new clone of ourselves -- allowing us to not only live forever but also move forward into time?
Okay, that last one might sound far out.
But think about it. What if Jesus never comes?
I know what some nearby Christian is thinking, "What if he does come? Then you'll burn in hell!"
When I read comments like these from Christians on message boards across the Internet, I get the feeling that they relish the idea of non-Christians burning in hell for eternity.
This eagerness and enjoyment sounds sick, vengeful, and evil to me. If you can't wait to see me burn in hell, then you should wonder whether or not you're saved.
Ah, I digress.
Growing up in church, we often sang a song:
Soon and very soon, we are going to see the king.
Soon and very soon, we are going to see the king.
Soon and very soon, we are going to see the king.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! We are going to see the king.
And after converting to Pentecostalism, we were bombarded with the idea of Jesus coming at any moment.
Could that moment happen right now while I'm writing this?
Could that moment happen right now while you're reading this?
Has Jesus come and gone already and I didn't even get to finis . . .
People have been waiting for Jesus for a long time. Some argue that the disciples expected Jesus to come in their lifetimes. And since Jesus obviously hasn't . . . well . . . I guess that would be the end.
In the Pentecostal church I once attended, people felt certain that Jesus would come in our lifetime. That was back when I was a teenager. Well, sure it's still my lifetime. But, people didn't think the pastor of that generation would fall ill and die after reaching just over eighty years of age. People thought he was too close to God and too important of a spiritual leader for him to die before Jesus would come.
I've read a saying that circulates on the Internet among other skeptics:
Today's Religion is Tomorrow's Mythology
How long until Christianity becomes commonly known as mythology in the United States?
Not very soon, I'm afraid -- especially since Jesus' 2000 year delay is still considered soon.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Church of the Atheist
I stated in an earlier post that I really don't think one can seriously call atheism a religion. I argued that religion in the most common definition requires the worship of a higher power or governor of the universe (AKA god). Atheism rejects this notion. At best, atheism is a philosophy. Passion about an idea isn't a religion -- but can be described as religious. But again, not in the sense that Christianity is a religion.
I still stick to that idea.
I'm still planning to meet with a group of local atheist for my first time. I'm a little nervous and curious as to what I'll witness.
I have found someone to share this with that respects my emerging non-belief. But, I got an odd comment about my plans:
Maybe.
Church certainly has a social structure to it. And the more active and enjoyable the social atmosphere of a church, the more motivated the members tend to be.
But, church isn't just a social club. Church isn't only a place for Christians to mingle and share ideas. Besides, not all churches participate in allowing members to become close-nit so that they become comfortable sharing ideas and emotions with each other. When all else fails, church is supposed to be the hub of worship towards God for that group of believers who meet together. The sacred rites of Christians are performed -- Eucharist (Communion), baptism, worship and praise, repentance, reconciliation and so forth.
I'm sure none of that will be going on at a meeting of atheists who have come together to share their views. Just because the group is atheist doesn't mean they will all agree on everything.
But, there is a solace when you know you aren't alone.
I know that church provides that, too, for believers. But that similarity still doesn't make atheism a religion -- even if they meet to share their, er, non-belief.
I still stick to that idea.
I'm still planning to meet with a group of local atheist for my first time. I'm a little nervous and curious as to what I'll witness.
I have found someone to share this with that respects my emerging non-belief. But, I got an odd comment about my plans:
Isn't this meeting the same as going to church? I mean, you're meeting to encourage each other. Christians do the same thing when they meet for church.
Maybe.
Church certainly has a social structure to it. And the more active and enjoyable the social atmosphere of a church, the more motivated the members tend to be.
But, church isn't just a social club. Church isn't only a place for Christians to mingle and share ideas. Besides, not all churches participate in allowing members to become close-nit so that they become comfortable sharing ideas and emotions with each other. When all else fails, church is supposed to be the hub of worship towards God for that group of believers who meet together. The sacred rites of Christians are performed -- Eucharist (Communion), baptism, worship and praise, repentance, reconciliation and so forth.
I'm sure none of that will be going on at a meeting of atheists who have come together to share their views. Just because the group is atheist doesn't mean they will all agree on everything.
But, there is a solace when you know you aren't alone.
I know that church provides that, too, for believers. But that similarity still doesn't make atheism a religion -- even if they meet to share their, er, non-belief.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
So Now What?
This is my first impromptu post. All the other posts so far were thought out and pre-written before I published them. But, I don't feel like doing all that this time.
Quite frankly, I can't think of much else to say. So . . . now what?
Well, I did start this blog for my self as an outlet for my feelings. That's what most blogs are, right?
I'm still in the closet concerning my apostasy. Now, my next issue . . . am I an atheist?
I'm not sure. I think I am. I'm comfortable with the idea. I can't see the point in worshiping God if I have to decide what and who God is. If it's left up to me, I'd rather not bother with it.
And, the idea of not having an after life doesn't bug me all that much.
Sometimes . . . but I'd rather have no afterlife than to be cast into the hell I was taught to believe in.
So, upon the suggestion of a friend, I will join a local group of atheists and see what it's like.
I've come to find out that when I stopped being a Christian, I just stopped. Something clicked in my brain and I just stopped. I didn't make a decision exactly. I just couldn't do it any longer after I realized I didn't believe. I think the same thing is happening with my thoughts on atheism. I don't think the group will convince me. I think something has clicked again and here I am -- an atheist.
If I am one . . . I'd say I'm a soft atheist. I don't believe there is a god, but I think spirituality can still be enjoyed and explored.
And of course, I have no problem with anyone else believing in god.
Just don't burn me at the steak if I disagree.
Quite frankly, I can't think of much else to say. So . . . now what?
Well, I did start this blog for my self as an outlet for my feelings. That's what most blogs are, right?
I'm still in the closet concerning my apostasy. Now, my next issue . . . am I an atheist?
I'm not sure. I think I am. I'm comfortable with the idea. I can't see the point in worshiping God if I have to decide what and who God is. If it's left up to me, I'd rather not bother with it.
And, the idea of not having an after life doesn't bug me all that much.
Sometimes . . . but I'd rather have no afterlife than to be cast into the hell I was taught to believe in.
So, upon the suggestion of a friend, I will join a local group of atheists and see what it's like.
I've come to find out that when I stopped being a Christian, I just stopped. Something clicked in my brain and I just stopped. I didn't make a decision exactly. I just couldn't do it any longer after I realized I didn't believe. I think the same thing is happening with my thoughts on atheism. I don't think the group will convince me. I think something has clicked again and here I am -- an atheist.
If I am one . . . I'd say I'm a soft atheist. I don't believe there is a god, but I think spirituality can still be enjoyed and explored.
And of course, I have no problem with anyone else believing in god.
Just don't burn me at the steak if I disagree.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Martin the Mean
I've come to a place where I don't care much for religion -- in my life at least. That statement might lead people to think that I no longer have a sense of morality or a guide for knowing right and wrong.
Many people think that a person cannot know right from wrong without having God or scripture as a guide.
I beg to differ.
I'm not saying that religion is always bad.
Take Martin Luther King, Jr., for example. He was a clergyman and used his religious (and yes, Christian) perspective to generate leverage against racial discrimination. King also drew from non-Christian figures such as H. D. Thoreau and Gandhi when he masterfully employed the tactics of civil disobedience and non-violent protest. But, King was clearly Christian and his great oratory skills seemed most powerful in a church setting. He used his hope and faith in God and the promise of a better future to inspire and encourage people of color to press forward in the journey for civil rights.
In this case, I'd say religion was a good thing and played a good role in a man's life and in a most important movement within American history.
I also want to say that I consider Martin Luther King, Jr. a great hero and I have great respect for him and his lasting accomplishments.
People have claimed that he kept a dirty little secret, though. He had problems with other women. He had at least one marital affair against his wife, Coretta Scott King. The FBI kept King under surveillance during his leadership of the civil rights movement because they wanted to pin him down as a communist. They couldn't do it . . . but in the process they did get some hard evidence of his adulterous activity.
And King also smoked cigarettes.
(Hey, smoking is a big deal to super conservative Christians. Not to mention, it's bad for your health.)
Nonetheless, none of these flaws keep me from seeing King as a great man. I can overlook these issues for the greater good -- he gave his life for a cause that desperately needed to be realized within the United States. I greatly admire him for that -- flaws and all.
So, like I said . . . religion isn't always bad.
Oh, but when religion does get bad . . . you can't tell the clergy from the devil.
Or, Hitler.
People want to say that Atheism only leads a person to become evil.
Again . . . I beg to differ.
Let's discuss a different Martin -- Martin Luther.
Even after my detachment from my own religious beliefs, I had admiration and respect for Martin Luther. I saw him as a great man who challenged the status quo and won a measure of freedom of religious expression and tolerance for people. He greatly shaped Western Christianity and is among the most influential clergy of all time.
I lost a lot of respect for him . . . and for the notion that religion creates only good in the world, when I learned that Martin Luther has a little secret, too.
But, King's secret is total innocence compared to Martin Luther's secret.
Martin Luther was the father of a wave of antisemitism that rippled so far into the future that ultimately Hitler was inspired by it! Hitler began his assault against the Jewish people in Germany on Martin Luther's birthday!
Martin Luther wanted to convert Jews to Christianity so much that he became embittered at their resistance! He ended up writing a treaties entitled On the Jews and Their Lies.
Luther gets really nasty. But, these ideas aren't just words he writes in a book . . . they turn into action. Luther becomes so angry with the Jewish people for rejecting Christ that he advocates their murder. He preaches it and terrorizes Jews in his community. Martin Luther's words and actions were the prototype to the Holocaust.
I'll be honest . . . I'm not one to think the Jews are God's chosen people and that they deserve special privilege. The political stage of the United States sometimes seems to lean this way.
(I suspect due to Christian influence. Christianity doesn't always turn into antisemitism. Sometimes Christian beliefs put the Jewish community in extremely high regard).
However, no people deserve to be brutally treated as someone tries to erase them from existence through genocide.
Religion can induce that sort of violence.
Many people fear mentioning that they are atheist because certain religious types feel they have a right to show some sort of divine retribution and take God's wrath into their own hands.
God needs your help to cleanse the earth of unbelievers?!
What kind of god do you serve?
First . . . why does he need your help? Second, why does he still insist on smudging people off the face of the earth anyway if he is so "merciful" and "kind"?
What if Thor commanded his followers to slay all Christians?
Don't like the sound of that, huh?
I must admit . . . the Lutheran church acknowledges the statements of Martin Luther and denounce them openly. I'm glad to hear that.
But, that doesn't change the fact that Martin Luther was an evil man . . . made evil by his fervent intolerance towards those "thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury".
"Martin the Mean".
Bah!
Martin the dirty, rotten miscreant!
So, are we justified in purging the earth of Lutherans now?
You see?
Mindless and fervent religious belief can get really nasty, really quick.
Many people think that a person cannot know right from wrong without having God or scripture as a guide.
I beg to differ.
I'm not saying that religion is always bad.
Take Martin Luther King, Jr., for example. He was a clergyman and used his religious (and yes, Christian) perspective to generate leverage against racial discrimination. King also drew from non-Christian figures such as H. D. Thoreau and Gandhi when he masterfully employed the tactics of civil disobedience and non-violent protest. But, King was clearly Christian and his great oratory skills seemed most powerful in a church setting. He used his hope and faith in God and the promise of a better future to inspire and encourage people of color to press forward in the journey for civil rights.
In this case, I'd say religion was a good thing and played a good role in a man's life and in a most important movement within American history.
I also want to say that I consider Martin Luther King, Jr. a great hero and I have great respect for him and his lasting accomplishments.
People have claimed that he kept a dirty little secret, though. He had problems with other women. He had at least one marital affair against his wife, Coretta Scott King. The FBI kept King under surveillance during his leadership of the civil rights movement because they wanted to pin him down as a communist. They couldn't do it . . . but in the process they did get some hard evidence of his adulterous activity.
And King also smoked cigarettes.
(Hey, smoking is a big deal to super conservative Christians. Not to mention, it's bad for your health.)
Nonetheless, none of these flaws keep me from seeing King as a great man. I can overlook these issues for the greater good -- he gave his life for a cause that desperately needed to be realized within the United States. I greatly admire him for that -- flaws and all.
So, like I said . . . religion isn't always bad.
Oh, but when religion does get bad . . . you can't tell the clergy from the devil.
Or, Hitler.
People want to say that Atheism only leads a person to become evil.
Again . . . I beg to differ.
Let's discuss a different Martin -- Martin Luther.
Even after my detachment from my own religious beliefs, I had admiration and respect for Martin Luther. I saw him as a great man who challenged the status quo and won a measure of freedom of religious expression and tolerance for people. He greatly shaped Western Christianity and is among the most influential clergy of all time.
I lost a lot of respect for him . . . and for the notion that religion creates only good in the world, when I learned that Martin Luther has a little secret, too.
But, King's secret is total innocence compared to Martin Luther's secret.
Martin Luther was the father of a wave of antisemitism that rippled so far into the future that ultimately Hitler was inspired by it! Hitler began his assault against the Jewish people in Germany on Martin Luther's birthday!
Martin Luther wanted to convert Jews to Christianity so much that he became embittered at their resistance! He ended up writing a treaties entitled On the Jews and Their Lies.
Luther gets really nasty. But, these ideas aren't just words he writes in a book . . . they turn into action. Luther becomes so angry with the Jewish people for rejecting Christ that he advocates their murder. He preaches it and terrorizes Jews in his community. Martin Luther's words and actions were the prototype to the Holocaust.
I'll be honest . . . I'm not one to think the Jews are God's chosen people and that they deserve special privilege. The political stage of the United States sometimes seems to lean this way.
(I suspect due to Christian influence. Christianity doesn't always turn into antisemitism. Sometimes Christian beliefs put the Jewish community in extremely high regard).
However, no people deserve to be brutally treated as someone tries to erase them from existence through genocide.
Religion can induce that sort of violence.
Many people fear mentioning that they are atheist because certain religious types feel they have a right to show some sort of divine retribution and take God's wrath into their own hands.
God needs your help to cleanse the earth of unbelievers?!
What kind of god do you serve?
First . . . why does he need your help? Second, why does he still insist on smudging people off the face of the earth anyway if he is so "merciful" and "kind"?
What if Thor commanded his followers to slay all Christians?
Don't like the sound of that, huh?
I must admit . . . the Lutheran church acknowledges the statements of Martin Luther and denounce them openly. I'm glad to hear that.
But, that doesn't change the fact that Martin Luther was an evil man . . . made evil by his fervent intolerance towards those "thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury".
"Martin the Mean".
Bah!
Martin the dirty, rotten miscreant!
So, are we justified in purging the earth of Lutherans now?
You see?
Mindless and fervent religious belief can get really nasty, really quick.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Freemasonry and the American Revolution
The History Channel showed an interesting segment concerning the role Freemasonry played in the birth of the United States. From as early as the Boston Tea Party, Masons played a large role in the growth and establishment of the United States during the Revolution.
Interestingly, Freemasonry in the US fueled the Revolution through one of it's great ideals:
Free Thought based on Reason.
While God is acknowledged – reason – not faith – is the virtue of the Freemasons of the Revolution. This is why Muslims, Jews, and Christians all come together under a unified order. The lines of religion are blurred – making reason and action the choice stance against the challenges of life.
This rejected the religious tyranny prevalent in Europe at the time of the Revolution.
Many of the founding fathers were Masons. Masonic connections spanned across nations and this came in handy for keeping the US Revolution alive. Ben Franklin used his masonic connections to get desperately needed aid from France so that their lodge brother General Washington would not cave in during the war.
With Freemasonry so intertwined with the birth of our republic and with Freemasonry being so non-embracing and non-endorsing of any specific religion – how can we say the US is a Christian nation?
Freemasonry encouraged reason and open mindedness – the very ideals of freedom. Fundamentalist religions so often enforce closed mindedness because free thinking is quite incompatible with Fundamentalist theology.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Always Right, Even When It's Wrong
I recently read a comment on-line where someone gave a rebuttal to the argument that the Biblical text had inconsistencies and contradictions within it. It went something like:
Maybe I shouldn't have – but I conceded to this idea upon my first reading of this. If something truly happened in the past, a poor account or embellishment of the event doesn't prove the event as false nor does this bad information rub it out from history. That sounded logical and fair.
But after that thought, I began to sweat. A good skeptic learns to become skeptical of everything – even of himself and his beliefs. So, I became skeptical of the causes of my skepticism!
Was it time to retract my disbeliefs and erase everything I've posted?!
After long thought, I finally asked myself two questions:
If the Bible is true, it must be reliable concerning the accounts recorded within its own pages. After all, this is the Word of God. God's Word is to be wholesome, complete, holy, and true. Right?
Holy men acted as God's mouthpiece. But aren't all men subject to error? Even so, the overall presentation of the Bible must be true and reliable. The historical account within the Bible needs to match any other reliable, extra-biblical account of history. The divine writers of God's word can be given some room for error, I suppose – even including some minor contradictions. But overall the basic account given by the Bible about the past must be true and verifiable so that we can also trust the theological message.
And what if the Bible is myth?
We should then find reliable evidence in history that clashes with the Biblical account. The Bible and history will contradict and we will find detrimental lapses and mistakes within the Biblical text when compared against other reliable sources.
Otherwise, the Bible will be right even if found to be wrong. And, the Bible could be labeled as wrong even when found to be right and true.
Therefore, if the Bible is accurate, it should coincide with other reliable, extra biblical sources and accounts of history along with sound scientific and archaeological discoveries.
History must be reconstructed from what we find and observe to be true based on the evidence we discover around us. No other means should be used. History mustn't be reconstructed off of the reputation of an ancient text alone. Other sources and archaeological data must also help prove our rebuilding of the past.
Any source that sharply contradicts sound evidence should be held with suspicion and skepticism until better information comes along. Until then, such sources shouldn't be regarded as totally reliable.
Archeology examines the physical evidence of history just as forensics examines a crime scene. Both are concerned with the same goal – to reconstruct the past by using the evidence or artifacts left behind.
As I've already mentioned, the Bible can only be relied upon to the degree the text is shown to be historically accurate. Regardless of any contradiction found or imagined within the Biblical text, we must acknowledge when archeology and science upholds the Biblical account.
So then . . . if sound archaeological data contradicts the Bible in important ways, the scriptures (as beautiful as they might be) will only yield us beautiful mythology.
Science has proven that the earth is round. But, closer examination of the Biblical text suggests that the writers of the text believed the world was flat with a dome or partition of “sky” upholding waters above or within the heavens. The book of Genesis describes God creating this kind of world when the writer gives an account of God making a firmament to divide the waters from the waters. The firmament was called by God “heaven” or “sky” and the sun, moon, and stars were placed into this heaven to govern the days, nights, and seasons. So, the sun was built into earth's atmospheric dome and God dwelt up above after the fall of Eden. This is why it was so dangerous for the architects of the tower of Babel to continue their attempt at greatness. They might actually reach heaven! Heaven was only at the top of the world's dome.
So then, we can feel confident that Genesis gives a mythological account of the creation. But – perhaps we cannot say in fairness that God never created the earth.
But now we know that we cannot find complete truth within the Biblical text. We now know that mythological versions of possible past events are contained therein and should not be taken so literally.
But what happens when archeology gives strong evidence that the Israelites emerged from the Canaanites rather than conquering them? That would mean no Exodus – and no Passover. The Israelites could never be placed in the wilderness to receive the law of Moses.
Huge chunks of the Bible become instant mythology and so much of the theology can no longer be taken literally.
This problem ripples even into the New Testament scriptures; the life of Jesus would also become instant myth! The New Testament is founded upon the account of Judaism. Judaism must be true for Christianity to be true because Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. Judaism is the bud, Christianity is the bloom. Judaism is the child, Christianity is the adult – but of the same person, so to speak. If that bud or child never existed, the same will be true of it's mature self.
If that much of the Bible becomes myth, can we then still defend the important events in the Bible as though they truly happened – just not exactly as the text claims?
What if civilization faded away as we know it and several millennia later someone was excavating the artifacts we left behind? What if fragmented copies of The Deer and the Cauldron were discovered across the world (it was an international best seller – why not?) in various translations? They would find that the places listed were largely accurate and true. Archaeological data would prove that the places and even several of the characters in The Deer and the Cauldron actually lived and shaped history during their lives. Some of the accomplishments of the people listed would even have historical accuracy. This data would even span into the history of other countries. But the main character – was he real? Did he really exist? Did he really do all that was recorded?
What would happen if the main character made claims to be god and that he would one day return to judge us all?
Ooooh, and those miraculous, legendary feats of kung fu! Did they really happen? Could they have happened?
And if those accounts were found to be embellishments, are we still obligated to say that the main character actually existed? Do we just learn to overlook the fact that certain events were probably too fantastic to have actually happened and defend the notion that the whole text should be taken literally anyhow?
Remember – we know that The Deer and the Cauldron is a work of fiction, despite any historical accuracy it may have.
And most people feel the very same way about religious text – minus their own religion, of course.
According to The Bible Unearthed, many places would never have been discovered if the Bible had not mentioned them and gave hints to their locations. This aspect of the Biblical text does contain an important level of accuracy and truth. Yet, as the Bible helped uncover some of these places, the text also unwittingly lead to the discoveries which discredited the very heart of Biblical theology. Many archaeologists and scholars believed the Bible was historically accurate out of habit and out of respect for the Biblical religions. They weren't giving the text much scrutiny before the 1970s. But once you discover that the sunlight hitting our atmosphere from outer-space makes the sky look blue and not the mythical water kept over the dome of the earth – you can no longer defend the creation account of Genesis as being historical.
But you still want to insist that God created everything, right?
Go right ahead . . . but it didn't happen the way the Bible says.
But, it gets worse.
God is found building the earth as a snow glob of sorts not only in Genesis. This concept is sprinkled through the whole Bible. As I mentioned earlier – remember the tower of Babel? And even worse, archaeological evidence does show us that the Israelites evolved from the Canaanites around 1000 BCE and became established in the hill sides – living among the Canaanites all along. Archeology also gives strong evidence that Yahweh evolved from El and Baal. The Israelites evolved and their god evolved, too, because they were basically Canaanites that budded off into their own group of clans over the centuries after populating the hill sides.
So, even when the Bible is wrong about creation, wrong about the Exodus, and wrong about the alleged conquering of Canaan, we are still supposed admit that these events happened – but only not exactly like the Bible says?
We say this for the Resurrection of Christ, too, I suppose.
Can the Resurrection be historical fact if the Passover is no more than a tradition built off of mythological events?
For me, defending this notion by saying “yes” is basically saying that the Bible is always right – even when it's wrong.
I would be admitting that the sky does have a vast ocean of blue water above our heads. You can build a tower into the heavens. The Exodus did happen – damn the evidence that says otherwise! Same with Joshua conquering the Canaanites, too. They just walked right in and took the land flowing with milk and honey. (ooh so sweet!) And regardless of any contradiction you think you read in the Biblical text . . . you're imagining things! And if you aren't . . . so what? These things still happened simply because the Bible said so.
God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.
You know by now that I'm being sarcastic, right?
Now, I no longer puzzle over the various alleged contradictions within the Biblical text; never mind actual or alleged contradictions found in the Gospel concerning the Resurrection – or for any other topics of similar nature.
Reality itself seems to contradict the very heart of the Biblical narrative.
How much more proof of contradiction do you need to realize the Bible is mythology?
Even with the alleged contradictions of the Bible text, the events to which the text points still could have happened. Mis-representation of an event doesn't mean the event did not still happen. For example -- if a person finds and confirms a bona fide contradiction between the Gospel accounts about the Resurrection, the Resurrection still remains possible and has not been dis-proven. The contradiction only means that writers were slightly incorrect about their accounts. Perhaps this even proves the accounts because the variation in story is natural when multiple views are given of the same account by witnesses.
(this is only a paraphrase, by the way)
Maybe I shouldn't have – but I conceded to this idea upon my first reading of this. If something truly happened in the past, a poor account or embellishment of the event doesn't prove the event as false nor does this bad information rub it out from history. That sounded logical and fair.
But after that thought, I began to sweat. A good skeptic learns to become skeptical of everything – even of himself and his beliefs. So, I became skeptical of the causes of my skepticism!
Was it time to retract my disbeliefs and erase everything I've posted?!
After long thought, I finally asked myself two questions:
What must be true if the Bible is true?
What must be true if the Bible is only a myth?
If the Bible is true, it must be reliable concerning the accounts recorded within its own pages. After all, this is the Word of God. God's Word is to be wholesome, complete, holy, and true. Right?
Holy men acted as God's mouthpiece. But aren't all men subject to error? Even so, the overall presentation of the Bible must be true and reliable. The historical account within the Bible needs to match any other reliable, extra-biblical account of history. The divine writers of God's word can be given some room for error, I suppose – even including some minor contradictions. But overall the basic account given by the Bible about the past must be true and verifiable so that we can also trust the theological message.
And what if the Bible is myth?
We should then find reliable evidence in history that clashes with the Biblical account. The Bible and history will contradict and we will find detrimental lapses and mistakes within the Biblical text when compared against other reliable sources.
Otherwise, the Bible will be right even if found to be wrong. And, the Bible could be labeled as wrong even when found to be right and true.
Therefore, if the Bible is accurate, it should coincide with other reliable, extra biblical sources and accounts of history along with sound scientific and archaeological discoveries.
History must be reconstructed from what we find and observe to be true based on the evidence we discover around us. No other means should be used. History mustn't be reconstructed off of the reputation of an ancient text alone. Other sources and archaeological data must also help prove our rebuilding of the past.
Any source that sharply contradicts sound evidence should be held with suspicion and skepticism until better information comes along. Until then, such sources shouldn't be regarded as totally reliable.
Archeology examines the physical evidence of history just as forensics examines a crime scene. Both are concerned with the same goal – to reconstruct the past by using the evidence or artifacts left behind.
As I've already mentioned, the Bible can only be relied upon to the degree the text is shown to be historically accurate. Regardless of any contradiction found or imagined within the Biblical text, we must acknowledge when archeology and science upholds the Biblical account.
So then . . . if sound archaeological data contradicts the Bible in important ways, the scriptures (as beautiful as they might be) will only yield us beautiful mythology.
Science has proven that the earth is round. But, closer examination of the Biblical text suggests that the writers of the text believed the world was flat with a dome or partition of “sky” upholding waters above or within the heavens. The book of Genesis describes God creating this kind of world when the writer gives an account of God making a firmament to divide the waters from the waters. The firmament was called by God “heaven” or “sky” and the sun, moon, and stars were placed into this heaven to govern the days, nights, and seasons. So, the sun was built into earth's atmospheric dome and God dwelt up above after the fall of Eden. This is why it was so dangerous for the architects of the tower of Babel to continue their attempt at greatness. They might actually reach heaven! Heaven was only at the top of the world's dome.
So then, we can feel confident that Genesis gives a mythological account of the creation. But – perhaps we cannot say in fairness that God never created the earth.
But now we know that we cannot find complete truth within the Biblical text. We now know that mythological versions of possible past events are contained therein and should not be taken so literally.
But what happens when archeology gives strong evidence that the Israelites emerged from the Canaanites rather than conquering them? That would mean no Exodus – and no Passover. The Israelites could never be placed in the wilderness to receive the law of Moses.
Huge chunks of the Bible become instant mythology and so much of the theology can no longer be taken literally.
This problem ripples even into the New Testament scriptures; the life of Jesus would also become instant myth! The New Testament is founded upon the account of Judaism. Judaism must be true for Christianity to be true because Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. Judaism is the bud, Christianity is the bloom. Judaism is the child, Christianity is the adult – but of the same person, so to speak. If that bud or child never existed, the same will be true of it's mature self.
If that much of the Bible becomes myth, can we then still defend the important events in the Bible as though they truly happened – just not exactly as the text claims?
What if civilization faded away as we know it and several millennia later someone was excavating the artifacts we left behind? What if fragmented copies of The Deer and the Cauldron were discovered across the world (it was an international best seller – why not?) in various translations? They would find that the places listed were largely accurate and true. Archaeological data would prove that the places and even several of the characters in The Deer and the Cauldron actually lived and shaped history during their lives. Some of the accomplishments of the people listed would even have historical accuracy. This data would even span into the history of other countries. But the main character – was he real? Did he really exist? Did he really do all that was recorded?
What would happen if the main character made claims to be god and that he would one day return to judge us all?
Ooooh, and those miraculous, legendary feats of kung fu! Did they really happen? Could they have happened?
And if those accounts were found to be embellishments, are we still obligated to say that the main character actually existed? Do we just learn to overlook the fact that certain events were probably too fantastic to have actually happened and defend the notion that the whole text should be taken literally anyhow?
Remember – we know that The Deer and the Cauldron is a work of fiction, despite any historical accuracy it may have.
And most people feel the very same way about religious text – minus their own religion, of course.
According to The Bible Unearthed, many places would never have been discovered if the Bible had not mentioned them and gave hints to their locations. This aspect of the Biblical text does contain an important level of accuracy and truth. Yet, as the Bible helped uncover some of these places, the text also unwittingly lead to the discoveries which discredited the very heart of Biblical theology. Many archaeologists and scholars believed the Bible was historically accurate out of habit and out of respect for the Biblical religions. They weren't giving the text much scrutiny before the 1970s. But once you discover that the sunlight hitting our atmosphere from outer-space makes the sky look blue and not the mythical water kept over the dome of the earth – you can no longer defend the creation account of Genesis as being historical.
But you still want to insist that God created everything, right?
Go right ahead . . . but it didn't happen the way the Bible says.
But, it gets worse.
God is found building the earth as a snow glob of sorts not only in Genesis. This concept is sprinkled through the whole Bible. As I mentioned earlier – remember the tower of Babel? And even worse, archaeological evidence does show us that the Israelites evolved from the Canaanites around 1000 BCE and became established in the hill sides – living among the Canaanites all along. Archeology also gives strong evidence that Yahweh evolved from El and Baal. The Israelites evolved and their god evolved, too, because they were basically Canaanites that budded off into their own group of clans over the centuries after populating the hill sides.
So, even when the Bible is wrong about creation, wrong about the Exodus, and wrong about the alleged conquering of Canaan, we are still supposed admit that these events happened – but only not exactly like the Bible says?
We say this for the Resurrection of Christ, too, I suppose.
Can the Resurrection be historical fact if the Passover is no more than a tradition built off of mythological events?
For me, defending this notion by saying “yes” is basically saying that the Bible is always right – even when it's wrong.
I would be admitting that the sky does have a vast ocean of blue water above our heads. You can build a tower into the heavens. The Exodus did happen – damn the evidence that says otherwise! Same with Joshua conquering the Canaanites, too. They just walked right in and took the land flowing with milk and honey. (ooh so sweet!) And regardless of any contradiction you think you read in the Biblical text . . . you're imagining things! And if you aren't . . . so what? These things still happened simply because the Bible said so.
God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.
You know by now that I'm being sarcastic, right?
Now, I no longer puzzle over the various alleged contradictions within the Biblical text; never mind actual or alleged contradictions found in the Gospel concerning the Resurrection – or for any other topics of similar nature.
Reality itself seems to contradict the very heart of the Biblical narrative.
How much more proof of contradiction do you need to realize the Bible is mythology?
Friday, June 8, 2007
So, Now I Can Be an Axe Murderer, Right?
Now that I don't believe in any religion any more . . . it's ok to be a serial killer, right? Cheat on my significant other and go on a binge of debauchery, right?
That sort of thinking reminds me of when Paul the Apostle finished explaining the liberating implications of grace in the book of Romans. Now that grace frees the Christian from the Law, we can do whatever sins we please, right? That way . . . grace will just heap up higher and higher!
Paul's response was: God forbid!
But does lack of religious belief necessitate an immoral standard?
God forbid!
I asked myself once . . . why did I resist sin when I was a Christian? Hell sounded like a really, really bad place . . . so, you know . . . I was trying to avoid going there! But, why, for instance, didn't I cheat on my significant other? Would I cheat if I knew I could never get caught?
I decided that I would never cheat even if I knew I could get away with it. Why? Love and loyalty. I didn't want to hurt my lover in that way. I can't do it. My heart sank thinking about it.
But, maybe I'd skip church or miss a few tithe payments if I know I could never go to hell.
But what about not hurting God?
"Because the Bible said so" isn't really the best motivator. Nor is hell, in my opinion. Love should drive our actions. Sharing and helping. Recognizing that all people are unique, yet still share in the common human experience.
I decided I wanted to follow God's word because I didn't want to hurt Him.
But, sometimes God didn't seem like he was there. Hard not to hurt someone that you've never physically met or seen visibly. No audio confirmation ever came from they sky or anything -- it all came from within the inner ear. Who can really know if that's God or myself telling me what I really wanted to hear inside my own head?
Much of my morality was really just love for my family, friends, and fellow man. The teachings of my mom and church played a big role -- yes. But, in the end, these were only influences and guides. My sensitivity to my own conscience and common sense ultimately prevailed.
All else was just fear of hell.
So, I can see why someone would just lose all morality if they lost their religion -- assuming that hell is the only deterrent someone has from premarital sex, adultery, or even killing someone. With that mind set, you'll consider those acts more freely if you ever conclude hell doesn't exist. But, if you love and respect your fellowman regardless -- hell never matters -- whether you're religious or not.
An article came out in the NY Times about the evolution of morality in primates -- hey, aren't we humans called primates?
Anyway -- chimps are found risking their lives to save each other. Older primates scold younger ones when they break social rules. Expressions of empathy and concern form on their faces when they see another in constant pain. Especially if they feel like they've caused it.
Besides, if our laws came from God and He's "no respect of person", then why can King David have several wives and I can't. I do not wish for multiple wives. But if I ever did, I'd be considered an immoral polygamist, nowadays.
Or, a Mormon, perhaps?
Remember, also, that the US Constitution separates Church from State. Sure, US law may resemble Judeo-Christian morality. But, the Constitution clearly expresses that the law is made by the Congress. And Congress represents the people's will from their various 50 states within the Union.
If this really were a Christian nation, we'd have a Pastor . . . not a President. We'd have a great Congregation -- not a Congress. And, we wouldn't have the Constitution, we'd have the King James Version of the Holy Bible for our law book.
Many freedoms would become illegal. Prohibition would rise again. Forget about that beer on the weekends after a hard week of work. Unless . . . our US Pastor were Catholic! Just think . . . one night the police might kick in your door because you missed church last Sunday. Getting ex-communicated or disfellowshipped could mean getting deported to another country! You would become a sex offender if you simply had premarital sex with another consenting adult. Don't even mention homosexuality!
The Flavor of Love and all of it's spin off variants couldn't air on TV anymore.
Hey . . . wait . . . maybe that would be a good thing!
Are there things that should be legal in our "free" society that aren't today due to the religious moral right? Think about it.
Church and State are separate. That's the law. Maybe that isn't what's done in practice, but those are the ideals that our Founding Fathers agreed upon -- regardless of what any of their religious orientations were.
Religion and morality are separate, too. Not true? Why aren't only the religious people good? Non-religious people can be quite moral and good. It's just as easy for a non-religious person to be moral as it is for a religious person to be dirty and rotten.
That sort of thinking reminds me of when Paul the Apostle finished explaining the liberating implications of grace in the book of Romans. Now that grace frees the Christian from the Law, we can do whatever sins we please, right? That way . . . grace will just heap up higher and higher!
Paul's response was: God forbid!
But does lack of religious belief necessitate an immoral standard?
God forbid!
I asked myself once . . . why did I resist sin when I was a Christian? Hell sounded like a really, really bad place . . . so, you know . . . I was trying to avoid going there! But, why, for instance, didn't I cheat on my significant other? Would I cheat if I knew I could never get caught?
I decided that I would never cheat even if I knew I could get away with it. Why? Love and loyalty. I didn't want to hurt my lover in that way. I can't do it. My heart sank thinking about it.
But, maybe I'd skip church or miss a few tithe payments if I know I could never go to hell.
But what about not hurting God?
"Because the Bible said so" isn't really the best motivator. Nor is hell, in my opinion. Love should drive our actions. Sharing and helping. Recognizing that all people are unique, yet still share in the common human experience.
I decided I wanted to follow God's word because I didn't want to hurt Him.
But, sometimes God didn't seem like he was there. Hard not to hurt someone that you've never physically met or seen visibly. No audio confirmation ever came from they sky or anything -- it all came from within the inner ear. Who can really know if that's God or myself telling me what I really wanted to hear inside my own head?
Much of my morality was really just love for my family, friends, and fellow man. The teachings of my mom and church played a big role -- yes. But, in the end, these were only influences and guides. My sensitivity to my own conscience and common sense ultimately prevailed.
All else was just fear of hell.
So, I can see why someone would just lose all morality if they lost their religion -- assuming that hell is the only deterrent someone has from premarital sex, adultery, or even killing someone. With that mind set, you'll consider those acts more freely if you ever conclude hell doesn't exist. But, if you love and respect your fellowman regardless -- hell never matters -- whether you're religious or not.
An article came out in the NY Times about the evolution of morality in primates -- hey, aren't we humans called primates?
Anyway -- chimps are found risking their lives to save each other. Older primates scold younger ones when they break social rules. Expressions of empathy and concern form on their faces when they see another in constant pain. Especially if they feel like they've caused it.
Besides, if our laws came from God and He's "no respect of person", then why can King David have several wives and I can't. I do not wish for multiple wives. But if I ever did, I'd be considered an immoral polygamist, nowadays.
Or, a Mormon, perhaps?
Remember, also, that the US Constitution separates Church from State. Sure, US law may resemble Judeo-Christian morality. But, the Constitution clearly expresses that the law is made by the Congress. And Congress represents the people's will from their various 50 states within the Union.
If this really were a Christian nation, we'd have a Pastor . . . not a President. We'd have a great Congregation -- not a Congress. And, we wouldn't have the Constitution, we'd have the King James Version of the Holy Bible for our law book.
Many freedoms would become illegal. Prohibition would rise again. Forget about that beer on the weekends after a hard week of work. Unless . . . our US Pastor were Catholic! Just think . . . one night the police might kick in your door because you missed church last Sunday. Getting ex-communicated or disfellowshipped could mean getting deported to another country! You would become a sex offender if you simply had premarital sex with another consenting adult. Don't even mention homosexuality!
The Flavor of Love and all of it's spin off variants couldn't air on TV anymore.
Hey . . . wait . . . maybe that would be a good thing!
Are there things that should be legal in our "free" society that aren't today due to the religious moral right? Think about it.
Church and State are separate. That's the law. Maybe that isn't what's done in practice, but those are the ideals that our Founding Fathers agreed upon -- regardless of what any of their religious orientations were.
Religion and morality are separate, too. Not true? Why aren't only the religious people good? Non-religious people can be quite moral and good. It's just as easy for a non-religious person to be moral as it is for a religious person to be dirty and rotten.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
What Vodou & Pentecostalism Have in Common
One day while channel surfing, I ran across a televised pod cast on Current TV about Vodou.
Nope, not the traditional voodoo stuff I was used to seeing from Hollywood like sticking pins into dolls, putting roots into peoples shoes, or invoking spells and hexes to alter luck. Instead, the author gave a close up look at the religion that was prevalent in Haiti.
At first impact, the worship services looked way different from what I was used to seeing. However, I sensed something familiar about the way they bucked and danced around with their eyes rolling back. I felt a lump in my throat as I watched faces glaze over in a trance-like state and people falling out under the influence of other spirits – welcoming the possession of some other presence or spirit to take control of them until some miracle, divine message, or euphoric experience finally happens.
On the surface, Vudou looked really strange. But deep down inside, Vodou looked quite Pentecostal.
Seeing that similarity bothered me. Such behavior was too close to what I witnessed under Pentecostalism. Sure, I saw overt differences in the Vodou worship services, but the similarities were more frighting than the oddities.
So then, what made my experiences as a Pentecostal any different? The God I chose to invoke – is that why my experience was supposed to be genuine and all others fraudulent? The particular spirit I evoke makes all the difference?
But what if that doesn't matter? What if all those feelings and all that euphoria was self imposed? Ancient cults had tongue speaking as well . . . so not even that was a unique feature of Pentecostalism.
Are we simply psyching ourselves out with self-hypnosis?
This became my next concern when my faith first started to crumble. What was making me have all that euphoria during worship and praise? Where did the ecstatic speech really come from?
I saw an episode of Is it Real? on the National Geographic channel. In a particular scene, a Martial Arts teacher caused his students to “fall out” through the power of his qi. The response of the students looked very similar to being “slain in the Spirit” in the world of Pentecostalism. The idea is that God's presence is so heavy upon you that you just faint physically. But, mentally and emotionally, you are basking in God's presence.
That was an eye opener to see! I thought that only we Pentecostals did that!
The bad part is: for many Pentecostals, these kind of experiences serve as the all important evidence that God has accepted you as a believer and is involved in your life. To see someone call on the name of some other god or to use some other energy force to produce similar supernatural events was unnerving for me. Why? Because it undermined my deity. My deity was supposed to be unique.
Yeah, yeah, I remember the big showdown between Moses and Pharaoh. And, I remember Elijah and the priests of Baal. Their wicked counterparts could produce similar miracles and signs. But, the wicked only produced counterfeit signs that only the Almighty can trump.
But, I have little faith in the accounts that the Bible gives about those two "showdowns”. Especially after reading The Bible Unearthed.
All the arguments brought up by skeptics finally started to congeal into one major front against my faith. For if the Bible wasn't a true representation of history, then without question the pre-Jesus god-men are now a serious problem for my faith. Mystery Religions could very well be the true breeding grounds of Christianity. One part Mystery Religion, two parts Essene. And now with viewing the Bible as largely legend, I can't believe that the universe was created in the fashion that the Bible expressed. So, now evolution and the Big Bang theories start to sound quite reasonable.
And what about all those supernatural experiences? Now they can easily be explained away by self-hypnoses and trance like states of the mind caused by deep concentration and meditation.
But . . . what if The Bible Unearthed was wrong? What if the Bible really was infallible and inerrant? Maybe then I could recover my faith.
So, I started to take a closer look at whether the Bible was truly inerrant or infallible. If the scriptures could prove to be such, then I could trust them again. Maybe then, I could stop feeling like Vodou and Pentecostalism had more in common than I wished to admit.
Nope, not the traditional voodoo stuff I was used to seeing from Hollywood like sticking pins into dolls, putting roots into peoples shoes, or invoking spells and hexes to alter luck. Instead, the author gave a close up look at the religion that was prevalent in Haiti.
At first impact, the worship services looked way different from what I was used to seeing. However, I sensed something familiar about the way they bucked and danced around with their eyes rolling back. I felt a lump in my throat as I watched faces glaze over in a trance-like state and people falling out under the influence of other spirits – welcoming the possession of some other presence or spirit to take control of them until some miracle, divine message, or euphoric experience finally happens.
On the surface, Vudou looked really strange. But deep down inside, Vodou looked quite Pentecostal.
Seeing that similarity bothered me. Such behavior was too close to what I witnessed under Pentecostalism. Sure, I saw overt differences in the Vodou worship services, but the similarities were more frighting than the oddities.
So then, what made my experiences as a Pentecostal any different? The God I chose to invoke – is that why my experience was supposed to be genuine and all others fraudulent? The particular spirit I evoke makes all the difference?
But what if that doesn't matter? What if all those feelings and all that euphoria was self imposed? Ancient cults had tongue speaking as well . . . so not even that was a unique feature of Pentecostalism.
Are we simply psyching ourselves out with self-hypnosis?
This became my next concern when my faith first started to crumble. What was making me have all that euphoria during worship and praise? Where did the ecstatic speech really come from?
I saw an episode of Is it Real? on the National Geographic channel. In a particular scene, a Martial Arts teacher caused his students to “fall out” through the power of his qi. The response of the students looked very similar to being “slain in the Spirit” in the world of Pentecostalism. The idea is that God's presence is so heavy upon you that you just faint physically. But, mentally and emotionally, you are basking in God's presence.
That was an eye opener to see! I thought that only we Pentecostals did that!
The bad part is: for many Pentecostals, these kind of experiences serve as the all important evidence that God has accepted you as a believer and is involved in your life. To see someone call on the name of some other god or to use some other energy force to produce similar supernatural events was unnerving for me. Why? Because it undermined my deity. My deity was supposed to be unique.
Yeah, yeah, I remember the big showdown between Moses and Pharaoh. And, I remember Elijah and the priests of Baal. Their wicked counterparts could produce similar miracles and signs. But, the wicked only produced counterfeit signs that only the Almighty can trump.
But, I have little faith in the accounts that the Bible gives about those two "showdowns”. Especially after reading The Bible Unearthed.
All the arguments brought up by skeptics finally started to congeal into one major front against my faith. For if the Bible wasn't a true representation of history, then without question the pre-Jesus god-men are now a serious problem for my faith. Mystery Religions could very well be the true breeding grounds of Christianity. One part Mystery Religion, two parts Essene. And now with viewing the Bible as largely legend, I can't believe that the universe was created in the fashion that the Bible expressed. So, now evolution and the Big Bang theories start to sound quite reasonable.
And what about all those supernatural experiences? Now they can easily be explained away by self-hypnoses and trance like states of the mind caused by deep concentration and meditation.
But . . . what if The Bible Unearthed was wrong? What if the Bible really was infallible and inerrant? Maybe then I could recover my faith.
So, I started to take a closer look at whether the Bible was truly inerrant or infallible. If the scriptures could prove to be such, then I could trust them again. Maybe then, I could stop feeling like Vodou and Pentecostalism had more in common than I wished to admit.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Archaeology – the CSI of the Past
I'm astonished at how science and logic enables someone to piece together clues that can unveil the unknown. I started trusting science much more after realizing this. Upon this realization, I also began to notice a correlation between my level of trust in science and the weakening of faith concerning my religious beliefs.
Years ago, I saw one of the many episodes of America's Most Wanted where a man had avoided the law for quite a while. The FBI only had very old photos of this certain fugitive. This fact contributed to the fugitive's success in staying on the run. Since law enforcement couldn't post current images of the fugitive's face, the public wasn't able to contribute any tips to the FBI or police.
But, guess what? The FBI put together a team that examined the skeletal structure of the man's face from the older photos. Then, they applied age progression techniques to figure how he might look in the present. With these techniques, the experts generated a photograph and a bust to present to the public.
When the man was finally captured, I was utterly shocked at the resemblance between the fugitive and the bust made by the FBI. Experts seemingly predicted how he looked in the present by using pictures which were decades old.
The bust pinned him down with razor accuracy.
So, when I saw Nation Geographic do a bust of King Tutankhamen, I trusted the work. I couldn't forget what happened on America's Most Wanted; I was too impressed by the previous work from other experts to believe that King Tut's bust was a sham.
Then, later, I saw a bust of Queen Nefertiti done by Discovery magazine online. I will point out however that this bust does looks quite different from ancient busts made long ago. Then again, the mummy found may not actually be Nefertiti. But still, I'm fascinated at how today people could make a life-like bust from the bone structure of a photograph or from ancient remains.
Here's a question . . . if you walk into any given room in your home and find red marker scribbled all over your wall . . . and let's assume you have children living with you . . . who did it?
Well, you should look at the evidence before jumping to conclusions. I did say children . . . so you have to conclude which child did it – or if all of them were in on it.
One child blames the other sibling(s) and boldly proclaims he or she isn't guilty.
However, the child who is proclaiming innocence has red marker smeared all over his or her hands. The other child or children don't, however. Also, the marker gives off a distinct fume that is all over only one child – the one with marker smeared on the hands; however, still claiming innocence.
So then, who “dun” it?
The little lair standing in front of you.
The more I watched shows on the Discovery, Science, and History channels, the more archeology started reminding me of the CBS show CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. I enjoyed watching people from the world of archeology take bits of evidence and piece together the past and uncover more realistic ideas about what really happened in history.
I started respecting archeology.
So, then, I wanted to read more about it concerning my faith. Surely, if my faith is true, archeology will prove it. Especially since my Thompson Chain Reference Bible had that huge archeology section in the back.
So, I started with a title that I hoped would really prove it all for me – The Bible Unearthed.
I won't dare try to review The Bible Unearthed here. Check out reviews on Amazon or better yet, buy it and read it!
I'll let you decide for yourself if you trust it as a scholarly work.
But for me, that book shattered my faith into splinters. It was the final blow that penetrated my hard shell religious beliefs.
The Bible Unearthed demonstrates through archeology that Israel's Judaism evolved from other ancient folk religions. Israel never left Egypt to come to Canaan according to The Bible Unearthed. The Israelites developed as a people and culture from and among the Canaanite culture already surrounding them.
Follow the implications of that idea and you can see why my faith failed under a crushing, fatal blow.
If Judaism never happened like the Bible says it did, how about Christianity?! After all, Christianity is deeply rooted into Judaism – why it hinges on it!
Oh man, the thought! You mean to say that Yahweh did not personally hand Judaism down to Abraham and Moses?! You mean that Judaism evolved from the Canaanite culture instead?!
If this is true, then the Bible is nothing more than a series of literary works by mere men – so much lower in status than being the inerrant Word of God.
Would an inerrant God issue out his Word in a text that contains errancy, myths and legends?
If God would do something like that, please explain to me how or why.
Such an explanation would clear up a lot of important things for me.
Years ago, I saw one of the many episodes of America's Most Wanted where a man had avoided the law for quite a while. The FBI only had very old photos of this certain fugitive. This fact contributed to the fugitive's success in staying on the run. Since law enforcement couldn't post current images of the fugitive's face, the public wasn't able to contribute any tips to the FBI or police.
But, guess what? The FBI put together a team that examined the skeletal structure of the man's face from the older photos. Then, they applied age progression techniques to figure how he might look in the present. With these techniques, the experts generated a photograph and a bust to present to the public.
When the man was finally captured, I was utterly shocked at the resemblance between the fugitive and the bust made by the FBI. Experts seemingly predicted how he looked in the present by using pictures which were decades old.
The bust pinned him down with razor accuracy.
So, when I saw Nation Geographic do a bust of King Tutankhamen, I trusted the work. I couldn't forget what happened on America's Most Wanted; I was too impressed by the previous work from other experts to believe that King Tut's bust was a sham.
Then, later, I saw a bust of Queen Nefertiti done by Discovery magazine online. I will point out however that this bust does looks quite different from ancient busts made long ago. Then again, the mummy found may not actually be Nefertiti. But still, I'm fascinated at how today people could make a life-like bust from the bone structure of a photograph or from ancient remains.
Here's a question . . . if you walk into any given room in your home and find red marker scribbled all over your wall . . . and let's assume you have children living with you . . . who did it?
Well, you should look at the evidence before jumping to conclusions. I did say children . . . so you have to conclude which child did it – or if all of them were in on it.
One child blames the other sibling(s) and boldly proclaims he or she isn't guilty.
However, the child who is proclaiming innocence has red marker smeared all over his or her hands. The other child or children don't, however. Also, the marker gives off a distinct fume that is all over only one child – the one with marker smeared on the hands; however, still claiming innocence.
So then, who “dun” it?
The little lair standing in front of you.
The more I watched shows on the Discovery, Science, and History channels, the more archeology started reminding me of the CBS show CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. I enjoyed watching people from the world of archeology take bits of evidence and piece together the past and uncover more realistic ideas about what really happened in history.
I started respecting archeology.
So, then, I wanted to read more about it concerning my faith. Surely, if my faith is true, archeology will prove it. Especially since my Thompson Chain Reference Bible had that huge archeology section in the back.
So, I started with a title that I hoped would really prove it all for me – The Bible Unearthed.
I won't dare try to review The Bible Unearthed here. Check out reviews on Amazon or better yet, buy it and read it!
I'll let you decide for yourself if you trust it as a scholarly work.
But for me, that book shattered my faith into splinters. It was the final blow that penetrated my hard shell religious beliefs.
The Bible Unearthed demonstrates through archeology that Israel's Judaism evolved from other ancient folk religions. Israel never left Egypt to come to Canaan according to The Bible Unearthed. The Israelites developed as a people and culture from and among the Canaanite culture already surrounding them.
Follow the implications of that idea and you can see why my faith failed under a crushing, fatal blow.
If Judaism never happened like the Bible says it did, how about Christianity?! After all, Christianity is deeply rooted into Judaism – why it hinges on it!
Oh man, the thought! You mean to say that Yahweh did not personally hand Judaism down to Abraham and Moses?! You mean that Judaism evolved from the Canaanite culture instead?!
If this is true, then the Bible is nothing more than a series of literary works by mere men – so much lower in status than being the inerrant Word of God.
Would an inerrant God issue out his Word in a text that contains errancy, myths and legends?
If God would do something like that, please explain to me how or why.
Such an explanation would clear up a lot of important things for me.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Blackened
Science seems to really be the the mortal enemy of faith. Many Christians try to marry faith and science, but they just don't go together. Faith is trusting in what hasn't come to be yet. Sure, maybe you have a promise from God, but that's all you have – trust in his track record from the Bible, from your life experiences, and other people's faith testimonies.
Science needs proof. Test it. Research it. Touch it. Observe it. Record it. Run the numbers and see if there really is a significant difference. Then, maybe you can call it a theory.
Then after that, check back with us . . . we'll let you know later if we think it's true . . . after we test it some more.
Many Christians don't like to follow through with the full implications of science, yet they want to use it when it suites their point. And don't forget about logic. Logic is akin to science – perhaps the heart of the scientific method itself.
Christians use logic when it suites, too. But following the full implications of logic is contradictory to faith. Faith, again, is trusting in what hasn't had any direct evidence. Logic seeks truth through weeding out weak arguments that have no foundation. What gives an argument a true foundation?
Evidence. Hard cold evidence.
That's why people always say that God works in mysterious ways and that his ways are beyond finding out. His ways aren't our ways. In other words, God doesn't work in the realms of logic all the time. That's why we need faith – to trust the things that God does and allows which sometimes seem quite illogical, contradictory, confusing, and unjust.
History slapped me in the face again much like in my previous blog post. But this time, Science joined in, too.
It was like a nasty pimp-slap.
Galileo asserted that the heavenly bodies – including Earth – were all round and that the sun was actually the center of the solar system.
Well Duh!
Well, duh, nothin' . . . . 'cause back then, that idea was heresy. Galileo's observations and mathematics backed his claims with solid evidence. But publishing his findings only earned him house arrest during the latter years of his life. And his arrest was enforced by the Catholic Church!
Say what?!
The Church world back in Galileo's day was the authority on faith and science. And, the Church world said that the Earth was flat* and was the center of the Universe! Why? Because the church world of that time period thought the Bible said so!
Was Christendom wrong to believe the Bible inferred a flat Earth?
Biblical cosmology becomes more and more of a fantasy as we learn more about the physical world, the laws of physics, and the Universe around us.
Physics tells us that the universe must be older than the Bible declares. Either physics contradicts itself or the Bible does. Take your pick.
Admittedly, being raised as a Christian, that was not a hard choice to make at the time.
Clearly, science was wrong.
But, I always wondered how Satan was able to take Jesus to that high place and show him all the kingdoms of the world in a single moment.
Maybe somebody thought the Earth was flat.
So then, the “circle of the Earth” – as Job called it – wasn't a globe after all. It was a flat pancake!
But . . . but . . . but . . . the Bible wouldn't ever imply that! God made the world! He made the Heavens and the Earth. He knew what he was doing! He knew the Earth wasn't flat when he made it.
He knew what he was doing when he took the firmament and partitioned the waters of the ocean from the waters above in the sky.
Pay attention to that description in the first chapter of Genesis. Read it again, slowly. The Earth was a super dome! A flat area for the land. The dome of the sky was covered with a firmament that allowed rain to drip through from the waters above.
Say . . . if you didn't know that the sky went to outer space and that the sun's light reflecting off of our atmosphere made the sky look blue . . . . what might you think about all that blueness?
Did you say, “water”?
I heard a small child ask once, “can lightning hit the moon”?
Sounds silly until you realize that a child has no accurate perception of the heavenly bodies. At least, not until they finally start school and take physical science lessons. But why shouldn't lightning hit the moon? From a child's mind the moon is embedded in the firmament of the Earth – just like the sun and stars.
That's how the ancients thought. Mankind generally saw the Earth and sky in those terms until men like Galileo came along.
Ooohhh . . . so that's why Revelations says the stars will fall to the Earth like figs from a tree! The ancient world thought the stars were in the sky like low hanging fruit on a tree! The perspective they had allowed for the stars to fall from the sky and litter the ground.
The sky can peel back like a scroll. The dome of the Earth can be yanked back like a cover or torn away like an ancient parchment scroll.
Jesus can ride the clouds and every eye can see him. However, not because all the news channels of the world will report on this awesome spectacle. Because, when you live on a flat Earth – everyone can look up at the same time and see him in the sky!
Man, if we just could've kept building that tower of Babel, we could have burst through the dome of the Earth and saw God, touched the sun, and tickled the moon and stars. That's why God had to stop all of their fun.
But, now we know better. All of the heavenly bodies are so very far away. None of it is mounted within our atmosphere or "firmament" like the Bible declares throughout it's text.
This was quite problematic.
How could scripture misrepresent the nature of the world if the Creator divinely authored the Bible?!
Then, all the arguments of the skeptics started caving in on my faith. I had to put forth a conscience effort to brace my beliefs and hold them in place. I didn't give in just yet, but boy oh boy, I sure had some more investigation to do now!
And speaking of the heavenly bodies . . . lets take a look at our sun. An awesome display of power and energy. And through science, we now know how to apply the same principles that make the sun glow.
Nuclear weapons.
The sun is a gigantic nuclear reactor. Hydrogen fuels it just like our hydrogen bombs – which are wimpy and picayune replicas of the sun – in principle at least. That's why you had better wear that sunscreen this summer! That radiation will burn your skin. That's why we have the Aurora lights in the sky. The radiation of the sun is bouncing off of the Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere. That's the other reason why astronauts wear space suits; Space is radioactive. But why doesn't the sun explode into a huge mushroom cloud like our little baby sun-bombs? The sun generates a massive magnetic field that keeps it all from going off like a huge intergalactic nuke! So, the sun is a nuclear reactor keeping itself in a tight furnace-like ball.
The scientific community estimates that the sun started out with enough Hydrogen to burn for 10 billion years. Our bright beauty seems to have about 5 billion years of juice left.
So, in about 5 billion years from now, the sun's core will run out of Hydrogen and flare up in a final burst. The sun will start to balloon and scorch the Earth – eventually swallowing it whole and melting it away. Then, our solar system will forever be covered in night as the sun snuffs out like a candle smothered by melted wax.
Regardless of whether Metallica meant nuclear war or the sun's apocalyptic burn-out, their metal song, Blackened is frighteningly backed by science. You can click the link and check out the lyrics or hear the song on their official web site.
But, the Bible also says that the Earth will be melted away with a fervent heat. Maybe that proves the Bible is prophetic. Well, they've got the “scorched Earth” part right. But not because of prophesy. Physics gives us hard evidence of what's in store for the Earth's future.
Sounds morbid, huh? But I'll tell you this . . . I'd rather be nuked once and for all by the sun 5 billion years from now than to live out eternity in a smoldering bottomless pit that flows with a lake of fire.
* Since this post, I've come to realize that people in Galileo's day did know that the Earth was round and not flat. However, they still thought the Earth was the center of the solar system as well as the Universe. And that still got Galileo into a whole lot of trouble.
I cannot say the same for the Biblical writers, however. They really seemed to believe the Earth was flat.
Science needs proof. Test it. Research it. Touch it. Observe it. Record it. Run the numbers and see if there really is a significant difference. Then, maybe you can call it a theory.
Then after that, check back with us . . . we'll let you know later if we think it's true . . . after we test it some more.
Many Christians don't like to follow through with the full implications of science, yet they want to use it when it suites their point. And don't forget about logic. Logic is akin to science – perhaps the heart of the scientific method itself.
Christians use logic when it suites, too. But following the full implications of logic is contradictory to faith. Faith, again, is trusting in what hasn't had any direct evidence. Logic seeks truth through weeding out weak arguments that have no foundation. What gives an argument a true foundation?
Evidence. Hard cold evidence.
That's why people always say that God works in mysterious ways and that his ways are beyond finding out. His ways aren't our ways. In other words, God doesn't work in the realms of logic all the time. That's why we need faith – to trust the things that God does and allows which sometimes seem quite illogical, contradictory, confusing, and unjust.
History slapped me in the face again much like in my previous blog post. But this time, Science joined in, too.
It was like a nasty pimp-slap.
Galileo asserted that the heavenly bodies – including Earth – were all round and that the sun was actually the center of the solar system.
Well Duh!
Well, duh, nothin' . . . . 'cause back then, that idea was heresy. Galileo's observations and mathematics backed his claims with solid evidence. But publishing his findings only earned him house arrest during the latter years of his life. And his arrest was enforced by the Catholic Church!
Say what?!
The Church world back in Galileo's day was the authority on faith and science. And, the Church world said that the Earth was flat* and was the center of the Universe! Why? Because the church world of that time period thought the Bible said so!
Was Christendom wrong to believe the Bible inferred a flat Earth?
Biblical cosmology becomes more and more of a fantasy as we learn more about the physical world, the laws of physics, and the Universe around us.
Physics tells us that the universe must be older than the Bible declares. Either physics contradicts itself or the Bible does. Take your pick.
Admittedly, being raised as a Christian, that was not a hard choice to make at the time.
Clearly, science was wrong.
But, I always wondered how Satan was able to take Jesus to that high place and show him all the kingdoms of the world in a single moment.
Maybe somebody thought the Earth was flat.
So then, the “circle of the Earth” – as Job called it – wasn't a globe after all. It was a flat pancake!
But . . . but . . . but . . . the Bible wouldn't ever imply that! God made the world! He made the Heavens and the Earth. He knew what he was doing! He knew the Earth wasn't flat when he made it.
He knew what he was doing when he took the firmament and partitioned the waters of the ocean from the waters above in the sky.
Pay attention to that description in the first chapter of Genesis. Read it again, slowly. The Earth was a super dome! A flat area for the land. The dome of the sky was covered with a firmament that allowed rain to drip through from the waters above.
Say . . . if you didn't know that the sky went to outer space and that the sun's light reflecting off of our atmosphere made the sky look blue . . . . what might you think about all that blueness?
Did you say, “water”?
I heard a small child ask once, “can lightning hit the moon”?
Sounds silly until you realize that a child has no accurate perception of the heavenly bodies. At least, not until they finally start school and take physical science lessons. But why shouldn't lightning hit the moon? From a child's mind the moon is embedded in the firmament of the Earth – just like the sun and stars.
That's how the ancients thought. Mankind generally saw the Earth and sky in those terms until men like Galileo came along.
Ooohhh . . . so that's why Revelations says the stars will fall to the Earth like figs from a tree! The ancient world thought the stars were in the sky like low hanging fruit on a tree! The perspective they had allowed for the stars to fall from the sky and litter the ground.
The sky can peel back like a scroll. The dome of the Earth can be yanked back like a cover or torn away like an ancient parchment scroll.
Jesus can ride the clouds and every eye can see him. However, not because all the news channels of the world will report on this awesome spectacle. Because, when you live on a flat Earth – everyone can look up at the same time and see him in the sky!
Man, if we just could've kept building that tower of Babel, we could have burst through the dome of the Earth and saw God, touched the sun, and tickled the moon and stars. That's why God had to stop all of their fun.
But, now we know better. All of the heavenly bodies are so very far away. None of it is mounted within our atmosphere or "firmament" like the Bible declares throughout it's text.
This was quite problematic.
How could scripture misrepresent the nature of the world if the Creator divinely authored the Bible?!
Then, all the arguments of the skeptics started caving in on my faith. I had to put forth a conscience effort to brace my beliefs and hold them in place. I didn't give in just yet, but boy oh boy, I sure had some more investigation to do now!
And speaking of the heavenly bodies . . . lets take a look at our sun. An awesome display of power and energy. And through science, we now know how to apply the same principles that make the sun glow.
Nuclear weapons.
The sun is a gigantic nuclear reactor. Hydrogen fuels it just like our hydrogen bombs – which are wimpy and picayune replicas of the sun – in principle at least. That's why you had better wear that sunscreen this summer! That radiation will burn your skin. That's why we have the Aurora lights in the sky. The radiation of the sun is bouncing off of the Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere. That's the other reason why astronauts wear space suits; Space is radioactive. But why doesn't the sun explode into a huge mushroom cloud like our little baby sun-bombs? The sun generates a massive magnetic field that keeps it all from going off like a huge intergalactic nuke! So, the sun is a nuclear reactor keeping itself in a tight furnace-like ball.
The scientific community estimates that the sun started out with enough Hydrogen to burn for 10 billion years. Our bright beauty seems to have about 5 billion years of juice left.
So, in about 5 billion years from now, the sun's core will run out of Hydrogen and flare up in a final burst. The sun will start to balloon and scorch the Earth – eventually swallowing it whole and melting it away. Then, our solar system will forever be covered in night as the sun snuffs out like a candle smothered by melted wax.
Regardless of whether Metallica meant nuclear war or the sun's apocalyptic burn-out, their metal song, Blackened is frighteningly backed by science. You can click the link and check out the lyrics or hear the song on their official web site.
But, the Bible also says that the Earth will be melted away with a fervent heat. Maybe that proves the Bible is prophetic. Well, they've got the “scorched Earth” part right. But not because of prophesy. Physics gives us hard evidence of what's in store for the Earth's future.
Sounds morbid, huh? But I'll tell you this . . . I'd rather be nuked once and for all by the sun 5 billion years from now than to live out eternity in a smoldering bottomless pit that flows with a lake of fire.
* Since this post, I've come to realize that people in Galileo's day did know that the Earth was round and not flat. However, they still thought the Earth was the center of the solar system as well as the Universe. And that still got Galileo into a whole lot of trouble.
I cannot say the same for the Biblical writers, however. They really seemed to believe the Earth was flat.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Who the Heck is Gilgamesh?
History has a way of bringing about rude awakenings. The Epic of Gilgamesh is one such history lesson that can blast preconceived notions out of the water – at least for those who never heard of him before.
Who in the heck is Gilgamesh, anyway?!
The story of Gilgamesh has elements that are eerily familiar to the story of Noah. I won't dare try to recount the story here. Look it up and check it out for yourself. But for me, a pre-Noah story contained in the Gilgamesh Epic was problematic for me as a Biblical fundamentalists. One of the oldest recorded pieces of literature unearthed from one of the oldest recorded societies in history has a flood story that predates the Biblical manuscript. At first I thought, “So what? Many cultures have a flood story”. But, the dating of the Gilgamesh Epic kept begging the thought that Noah's Ark was a retelling of certain parts of the Gilgamesh Epic.
But for a die hard Christian like I was, I told myself that Gilgamesh was simply confirmation of Noah's trek across the flooded earth. Civilization simply had perverted versions of the true story concerning Noah. The Gilgamesh Epic just happened to be the oldest version written down on a stone tablet. Age didn't make Gilgamesh right or true.
But, I still didn't like knowing that this bit of archeology existed. What a bummer!
And I didn't like reading about a fellow named Sargon, King of Akkad. Before the Exodus story of Moses could have happened, Sargon was floating down the river in a basket. His mother secretly sent him down a river and he was drawn out and raised as someone else's son. And, well, I suppose he became royalty one day, since he's called King of Akkad.
A thread was forming; Stories in the Bible were mirroring older non-biblical narratives. I didn't want to say it, but the Bible looked like it was copying from other works in history. Legends and folk tales appeared to be passed around from culture to culture. Other god-men, other flood stories, other babies floating down the river – all older than the Biblical text.
Maybe those archaeologists and scientist just don't know how to date things. They don't really know what they're doing. Besides, the world started off with two people. We all have the same history and ancestry. It just all got perverted over time as our various cultures developed. This stuff means nothing!
At least, that what I said to myself at the time.
I hung in there. At least now, I better understood the skeptic. I could understand why they were so stubborn in their disbelief. I was starting to realize that you really had to know your stuff to witness to a skeptic.
However, the more I learned . . . . the more I started to feel like a skeptic, too.
Who in the heck is Gilgamesh, anyway?!
The story of Gilgamesh has elements that are eerily familiar to the story of Noah. I won't dare try to recount the story here. Look it up and check it out for yourself. But for me, a pre-Noah story contained in the Gilgamesh Epic was problematic for me as a Biblical fundamentalists. One of the oldest recorded pieces of literature unearthed from one of the oldest recorded societies in history has a flood story that predates the Biblical manuscript. At first I thought, “So what? Many cultures have a flood story”. But, the dating of the Gilgamesh Epic kept begging the thought that Noah's Ark was a retelling of certain parts of the Gilgamesh Epic.
But for a die hard Christian like I was, I told myself that Gilgamesh was simply confirmation of Noah's trek across the flooded earth. Civilization simply had perverted versions of the true story concerning Noah. The Gilgamesh Epic just happened to be the oldest version written down on a stone tablet. Age didn't make Gilgamesh right or true.
But, I still didn't like knowing that this bit of archeology existed. What a bummer!
And I didn't like reading about a fellow named Sargon, King of Akkad. Before the Exodus story of Moses could have happened, Sargon was floating down the river in a basket. His mother secretly sent him down a river and he was drawn out and raised as someone else's son. And, well, I suppose he became royalty one day, since he's called King of Akkad.
A thread was forming; Stories in the Bible were mirroring older non-biblical narratives. I didn't want to say it, but the Bible looked like it was copying from other works in history. Legends and folk tales appeared to be passed around from culture to culture. Other god-men, other flood stories, other babies floating down the river – all older than the Biblical text.
Maybe those archaeologists and scientist just don't know how to date things. They don't really know what they're doing. Besides, the world started off with two people. We all have the same history and ancestry. It just all got perverted over time as our various cultures developed. This stuff means nothing!
At least, that what I said to myself at the time.
I hung in there. At least now, I better understood the skeptic. I could understand why they were so stubborn in their disbelief. I was starting to realize that you really had to know your stuff to witness to a skeptic.
However, the more I learned . . . . the more I started to feel like a skeptic, too.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
The God-men
I rolled up my sleeves and I got to work at understanding the how the skeptic thinks. Why did the skeptic seems so confident in their disbelief of Christianity?
The first concept from the world of skepticism that I encountered was the “god-men” problem. This was all new to me and my mouth gaped open as I read claims that many Divine god-men came along before Christ claiming to bring salvation. I was shocked! But, I took all these claims as blatant, unfounded lies and trickery from demonic forces whose only purpose was to cause people to stray. Even if there were other “god-men” types who came and taught similar teachings to Jesus prior to 1 AD, these men in my mind were clearly counterfeit. So, eventually I dismissed this material. I didn't believe the claims. So, there . . .
Until, I came across an interesting website entitled – The Pagan Origins of the Christian Myth. This website referenced many of the former claims and materials that I read which were often referenced by skeptics. The idea was the same: Jesus isn't unique because so many other god-men came prior to him teaching and claiming similar things. And sometimes these god-men even used speech frighteningly similar to that of Christ's sayings in the New Testament. You could say they were copying Jesus, except that many of these guys came before Christ! I won't try to list them all here. Check out the link above and read all about it for yourself.
The author of POCM used an interesting analogy that caught my attention. He compares religion to soda pop. All soda pop share a few basic ingredients which is the essence of soda pop: carbonated water and sugar for starters. Now, the names are different on the cans and each brand may throw in some of their own unique flavorings. But, in the end, soda pop can't get too different as you go from drink to drink. So it is with religion; religions have a few basic ingredients that they all share: God, worship, sin, atonement, judgment, afterlife, miracles, scripture texts, clergy, and so on. And particularly during Jesus' time, a series of religions known as the Mystery Religions were prominent. These religions had rites of passage and inductions (baptism), symbolic meals (Communion), teachings with hidden meanings (teaching only the believers understand), and Divine expressions of the Godhead as a human being – just as Jesus is the divine expression of God in a human body.
Another idea that stuck with me was the challenge he gave at the beginning of his site: All these other god-men came before Jesus, and claimed to do many things like Jesus. However, we don't believe in them; we don't believe they ever performed the miraculous or made good on their claims at salvation. Nor, their claims to be God in flesh. Why then, do we believe in Jesus who isn't unique when compared to his predecessors?
Again, this didn't de-convert me; This information by itself wasn't enough to move me.
But, the skeptic's argument is long and has a cumulative effect. Later, my eyes opend to some additional ideas that caused the "god-men" problem to become a very serious problem for my faith.
The first concept from the world of skepticism that I encountered was the “god-men” problem. This was all new to me and my mouth gaped open as I read claims that many Divine god-men came along before Christ claiming to bring salvation. I was shocked! But, I took all these claims as blatant, unfounded lies and trickery from demonic forces whose only purpose was to cause people to stray. Even if there were other “god-men” types who came and taught similar teachings to Jesus prior to 1 AD, these men in my mind were clearly counterfeit. So, eventually I dismissed this material. I didn't believe the claims. So, there . . .
Until, I came across an interesting website entitled – The Pagan Origins of the Christian Myth. This website referenced many of the former claims and materials that I read which were often referenced by skeptics. The idea was the same: Jesus isn't unique because so many other god-men came prior to him teaching and claiming similar things. And sometimes these god-men even used speech frighteningly similar to that of Christ's sayings in the New Testament. You could say they were copying Jesus, except that many of these guys came before Christ! I won't try to list them all here. Check out the link above and read all about it for yourself.
The author of POCM used an interesting analogy that caught my attention. He compares religion to soda pop. All soda pop share a few basic ingredients which is the essence of soda pop: carbonated water and sugar for starters. Now, the names are different on the cans and each brand may throw in some of their own unique flavorings. But, in the end, soda pop can't get too different as you go from drink to drink. So it is with religion; religions have a few basic ingredients that they all share: God, worship, sin, atonement, judgment, afterlife, miracles, scripture texts, clergy, and so on. And particularly during Jesus' time, a series of religions known as the Mystery Religions were prominent. These religions had rites of passage and inductions (baptism), symbolic meals (Communion), teachings with hidden meanings (teaching only the believers understand), and Divine expressions of the Godhead as a human being – just as Jesus is the divine expression of God in a human body.
Another idea that stuck with me was the challenge he gave at the beginning of his site: All these other god-men came before Jesus, and claimed to do many things like Jesus. However, we don't believe in them; we don't believe they ever performed the miraculous or made good on their claims at salvation. Nor, their claims to be God in flesh. Why then, do we believe in Jesus who isn't unique when compared to his predecessors?
Again, this didn't de-convert me; This information by itself wasn't enough to move me.
But, the skeptic's argument is long and has a cumulative effect. Later, my eyes opend to some additional ideas that caused the "god-men" problem to become a very serious problem for my faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
