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 faith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label faith. 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.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Everything Evolves
During my June vacation in Washington D.C., I had the pleasure of visiting the Smithsonian Natural History Museum. Very cool! Free entry, too!
Rocks about 2.5 billion years old reveal that the Earth's atmosphere hasn't always been supportive of life as we know it today.
Water life adapts to droughts and evolve into land animals.
Ideas also evolve-- slavery was upheld by the United States Constitution at first; later, it was repealed. Women were second class citizens, now they are more and more being treated with proper fairness.
For one while, you couldn't legally buy a strong drink!
Yikes!
And yup . . . even religions have evolved. Denominations splinter off from each other and become less and less familiar with how their scriptures lay out the tenants of their faith. Doctrines change and people tone down the more radical passages found in their scripture texts. Yes, even faith evolves.
And yup . . . even religions have evolved. Denominations splinter off from each other and become less and less familiar with how their scriptures lay out the tenants of their faith. Doctrines change and people tone down the more radical passages found in their scripture texts. Yes, even faith evolves.
And look at the United States today-- we seem to be at the threshold of allowing homosexuals to live their lives with full freedom as well. This is long over due in my opinion, just as Women's rights and Minority rights were long over due (and perhaps, still not fully realized even now).
Yes-- even the so called "Land of the Free" is still striving and evolving towards a more perfect union.
Evolution is everywhere. We might as well accept it. And we might as well use the engine of evolution to push our nation towards becoming a nation that is truly, fully free.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Anecdotal Evidence
For those of you who don't know, my mother-in-law is an evangelist. She is an Apostolic Faith evangelist who is chairperson of the missionary department at my former church.
If I told her now that I am an atheist, her head would spin around three times. Then she'd rebuke the devil and lay hands on me until she pushed me down through the floor.
That's how I'd imagine my "coming out" experience, anyhow.
See why I stay in the closet?
She came to our home for a short visit (on the night that I'm writing this). And she told us a cute little anecdote:
I laughed to myself.
But, sorry, that story doesn't count as sound anecdotal evidence.
An autopsy would revel that the teacher in the story indeed has a brain. Although, she might not have been all that smart.
A CAT scan would also revel her brain too, I guess. So, I suppose we have no need of cutting people open to prove they have brains.
The mistake? Many theists seem to misunderstand. Atheists do not doubt God's existence simply because we cannot see God.
Atheists doubt God's existence because no one can produce sound, physical evidence that proves God exists.
The Bible doesn't count. We can't prove God actually wrote it. The same goes for any other sacred scripture text.
Philosophical arguments and "common sense" arguments (such as the complexity of the universe or the human eye) are only opinions. More physical evidence seems to support the idea that the universe can exist without a God of any sort rather than the idea that any particular God created the world.
I didn't say that science disproves God's existence. Perhaps an impersonal God exists. Maybe a Personal God exists.
Maybe personal gods exist because the people keep making up different, personalized gods with their imaginations?
Regardless, the theists aren't proving God's existence either.
Again, belief in God is by faith-- not by sight.
Nor by CAT scans or ultrasound.
See? Atheism isn't quite so unreasonable after all.
If I told her now that I am an atheist, her head would spin around three times. Then she'd rebuke the devil and lay hands on me until she pushed me down through the floor.
That's how I'd imagine my "coming out" experience, anyhow.
See why I stay in the closet?
She came to our home for a short visit (on the night that I'm writing this). And she told us a cute little anecdote:
I admit that I found the story cute. And my mother-in-law has a knack for delivering a good punch line.
A little boy gave a report about how God created the heavens and the earth according to Genesis. After his report, the teacher began to ask him a few questions.
Can you see my hair?
Can you see my blouse?
Can you see my shoes?
Can you see my face?
The little boy didn't understand the teacher's line of questioning. But he answered "yes" to all of her questions.
Then the teacher asked, Can you see God?
The little boy sheepishly answered, "no".
Then the teacher explained to him how he need not believe in God because we cannot see God. Since we cannot see God, he does not exist.
The teacher was an atheist.
Then the next little boy gave his report. He directed his questions towards the class:
Can you see the teacher?
Can you see her shoes?
Can you see her blouse?
Can you see her hair?
All the students answered "yes".
Then the little boy asked, Can you see her brain?
The students answered, "no".
Then the little boy concluded his report:
Well then, she must don't have no brain.
I laughed to myself.
But, sorry, that story doesn't count as sound anecdotal evidence.
An autopsy would revel that the teacher in the story indeed has a brain. Although, she might not have been all that smart.
A CAT scan would also revel her brain too, I guess. So, I suppose we have no need of cutting people open to prove they have brains.
The mistake? Many theists seem to misunderstand. Atheists do not doubt God's existence simply because we cannot see God.
Atheists doubt God's existence because no one can produce sound, physical evidence that proves God exists.
The Bible doesn't count. We can't prove God actually wrote it. The same goes for any other sacred scripture text.
Philosophical arguments and "common sense" arguments (such as the complexity of the universe or the human eye) are only opinions. More physical evidence seems to support the idea that the universe can exist without a God of any sort rather than the idea that any particular God created the world.
I didn't say that science disproves God's existence. Perhaps an impersonal God exists. Maybe a Personal God exists.
Maybe personal gods exist because the people keep making up different, personalized gods with their imaginations?
Regardless, the theists aren't proving God's existence either.
Again, belief in God is by faith-- not by sight.
Nor by CAT scans or ultrasound.
See? Atheism isn't quite so unreasonable after all.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Show Me
I can't seem to think of a good or clever way to start this post.
So, I'll just start it:
Is teaching Intelligent Design in a high school biology class fair?
Maybe (just maybe) Intelligent Design should be mentioned in a history class or philosophy class.
But, in my opinion, Intelligent Design should not come up in a science class.
At least, no one should be forced to teach ID as a scientific theory.
I don't mean to belittle history of philosophy with my previous statements. These subjects have a different emphasis that may warrant discussing a topic such as Intelligent Design.
But within the subject of science, Intelligent Design has no place-- especially if introduced as a scientific theory.
You know, an equivalent alternative to the theory of evolution.
Let me explain my point of view in a nutshell:
Science says, "show me"; religion says, "only believe".
Now, here's the long version of my point of view:
The word science has Latin roots which mean to know or knowledge.
Science sets out to learn what we don't yet know. Good science attempts this quest for knowledge while still realizing we don't (and probably won't) know everything. Also, science attempts to gather knowledge with the realization that we make mistakes and sometimes misinterpret our findings during our knowledge quest.
So then, a hypothesis should be thoroughly examined and supported by a wide range of facts before members of the scientific community accept it as a scientific theory.
And even after becoming a scientific theory, the idea should remain subject to scrutiny, modification, and even deletion should new facts come along.
But scientific theories are usually supported by a lot of intellectual substance. A hypothesis already has trouble becoming a theory. So, overturning a theory won't come so easily, either.
And, I will admit here that bias can interfere with this process.
However, the error-correcting mechanism that I alluded to beforehand is the overall goal of science.
And when the scientific world finally accepts an idea as knowledge or as a scientific theory, the proponents of such findings tend to stick to their claims.
At least, until better information comes along.
Such tenacity from scientists can sometimes be mistaken as dogmatism.
And I will also admit here, that sometimes it is dogmatism. But not always. Otherwise, we wouldn't enjoy the advances of technology that we have today.
The followers of religion tend to place faith within a scripture text whose interpretations and meanings can be quite subjective. Also, faith is often placed in a tradition with is passed along from parents towards their children or from proselytizing efforts towards a non-believer. The congregants of faith tend to share in the same traditions and teach new disciples how to follow the rules of faith. Yet these rules of faith, like scripture, are often subjective based upon the interpretations of believers and non-believers alike.
And some people are bold enough to forge their own religious faith from within their hearts. I admire this very much and find that a bravery goes along with doing such. But even here, such religious notions are subjected to the interpretations of the lone disciple.
For many religious people, the adherence to a religious belief becomes a source of knowledge. The belief itself becomes the evidence of an assertion or claim. And while one has a right to opinions and beliefs, this does not necessitate that such opinions or beliefs are actually right.
Or wrong, for that matter . . .
The tenacity that one has for his or her religious beliefs can often be admirable.
But when religious belief is treated as an absolute truth that everyone must follow (rather than an opinion or personal preference), such tenacity often changes from admirable faithfulness to religious dogmatism.
Now, don't get me wrong: you don't have to believe that life formed out of a soup of hot water and chemicals to accept evolution. And not everyone who believes in an Intelligent Designer rejects evolution. Many religious people with a deep sense of faith accept evolution. Evolution doesn't answer the questions about the origin of life-- only the origin of species. Evidence showing that life could have formed in a hot soupy mix is growing. But that notion still remains a hypothesis, unlike in the theory of evolution where one species slowly gives rise to another.
And since evolution is a scientific theory with a series of facts supporting it, teaching evolution in a science class (such as biology) is quite appropriate.
But what tangible evidence merits teaching Intelligent Design as a scientific theory in a science class alongside evolution?
The proponents of Intelligent Design theory often accuse evolutionists of dogmatism. They claim that evolutionists are biased towards Darwinism and only teach the theory because evolutionists constantly ignore the "other valid theories".
Like the Intelligent Design "theory", for example.
However, evolution has a wide range of testable, verifiable evidence whereas Intelligent Design has no evidence of any scientific sort.
Faith does not count as evidence in science.
I don't look down on anyone who believes that God created the universe. I don't look down on anyone who believes life originated through an Intelligent Designer. You can find good scientists who personally believe this way.
But to ask the students, teachers, and practitioners of science to treat Intelligent Design as a scientific theory is no more appropriate than asking religious followers to allow Darwinism into their Sunday School classes and pulpits as a "valid" explanation for the Genesis account.
Often, believers reject evolution theory on the grounds of their religious belief. As a result, many believers fail to see the evidence that supports evolution. And worse, too many believers (but not all) fail to see the difference between tenaciously supporting a scientific theory in lieu of a so called Intelligent Design theory.
Science will not accept Intelligent Design as a theory without some solid evidence.
While individual scientists may personally believe in a Designer or Creator, the discipline of science remains reluctant to simply believe.
The scientific method will always pose this same unwavering challenge:
Show me.
So, I'll just start it:
Is teaching Intelligent Design in a high school biology class fair?
Maybe (just maybe) Intelligent Design should be mentioned in a history class or philosophy class.
But, in my opinion, Intelligent Design should not come up in a science class.
At least, no one should be forced to teach ID as a scientific theory.
I don't mean to belittle history of philosophy with my previous statements. These subjects have a different emphasis that may warrant discussing a topic such as Intelligent Design.
But within the subject of science, Intelligent Design has no place-- especially if introduced as a scientific theory.
You know, an equivalent alternative to the theory of evolution.
Let me explain my point of view in a nutshell:
Science says, "show me"; religion says, "only believe".
Now, here's the long version of my point of view:
The word science has Latin roots which mean to know or knowledge.
Science sets out to learn what we don't yet know. Good science attempts this quest for knowledge while still realizing we don't (and probably won't) know everything. Also, science attempts to gather knowledge with the realization that we make mistakes and sometimes misinterpret our findings during our knowledge quest.
So then, a hypothesis should be thoroughly examined and supported by a wide range of facts before members of the scientific community accept it as a scientific theory.
And even after becoming a scientific theory, the idea should remain subject to scrutiny, modification, and even deletion should new facts come along.
But scientific theories are usually supported by a lot of intellectual substance. A hypothesis already has trouble becoming a theory. So, overturning a theory won't come so easily, either.
And, I will admit here that bias can interfere with this process.
However, the error-correcting mechanism that I alluded to beforehand is the overall goal of science.
And when the scientific world finally accepts an idea as knowledge or as a scientific theory, the proponents of such findings tend to stick to their claims.
At least, until better information comes along.
Such tenacity from scientists can sometimes be mistaken as dogmatism.
And I will also admit here, that sometimes it is dogmatism. But not always. Otherwise, we wouldn't enjoy the advances of technology that we have today.
The followers of religion tend to place faith within a scripture text whose interpretations and meanings can be quite subjective. Also, faith is often placed in a tradition with is passed along from parents towards their children or from proselytizing efforts towards a non-believer. The congregants of faith tend to share in the same traditions and teach new disciples how to follow the rules of faith. Yet these rules of faith, like scripture, are often subjective based upon the interpretations of believers and non-believers alike.
And some people are bold enough to forge their own religious faith from within their hearts. I admire this very much and find that a bravery goes along with doing such. But even here, such religious notions are subjected to the interpretations of the lone disciple.
For many religious people, the adherence to a religious belief becomes a source of knowledge. The belief itself becomes the evidence of an assertion or claim. And while one has a right to opinions and beliefs, this does not necessitate that such opinions or beliefs are actually right.
Or wrong, for that matter . . .
The tenacity that one has for his or her religious beliefs can often be admirable.
But when religious belief is treated as an absolute truth that everyone must follow (rather than an opinion or personal preference), such tenacity often changes from admirable faithfulness to religious dogmatism.
Now, don't get me wrong: you don't have to believe that life formed out of a soup of hot water and chemicals to accept evolution. And not everyone who believes in an Intelligent Designer rejects evolution. Many religious people with a deep sense of faith accept evolution. Evolution doesn't answer the questions about the origin of life-- only the origin of species. Evidence showing that life could have formed in a hot soupy mix is growing. But that notion still remains a hypothesis, unlike in the theory of evolution where one species slowly gives rise to another.
And since evolution is a scientific theory with a series of facts supporting it, teaching evolution in a science class (such as biology) is quite appropriate.
But what tangible evidence merits teaching Intelligent Design as a scientific theory in a science class alongside evolution?
The proponents of Intelligent Design theory often accuse evolutionists of dogmatism. They claim that evolutionists are biased towards Darwinism and only teach the theory because evolutionists constantly ignore the "other valid theories".
Like the Intelligent Design "theory", for example.
However, evolution has a wide range of testable, verifiable evidence whereas Intelligent Design has no evidence of any scientific sort.
Faith does not count as evidence in science.
I don't look down on anyone who believes that God created the universe. I don't look down on anyone who believes life originated through an Intelligent Designer. You can find good scientists who personally believe this way.
But to ask the students, teachers, and practitioners of science to treat Intelligent Design as a scientific theory is no more appropriate than asking religious followers to allow Darwinism into their Sunday School classes and pulpits as a "valid" explanation for the Genesis account.
Often, believers reject evolution theory on the grounds of their religious belief. As a result, many believers fail to see the evidence that supports evolution. And worse, too many believers (but not all) fail to see the difference between tenaciously supporting a scientific theory in lieu of a so called Intelligent Design theory.
Science will not accept Intelligent Design as a theory without some solid evidence.
While individual scientists may personally believe in a Designer or Creator, the discipline of science remains reluctant to simply believe.
The scientific method will always pose this same unwavering challenge:
Show me.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Why I Still Can't Bring Myself to Believe Again
Much was brewing in my head, but I had no time to pour it out.
But now the time has come.
A frequent commenter here at this blog, Tandi, recommended reading an article: Why I believe again.
Tandi is a Christian who holds on to her faith. She also hopes that perhaps one day I will consider returning to the faith. Despite our present differences, I have high respect for her and I can understand her desire to win back the apostates of Christianity.
And since I have respect for her, I try to follow up on her reading recommendations.
So, I read the article that she suggested.
I will expound upon my feelings concerning the article in a "round about" and verbose way.
I wanted to keep it short, but I just don't know how. I was dreaming when I wrote this, so sue me if . . .
Ah, never mind.
If it helps, read my post in small chunks or parts.
Or I suppose you'd save more time by not reading my post at all, huh?
Um, let's not go there.
Well if you do stick around, I will start with an event that happened a week ago from this post.
I went to church Easter Sunday. Yeah, me. I went to church. Really.
Don't get too excited, though. I did it for my mom. My brother usually drops her off at church on Sundays but lately he is, er . . . incapacitated. So, I took my mom and my kids. My wife went the previous Sunday with my mom, so she refused to visit church this Sunday-- and forget about it being Easter.
Gee, Easter could have even been part of the reason for why she didn't want to go to church.
All in all, I guess it was finally my turn.
The church visit wasn't what I had expected; why, Church was actually quite pleasant!
I didn't realize that I had missed all the familiar faces. I also had to acknowledge that I missed worship and praise (just a little). The running around, the jumping and the hollering of praise at the top of one's lungs! Spontaneously running laps around the sanctuary-- people trying to keep a lid on their exuberance, yet they can't help themselves.
What a rush! I remembered when I was like that.
And the singing was beautiful. I was reminded of songs that I used to love and cherish.
I even sang along with some of the songs.
At service, we sang a favorite hymn of mine: Because He Lives. In the past, I was so convinced when I sang that song . . .
But this time when I sang along, I wasn't so sure.
And I wasn't so sure when the preacher kept repeating himself while trying to retell the Resurrection story. He was trying to give the Gospel accounts more life, but his message to me fell quite flat.
Sitting through the sermon was the worst of it. So, that is to say the church visit wasn't all that bad. I can forgive a bad sermon. I've sat through plenty in my life. One more would not hurt.
When it was all over, I walked away wondering why I had a nice time. Maybe it was time to go back to church again. Maybe turning to atheism was too rash of a decision.
Decision? Can belief (non-belief) be a decision?
Anyways . . .
I thought hard about my Easter Sunday experience for the next few days.
I reflected on how I could have ran around and jumped up and down like everyone else did. I felt that same energy I felt as though I was still a believer. But I didn't participate because I know that in my heart I didn't believe as I once did; I didn't want to be sacrilegious. To express that kind of praise and spirit-filled exuberance while still holding on to an atheistic mindset would be something of a mockery to their worship experience. I didn't want to do that out of respect.
And, I didn't want anyone to think that I had made new commitments to church again.
That realization reaffirmed that I was only a spectator.
I also noticed something else. I only enjoyed church because it was a welcomed distraction from the uncertainties I'm currently dealing with in my life. The running, the shouting, the songs of certainty all causes one to feel better.
I found myself thinking of my church visit in the context of the daunting personal problems which have recently started staring me in the face.
Life springs up fortune and misfortune. Blessings and catastrophe. Opportunity and famine. Life and death.
So then, certainty and uncertainty becomes the backdrop in which I reflect on my church visit. I noticed how in church, Christ is certain to have been raised from the dead, he is certain to return for his church, and his followers are certain to rise again through the same resurrection power of Christ-- unless while living they should look skyward and witness his return upon the clouds.
I am certain of death. I've seen it. I've seen my loved ones go the way of all the earth. I slowly and reluctantly trod the same path of my father and uncles while drawn by the same inexorable pull. I see my mother closer and closer to death, daily. She, following her husband. Me following my mom with my wife by my side. And our kids are not too far behind. We all are shackled together while being pulled to the grave-- like a line of inmates chained together so as to prevent any escape from incarceration.
Yes, I'm certain of death. But, I remain uncertain about what will happen to me after I die. Let alone, what will happen to me (and other loved ones) while I (and they) still live.
And now, I am beginning to think that religion is simply an anesthetic for the guaranteed pain and uncertainty of a life that must end in death.
In and of itself, using religion as an anesthetic is fine. But if that's the case, religion isn't the only worthwhile brand of anesthetic available in life. And I've come to terms with accepting the fact that life is indeed uncertain, fragile, volatile, and defined in the context of certain death.
Somehow though, I personally feel that I am better informed and more self aware after acknowledging that this life might be all that I get. I can stare back at the face of life and respect it-- daunting problems and all.
So when I read the online article in the New Statesman, the author seemed only to say that belief in Christ answers all uncertainty and is therefore the truth. The whole of life is best enjoyed when one believes in a creator and is therefore the truth.
I disagree on both points. Christ does not answer all of my uncertainties. He answers all questions, but I am not convinced of his answers. So, such answers are of no help to me personally.
And I find that I enjoy music, arts, and the nighttime sky perhaps more now than as a past theist. I love my favorite music and enjoy it all the more because I don't feel condemnation for listening to it any longer! (if it wasn't gospel music, it was ungodly in my former belief system. And sometimes certain gospel songs weren't even holy enough!). And for me, not knowing how the universe began and how the stars fell in place makes the nighttime view more magical to me. How fascinating that we may exist only because matter was simply doing it's thing! A billion-to-one chance out of billions upon billions of planets!
I also don't look down on creation as I once did as a believer. This is not to say all believers had this perspective. But, I know that I certainly did once. I looked at the world as the sinful leftovers of a fallen universe because Adam, Eve (Lilith?), and the serpent introduced iniquity into existence.
I see now that this universe may very well be all we have. We had better cherish it and enjoy it. Trusting in a next life, I found myself severely restricting myself in what could probably be the only life I will get to have. That is the mistake that I was personally making. I can only speak for myself and of my own Christian experiences.
Your millage may vary.
Some people do not want to face this uncertainty. And I suspect religion numbs this painful, unpredictable embrace between life and death.
That's fine with me. Nothing is ignoble or backwards about being attracted to religion for this reason. Just don't force your beliefs on others*. Share your beliefs-- but don't force them.
* Among those who have commented on my blog so far, I am not accusing anyone of this. I'm only trying to underscore my overall gripe towards fundamentalism of any sort.
Religion is a better anesthetic than hurting others and hurting oneself. But when it comes to dealing with life's uncertainties, being hurtful isn't the only option to practicing religion.
As for me, I numb the pain with enjoying my life while I can, assigning purpose to my life, loving my family, and doing the best I can to leave something behind for my kids.
I also numb the pain with coffee abuse, blogging, and good reading.
That "laughter stuff" is a good antiseptic, too. A very occasional drink helps me out. A fun movie. Even the routine drudgery of work. No matter how much I complain, I do like my job.
And there are some other things that I won't mention here. You know. I don't wanna be accused of TMI and all that.
So at this point in my life, I still can't bring myself to believe again. Religion doesn't help me with my uncertainties because I'm still uncertain about what the ancient religious texts assert.
In light of all this, I'd rather just face the uncertainties of life head on. Even death.
But I do appreciate reading the article in the New Statesman. While I do not agree with the author, I still respect his point of view.
Belief works for him. Non-belief works for me.
Perhaps my feelings about his article could be summed up as simple as that.
But now the time has come.
A frequent commenter here at this blog, Tandi, recommended reading an article: Why I believe again.
Tandi is a Christian who holds on to her faith. She also hopes that perhaps one day I will consider returning to the faith. Despite our present differences, I have high respect for her and I can understand her desire to win back the apostates of Christianity.
And since I have respect for her, I try to follow up on her reading recommendations.
So, I read the article that she suggested.
I will expound upon my feelings concerning the article in a "round about" and verbose way.
I wanted to keep it short, but I just don't know how. I was dreaming when I wrote this, so sue me if . . .
Ah, never mind.
If it helps, read my post in small chunks or parts.
Or I suppose you'd save more time by not reading my post at all, huh?
Um, let's not go there.
Well if you do stick around, I will start with an event that happened a week ago from this post.
I went to church Easter Sunday. Yeah, me. I went to church. Really.
Don't get too excited, though. I did it for my mom. My brother usually drops her off at church on Sundays but lately he is, er . . . incapacitated. So, I took my mom and my kids. My wife went the previous Sunday with my mom, so she refused to visit church this Sunday-- and forget about it being Easter.
Gee, Easter could have even been part of the reason for why she didn't want to go to church.
All in all, I guess it was finally my turn.
The church visit wasn't what I had expected; why, Church was actually quite pleasant!
I didn't realize that I had missed all the familiar faces. I also had to acknowledge that I missed worship and praise (just a little). The running around, the jumping and the hollering of praise at the top of one's lungs! Spontaneously running laps around the sanctuary-- people trying to keep a lid on their exuberance, yet they can't help themselves.
What a rush! I remembered when I was like that.
And the singing was beautiful. I was reminded of songs that I used to love and cherish.
I even sang along with some of the songs.
At service, we sang a favorite hymn of mine: Because He Lives. In the past, I was so convinced when I sang that song . . .
Because He lives, I can face tomorrow.
Because He lives, all fear is gone.
Because I know, He holds the future.
And life is worth the living just because He lives.
But this time when I sang along, I wasn't so sure.
And I wasn't so sure when the preacher kept repeating himself while trying to retell the Resurrection story. He was trying to give the Gospel accounts more life, but his message to me fell quite flat.
Sitting through the sermon was the worst of it. So, that is to say the church visit wasn't all that bad. I can forgive a bad sermon. I've sat through plenty in my life. One more would not hurt.
When it was all over, I walked away wondering why I had a nice time. Maybe it was time to go back to church again. Maybe turning to atheism was too rash of a decision.
Decision? Can belief (non-belief) be a decision?
Anyways . . .
I thought hard about my Easter Sunday experience for the next few days.
I reflected on how I could have ran around and jumped up and down like everyone else did. I felt that same energy I felt as though I was still a believer. But I didn't participate because I know that in my heart I didn't believe as I once did; I didn't want to be sacrilegious. To express that kind of praise and spirit-filled exuberance while still holding on to an atheistic mindset would be something of a mockery to their worship experience. I didn't want to do that out of respect.
And, I didn't want anyone to think that I had made new commitments to church again.
That realization reaffirmed that I was only a spectator.
I also noticed something else. I only enjoyed church because it was a welcomed distraction from the uncertainties I'm currently dealing with in my life. The running, the shouting, the songs of certainty all causes one to feel better.
I found myself thinking of my church visit in the context of the daunting personal problems which have recently started staring me in the face.
Life springs up fortune and misfortune. Blessings and catastrophe. Opportunity and famine. Life and death.
So then, certainty and uncertainty becomes the backdrop in which I reflect on my church visit. I noticed how in church, Christ is certain to have been raised from the dead, he is certain to return for his church, and his followers are certain to rise again through the same resurrection power of Christ-- unless while living they should look skyward and witness his return upon the clouds.
I am certain of death. I've seen it. I've seen my loved ones go the way of all the earth. I slowly and reluctantly trod the same path of my father and uncles while drawn by the same inexorable pull. I see my mother closer and closer to death, daily. She, following her husband. Me following my mom with my wife by my side. And our kids are not too far behind. We all are shackled together while being pulled to the grave-- like a line of inmates chained together so as to prevent any escape from incarceration.
Yes, I'm certain of death. But, I remain uncertain about what will happen to me after I die. Let alone, what will happen to me (and other loved ones) while I (and they) still live.
And now, I am beginning to think that religion is simply an anesthetic for the guaranteed pain and uncertainty of a life that must end in death.
In and of itself, using religion as an anesthetic is fine. But if that's the case, religion isn't the only worthwhile brand of anesthetic available in life. And I've come to terms with accepting the fact that life is indeed uncertain, fragile, volatile, and defined in the context of certain death.
Somehow though, I personally feel that I am better informed and more self aware after acknowledging that this life might be all that I get. I can stare back at the face of life and respect it-- daunting problems and all.
So when I read the online article in the New Statesman, the author seemed only to say that belief in Christ answers all uncertainty and is therefore the truth. The whole of life is best enjoyed when one believes in a creator and is therefore the truth.
I disagree on both points. Christ does not answer all of my uncertainties. He answers all questions, but I am not convinced of his answers. So, such answers are of no help to me personally.
And I find that I enjoy music, arts, and the nighttime sky perhaps more now than as a past theist. I love my favorite music and enjoy it all the more because I don't feel condemnation for listening to it any longer! (if it wasn't gospel music, it was ungodly in my former belief system. And sometimes certain gospel songs weren't even holy enough!). And for me, not knowing how the universe began and how the stars fell in place makes the nighttime view more magical to me. How fascinating that we may exist only because matter was simply doing it's thing! A billion-to-one chance out of billions upon billions of planets!
I also don't look down on creation as I once did as a believer. This is not to say all believers had this perspective. But, I know that I certainly did once. I looked at the world as the sinful leftovers of a fallen universe because Adam, Eve (Lilith?), and the serpent introduced iniquity into existence.
I see now that this universe may very well be all we have. We had better cherish it and enjoy it. Trusting in a next life, I found myself severely restricting myself in what could probably be the only life I will get to have. That is the mistake that I was personally making. I can only speak for myself and of my own Christian experiences.
Your millage may vary.
Some people do not want to face this uncertainty. And I suspect religion numbs this painful, unpredictable embrace between life and death.
That's fine with me. Nothing is ignoble or backwards about being attracted to religion for this reason. Just don't force your beliefs on others*. Share your beliefs-- but don't force them.
* Among those who have commented on my blog so far, I am not accusing anyone of this. I'm only trying to underscore my overall gripe towards fundamentalism of any sort.
Religion is a better anesthetic than hurting others and hurting oneself. But when it comes to dealing with life's uncertainties, being hurtful isn't the only option to practicing religion.
As for me, I numb the pain with enjoying my life while I can, assigning purpose to my life, loving my family, and doing the best I can to leave something behind for my kids.
I also numb the pain with coffee abuse, blogging, and good reading.
That "laughter stuff" is a good antiseptic, too. A very occasional drink helps me out. A fun movie. Even the routine drudgery of work. No matter how much I complain, I do like my job.
And there are some other things that I won't mention here. You know. I don't wanna be accused of TMI and all that.
So at this point in my life, I still can't bring myself to believe again. Religion doesn't help me with my uncertainties because I'm still uncertain about what the ancient religious texts assert.
In light of all this, I'd rather just face the uncertainties of life head on. Even death.
But I do appreciate reading the article in the New Statesman. While I do not agree with the author, I still respect his point of view.
Belief works for him. Non-belief works for me.
Perhaps my feelings about his article could be summed up as simple as that.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Happy Atheist Day!
Since I'm in the closet, most people still think I'm a Christian. Well, as a result, I got this cute little e-mail forward in my in box:
Ouch!
Of course, that e-mail is just an anecdote designed to drive home a punch line with a little umph; the punch line being:
Yeah, the word fool is used. And I know, fool doesn't really mean idiot in the Bible. Fool generally means amoral, to my understanding. But clearly the sentiment of this particular e-mail is idiot.
Yeah, I felt a little insulted. I admit.
I won't resort to name calling . . . but theists who pass around this e-mail should be careful before implying insults against someone with an atheistic viewpoint.
Now, I had a nice little rant all prepared. But, after recently "preaching" about respect a day or so ago-- I guess I had better not.
Me and my big mouth . . .
FLORIDA COURT SETS 'ATHEIST' HOLY DAY
In Florida , an atheist created a case against the Easter & Passover holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians, Jews and observances of their holy days. The argument was it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized day(s).
The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, 'Case dismissed.'
The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, 'Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter, etc. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah, and Hanukkah. Yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays.'
The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, 'But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant.' The lawyer said, 'Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists.'
The judge said, 'The calendar shows April 1st is 'April Fools Day.' Psalm 14:1 states: 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned.
AMEN
Ouch!
Of course, that e-mail is just an anecdote designed to drive home a punch line with a little umph; the punch line being:
You're an idiot if you don't believe in God.
Yeah, the word fool is used. And I know, fool doesn't really mean idiot in the Bible. Fool generally means amoral, to my understanding. But clearly the sentiment of this particular e-mail is idiot.
Yeah, I felt a little insulted. I admit.
I won't resort to name calling . . . but theists who pass around this e-mail should be careful before implying insults against someone with an atheistic viewpoint.
Now, I had a nice little rant all prepared. But, after recently "preaching" about respect a day or so ago-- I guess I had better not.
Me and my big mouth . . .
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.
Monday, January 12, 2009
History Repeats Itself
Nicolaus Copernicus wrote a book entitled On the Revolutions of Heavenly Bodies which stated that the Earth revolved around the sun and was not the center of the universe.
His book was banned by the Catholic Church.
Galileo Galilei agreed with Copernicus and wrote a book entitled Dialogue Concerning Two Chief World Systems which compared old views of the cosmos versus the Copernicus view. This book advocated and supported the Copernicus model of the world.
Galileo was taken before an inquisition and placed on house arrest for the last years of his life. He was forced to renounce his scientific findings and was labeled a heretic by the Catholic Church.
Today, various states have legislators who are trying to draft and legalize disclaimers on the flaps of public school text books that mention the theory of Evolution.
Again, someone wants to keep scientific findings quiet.
Opponents of Evolution claim that the science is bad. That's not really why they oppose evolution though.
Opponents against Copernicus and Galileo made the same claims.
But again, that's not really why they opposed these two great astronomers of the past.
Copernicus and Galileo had sound scientific observation on their side.
Their opponents -- the Bible.
Guess who finally give in and change their minds.
Hopefully, everything will come full circle and history will again, repeat itself.
Why do I say this? Because, like Copernicus and Galileo -- Darwin has sound science on his side, too.
His book was banned by the Catholic Church.
Galileo Galilei agreed with Copernicus and wrote a book entitled Dialogue Concerning Two Chief World Systems which compared old views of the cosmos versus the Copernicus view. This book advocated and supported the Copernicus model of the world.
Galileo was taken before an inquisition and placed on house arrest for the last years of his life. He was forced to renounce his scientific findings and was labeled a heretic by the Catholic Church.
Today, various states have legislators who are trying to draft and legalize disclaimers on the flaps of public school text books that mention the theory of Evolution.
Again, someone wants to keep scientific findings quiet.
Opponents of Evolution claim that the science is bad. That's not really why they oppose evolution though.
Opponents against Copernicus and Galileo made the same claims.
But again, that's not really why they opposed these two great astronomers of the past.
Copernicus and Galileo had sound scientific observation on their side.
Their opponents -- the Bible.
Guess who finally give in and change their minds.
Hopefully, everything will come full circle and history will again, repeat itself.
Why do I say this? Because, like Copernicus and Galileo -- Darwin has sound science on his side, too.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Salvation at a Discount
One aspect of Christianity that often bothered me was the attempt to reconcile contradictory concepts.
God is one -- but he's also Father, Son, and Spirit.
Jesus is God. Yet, Jesus is God's Son.
Salvation is by grace alone. Only the blood of Jesus can save you. Yet, if you don't live a holy life -- even as a spirit filled believer -- you might not make it to heaven.
So, even if I have faith in Jesus' sacrifice, I still need to live by a particular standard.
(void where prohibited, your denomination may vary)
Even though God forgave me through my faith in Jesus, I can still frustrate his grace.
So then, salvation isn't a free gift if I'm still required to follow a certain life style and maintain my salvation. Me and Jesus have to go dutch for my soul.
Yeah . . . I only get salvation at a discount. Salvation is not free.
God is one -- but he's also Father, Son, and Spirit.
Jesus is God. Yet, Jesus is God's Son.
Salvation is by grace alone. Only the blood of Jesus can save you. Yet, if you don't live a holy life -- even as a spirit filled believer -- you might not make it to heaven.
So, even if I have faith in Jesus' sacrifice, I still need to live by a particular standard.
(void where prohibited, your denomination may vary)
Even though God forgave me through my faith in Jesus, I can still frustrate his grace.
So then, salvation isn't a free gift if I'm still required to follow a certain life style and maintain my salvation. Me and Jesus have to go dutch for my soul.
Yeah . . . I only get salvation at a discount. Salvation is not free.
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.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Is the Vatican trying to rehabilitate Galileo, or the Image of the Church?
The Vatican wants to express to the world that their treatment of Galileo Galilei was in error. The Vatican also wants to create the image that they are not only tolerant of science and new ideas -- but that a bridge exists between reason and religion. The Church wants to express that the two concepts of faith and reason are compatible. The Vatican implies that Galileo Galilei embodies this compatibility because he was a man of faith and science.
In my opinion, the tribute that Pope Benedict XVI recently paid to Galileo doesn't prove the church is any more tolerant of reason than in the past. Nor does the Pope's extended hand to Galileo help bridge reason and religion.
Why not?
Galileo's discovery was observable and logical. However, because his findings defied the tenants of faith, Galileo was punished. The Vatican has taken 400 years to officially admit this mistake. Do you really think much has changed?
Also, think of all the modern day feats of science and logic that many religious faiths continue to reject because of religious tenants:
Contraception
Stem Cell Research
Secularization of Culture
Separation of Church and State
Acceptance of Homosexuality
And the most notable Theory of Evolution
Lets not even talk about the current exploration in the Big Bang, String Theory, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy!
These concepts I just mentioned above make up the modern day version of Galileo's expressing that the sun was the center of our solar system and that the earth was a round object caught in the sun's orbit. What he observed in nature opposed what the bible inferred and what Church tradition accepted by faith.
Many faiths remain intolerant of reason and the path to which free thinking leads.
Thus, the Pope's words change nothing.
This is why you won't find a true bridge between faith and reason. The paths of faith and reason do not lead into the direction of the each other.
Read the news story, here: Vatican rehabilitating Galileo
In my opinion, the tribute that Pope Benedict XVI recently paid to Galileo doesn't prove the church is any more tolerant of reason than in the past. Nor does the Pope's extended hand to Galileo help bridge reason and religion.
Why not?
Galileo's discovery was observable and logical. However, because his findings defied the tenants of faith, Galileo was punished. The Vatican has taken 400 years to officially admit this mistake. Do you really think much has changed?
Also, think of all the modern day feats of science and logic that many religious faiths continue to reject because of religious tenants:
Contraception
Stem Cell Research
Secularization of Culture
Separation of Church and State
Acceptance of Homosexuality
And the most notable Theory of Evolution
Lets not even talk about the current exploration in the Big Bang, String Theory, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy!
These concepts I just mentioned above make up the modern day version of Galileo's expressing that the sun was the center of our solar system and that the earth was a round object caught in the sun's orbit. What he observed in nature opposed what the bible inferred and what Church tradition accepted by faith.
Many faiths remain intolerant of reason and the path to which free thinking leads.
Thus, the Pope's words change nothing.
This is why you won't find a true bridge between faith and reason. The paths of faith and reason do not lead into the direction of the each other.
Read the news story, here: Vatican rehabilitating Galileo
Sunday, December 28, 2008
The Great Trickling Away
Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
2 Thessalonians 2:3,4
I'm not qualified to interpret these findings with any authority. But, I am entitled to an opinion.
And so are you.
So, check out these Gallup Poll findings regarding how much Americans think religion is a influence in our country. Another set of findings show an approximation of how many Americans believe in God, or a "Universal Spirit", or in neither (Atheism).
The implications of these findings are interesting to me. After reading over this, I'm of the opinion that a slight dip in religious influence is starting to happen along with a slight rise in skepticism. Nothing major -- but I think these numbers express a very slight decline in literal, fundamentalist religious belief. But, see for yourself and you decide. I could very well be off base in my opinion.
But if this is true, I would not be surprised if the religious right start to vigorously campaign against this trend away from strict faith. I'm also of the opinion that this cycle of belief and non-belief could simply be a natural occurrence that will continue to rise and fall in or society.
So maybe these number are only meaningful in our generation.
Here are the links below:
Americans Believe Religion is Losing Clout
Belief in God Far Lower in Western U.S
2 Thessalonians 2:3,4
I'm not qualified to interpret these findings with any authority. But, I am entitled to an opinion.
And so are you.
So, check out these Gallup Poll findings regarding how much Americans think religion is a influence in our country. Another set of findings show an approximation of how many Americans believe in God, or a "Universal Spirit", or in neither (Atheism).
The implications of these findings are interesting to me. After reading over this, I'm of the opinion that a slight dip in religious influence is starting to happen along with a slight rise in skepticism. Nothing major -- but I think these numbers express a very slight decline in literal, fundamentalist religious belief. But, see for yourself and you decide. I could very well be off base in my opinion.
But if this is true, I would not be surprised if the religious right start to vigorously campaign against this trend away from strict faith. I'm also of the opinion that this cycle of belief and non-belief could simply be a natural occurrence that will continue to rise and fall in or society.
So maybe these number are only meaningful in our generation.
Here are the links below:
Americans Believe Religion is Losing Clout
Belief in God Far Lower in Western U.S
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Tolerance
With all my God-bashing lately, perhaps I sound a little harsh and intolerant.
I don't mean to sound that way . . .
I don't have an issue with someone practicing religion. I don't mind that United States currency says, In God we trust. I'm not bothered by the Pledge of Allegiance including the phrase, One nation, under God. However, I do wish that more people realized that our Pledge never included this phrase until 1954.
I don't really mind prayer in schools. Besides, students can pray in their hearts whenever they want; prayer cannot truly be stopped. Here is a seemingly little known fact: student lead meetings of a religious nature are allowed in public schools. Federal Law allows this. Yep, that's right. Students may have a Christian club or prayer meeting before or after school as an extra curricular activity and pray! pray! pray! And believers of any faith can enjoy this freedom. This can also be practiced during a school's "activity period" or "booster club" period. The only catch is that the organization must be student prompted to ensure the free will of all participants.
So, people should stop saying that prayer has been taken out of school. Rather, such people should use their present freedoms to continue praying in school. Then, focus their rant towards something else more needful -- like generating better funding for their neighborhood school.
Now, I'll tell ya what I truly dislike: intolerance.
Religion should be a private matter because free will must be upheld. This is why prayer in school may continue if students organize for themselves; free will is exercised. The prayer sessions are made private, yet the schools are not forcing religion of any sort. That's the spirit of the First Amendment.
May I also submit that Christians should exchange the notion that culture should be dominated by Christian principles with the idea that they should simply attempt to witness to people. Our government is secular and doesn't need to specifically reflect Christianity. Such a mindset comes from a distortion of an Old Testament concept which assumes the United States has replaced Israel as God's chosen people. Just try to win souls one by one. After all . . . didn't Jesus say, "render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's"? Consider the notion that Christians should have desire for the advent of the Kingdom of Heaven . . . and not to busy themselves with turning the world into the Kingdom of Heaven.
And what of Paul the Apostle's words when he says not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers? He says to "come out from among them and be separate".
Paul didn't say, "You will be assimilated. Resistance if futile."
Christians shouldn't act like the Borg.
Be tolerant of other people's faiths and the lack thereof; I will be tolerant of yours in return.
Share your faith. Make your point. Disagree with me; Witness to the world.
I'll make my points and share my non-faith. I'll disagree, too. Enlighten the world.
But, if we agree to disagree -- no one has to get nasty.
I think we can all get along just fine with that attitude.
If everyone within the spectrum of faith and non-faith could better get along, I would be quite glad!
I don't mean to sound that way . . .
I don't have an issue with someone practicing religion. I don't mind that United States currency says, In God we trust. I'm not bothered by the Pledge of Allegiance including the phrase, One nation, under God. However, I do wish that more people realized that our Pledge never included this phrase until 1954.
I don't really mind prayer in schools. Besides, students can pray in their hearts whenever they want; prayer cannot truly be stopped. Here is a seemingly little known fact: student lead meetings of a religious nature are allowed in public schools. Federal Law allows this. Yep, that's right. Students may have a Christian club or prayer meeting before or after school as an extra curricular activity and pray! pray! pray! And believers of any faith can enjoy this freedom. This can also be practiced during a school's "activity period" or "booster club" period. The only catch is that the organization must be student prompted to ensure the free will of all participants.
So, people should stop saying that prayer has been taken out of school. Rather, such people should use their present freedoms to continue praying in school. Then, focus their rant towards something else more needful -- like generating better funding for their neighborhood school.
Now, I'll tell ya what I truly dislike: intolerance.
Religion should be a private matter because free will must be upheld. This is why prayer in school may continue if students organize for themselves; free will is exercised. The prayer sessions are made private, yet the schools are not forcing religion of any sort. That's the spirit of the First Amendment.
May I also submit that Christians should exchange the notion that culture should be dominated by Christian principles with the idea that they should simply attempt to witness to people. Our government is secular and doesn't need to specifically reflect Christianity. Such a mindset comes from a distortion of an Old Testament concept which assumes the United States has replaced Israel as God's chosen people. Just try to win souls one by one. After all . . . didn't Jesus say, "render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's"? Consider the notion that Christians should have desire for the advent of the Kingdom of Heaven . . . and not to busy themselves with turning the world into the Kingdom of Heaven.
And what of Paul the Apostle's words when he says not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers? He says to "come out from among them and be separate".
Paul didn't say, "You will be assimilated. Resistance if futile."
Christians shouldn't act like the Borg.
Be tolerant of other people's faiths and the lack thereof; I will be tolerant of yours in return.
Share your faith. Make your point. Disagree with me; Witness to the world.
I'll make my points and share my non-faith. I'll disagree, too. Enlighten the world.
But, if we agree to disagree -- no one has to get nasty.
I think we can all get along just fine with that attitude.
If everyone within the spectrum of faith and non-faith could better get along, I would be quite glad!
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.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
The Tight Rope Act
How many people truly believe in god?
Polls say that among the US Population, 10% of the country is non-religious. Of that 10%, only 3% will label themselves as atheist.
But of the other 90% . . . do they really believe in god? Really?
I know they make the mental ascent. But, do they believe to the point of action?
When I was much younger and a fervent believer, I heard a neat little anecdote:
Why do so many Christians refuse to follow through with the implications of their own beliefs?
With an angry God starring down at you and with the blood of a gentle Jesus upon your hands, why don't you follow his commands?
I'm not talking about omitting the "sin nature" and "nobody's perfect" clause; I'm including that into the equation.
Even considering that issue, why do so many Christians refuse to follow through with the implications of their own beliefs?
For example:
If Jesus fulfilled the law and has freed us from following the letter of the Law of the Jewish people, why do so many Christians churches demand tithes? (You know, that 'Paul' guy in the New Testament . . . he talked about being free from the Law a whole bunch).
If Islam is about peace, why do so many ex-Muslims fear for their lives when they leave the faith?
Why do so many Jews follow the writing of Rabbis when the Old Testament is clear that God's law is all they need? Why all the extra commentary and tradition heaped on top?
Why do hate groups in the US tend to default to a pseudo Christian faith? Maybe they recognize the inequities in the scriptures and truly want to follow through on them. Maybe they are the true believers in Christianity? (Ouch!)
But should these type of things be said . . . the believers of their various faiths get offended.
I don't think they really want to get into the wheelbarrow because deep down inside, they don't really want to take that trip across the Grand Canyon.
But they are happy just standing there, cheering on the mythical man who can effortlessly keep going across.
I think more than 3% of us are atheist.
I think more are atheist than any of us are willing to admit, I'm afraid.
Polls say that among the US Population, 10% of the country is non-religious. Of that 10%, only 3% will label themselves as atheist.
But of the other 90% . . . do they really believe in god? Really?
I know they make the mental ascent. But, do they believe to the point of action?
When I was much younger and a fervent believer, I heard a neat little anecdote:
Crowds gathered at the Grand Canyon to see the great spectacle of a man who had wired a tight rope across the great expanse. He fearlessly and skillfully cross the rope, drawing awe and thunderous applauds from the fixated audience. He could traverse from one side to the other, effortlessly and skillfully. The people that continually gathered were utterly amazed.That anecdote was about contrasting true Christan faith with lip-service. If you truly had faith, you'd get inside the wheelbarrow. For faith was not just the mental ascent to an idea -- but the following through of it's implications.
When everyone thought they had seen the height of his performance, he wowed them even further.
He produced a wheelbarrow and nimbly drove the one-wheeled vehicle across to the other side of the canyon along the treacherous tight rope. He turned around and came back with the same ease.
He then faced the amazed crowd and cried, "how many think I can do it again?!" The crowd roared with excitement and cheered him on to another performance. He took his wheelbarrow and pushed it along the tight rope again -- turned around and came back without once seeming to loosing his balance.
Upon his return, he looked out at the crowd and exclaimed, "And now, I will load my wheelbarrow with bricks and carry them across! Can I do it? Will I make it?! Who believes?"
The crowed hushed with amazement as he loaded bricks into his wheelbarrow. After he stacked the bricks high, he started his journey. As effortless as before, he transported the cargo across the abysmal canyon without losing a single brick to the abyss below.
The crowed greeted him with ecstatic praise as he returned from the other side, every brick still in place inside the wheelbarrow.
He motioned with his hands to calm the crowd. After a few moments, he regained their attention. They now eagerly waited to hear his about his next performance stunt.
"You've seen me cross the canyon effortlessly", he cried. "You've seen me take a wheelbarrow across just the same. I've even taken bricks and filled my wheelbarrow and did not lose a single one! Now, for my next act! Who will volunteer and let me carry you across the Grand Canyon as a passenger in my wheelbarrow?"
At this, the crowed gasped and murmured. The man attempted to convince anyone he could from the audience to step out into his wheelbarrow. But before too long, the man was accompanied only by his wheelbarrow.
Why do so many Christians refuse to follow through with the implications of their own beliefs?
With an angry God starring down at you and with the blood of a gentle Jesus upon your hands, why don't you follow his commands?
I'm not talking about omitting the "sin nature" and "nobody's perfect" clause; I'm including that into the equation.
Even considering that issue, why do so many Christians refuse to follow through with the implications of their own beliefs?
For example:
If Jesus fulfilled the law and has freed us from following the letter of the Law of the Jewish people, why do so many Christians churches demand tithes? (You know, that 'Paul' guy in the New Testament . . . he talked about being free from the Law a whole bunch).
If Islam is about peace, why do so many ex-Muslims fear for their lives when they leave the faith?
Why do so many Jews follow the writing of Rabbis when the Old Testament is clear that God's law is all they need? Why all the extra commentary and tradition heaped on top?
Why do hate groups in the US tend to default to a pseudo Christian faith? Maybe they recognize the inequities in the scriptures and truly want to follow through on them. Maybe they are the true believers in Christianity? (Ouch!)
But should these type of things be said . . . the believers of their various faiths get offended.
I don't think they really want to get into the wheelbarrow because deep down inside, they don't really want to take that trip across the Grand Canyon.
But they are happy just standing there, cheering on the mythical man who can effortlessly keep going across.
I think more than 3% of us are atheist.
I think more are atheist than any of us are willing to admit, I'm afraid.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
An Unfortunate Anniversary
Eight years ago, on the day of this blog post, my dad died.
While we weren't very close, we cared for each other and we had respect for each other. We had a connectedness that seems to exist between all fathers and sons, regardless of the quality of the relationship.
His death was hard at first, indeed. But over time, dealing with it has gotten much better.
I smile when I think of him now. At first, it wasn't always that way.
I cannot say that his death was the cause of my slide into non-belief of my former Christan faith nor did this event single-handedly cause me to tread down the path towards atheism.
Years would go by before I'd reach the point where I am now. But no doubt, his death was a catalyst to my slide. I think this is where it all really began.
Here's the story:
My dad came over to visit us (my parents were separated) and we noticed he didn't look so good. He told us that, too. He thought it was just terrible gas, but said he would go see a doctor.
He never really got out of the hospital after that.
He made a downhill progression in his heath because of lung cancer.
Funny thing is, a few months before my dad's illness manifested, I determined in my heart that I would start praying for him every night.
And I did. I usually neglected praying for my dad because he was estranged. But, I decided I would stop being so negligent. I was passing judgment on him by thinking praying for him would do no good towards seeing him saved.
So, I started praying earnestly for his soul's salvation.
The timing of his illness was such that I started to wonder if my payers brought some curse upon him. At this odd coincidence, I stopped praying for everyone -- in fear someone else would fall ill like my dad. My spiritual life was paralyzed.
As my dad's condition worsened, I would visit him in the hospital from time to time. Other relatives and loved would come to visit. Some came way from other states. We knew in our hearts that time was running out for him. But . . . being believers . . . we hoped for a miracle.
Just in case. You never know what God might do.
But, if God didn't do anything, I knew my dad was going to die. And that was that.
An evangelist in our family said that she had received an inspiring "word" from the Lord. She said that God asked her concerning my dad, "why do you worry as though there was no hope"?
There was innuendo in this question. Why are you worried, oh ye, or little faith? I can heal your dad. Didn't you get the memo?
I can save him at any time. Why are you concerned?
And some people in my family that heard those words, took those words to heart.
My dad got baptized before all his strength failed him. But, to my knowledge, he never had the all important speaking in tongues experience that Pentecostals expect from someone who is truly saved. Without this experience, you cannot be saved in the view of many Pentecostals. Especially the type I was and the type that my dad started to hang around after he became sick.
He never got better. He never spoke in tongues. After a few short years passed, so did he.
But at the funeral, the other Pentecostal relatives rejoiced because they claimed God saved him.
But God broke one of his own rules if he truly saved my dad!
Well . . . he's God. He does what he wants.
In reality, a prophesy was made and everyone had to save face. God said there was hope. He insinuated that my dad would be saved according to the evangelist months ago.
So, God must have saved him somehow, since he didn't heal him.
I never bought into that "prophesy". I fully expected my dad to pass. Just not so soon I suppose.
So, there were no hard feelings towards the evangelist who uttered the words. Not from me, anyhow.
But, I was confused and this was the beginning of my problem.
How could someone speak for God and say something that was wrong or untrue? Either God made a mistake, we misunderstood what God was trying to say, or the minister speaking for God was wrong.
Well, if we misunderstood what God said, then God isn't that great of a communicator.
If the evangelist truly heard from God, then God was wrong. (or lied??) Why? Because my dad did not fulfill the criteria for being saved according to the very God who made the prophesy! Only my close family (and family friends) felt my dad was saved. Everyone else at the church would initially show sympathy when they learned my dad had died. Inevitably, members would ask if he spoke in tongues before he died.
When I told them "no" or that I wasn't sure, their silent regret shown upon their faces. That was all I needed to see. They felt sorry for me. In their minds, I had to deal with the hardship of my dad spending eternity in hell.
I was forced to witness a contradiction for the first time. I had to see people who speak for God say wrong things.
I didn't lose my faith at that point. But, I became very angry at God over the next few years. And worse, people at church seemed very insensitive. I began to feel like a person in a swimming pool crowded with people. As I start to drown, I flail and panic. I cry out and splash. I thrash around. But no one in the crown sees or hears me.
Staying at that church felt like staying in that swimming pool.
So, I got out.
But, I still believed in God and in the Christian faith. I just needed to find a better place to practice my beliefs. But first, I had to stop being angry at God.
I hoped I could find a place that could help me understand why God didn't save my dad after I made an effort to pray for him. The timing was so awful for everything.
For a while, I felt like I was the one that killed him because I decided to pray for him.
Talk about classical conditioning. My "prayer life" suffered greatly after that. I started to develop a phobia of prayer.
Eventually, I remembered the verse in the Bible that says, "It is appointed that all men die, and then judgment."
That made me feel better. Everyone has to face that journey. All life experiences that transition.
From that idea, I began to accept the thought that God didn't let my dad die out of cruelty or meanness. Dying is the taint from sin that we all have to deal with (that's what I told myself, at least).
But, why did he not save him after I prayed so fervently? Doesn't God want to save everyone?
And how come we can just bend the rules of salvation like that? We say people are saved when it's convenient. But, we're preached to with strict fervor and admonition that there is only one way to be saved.
I was puzzled.
And so it began. The seed was planted.
From then on, I started to ask myself if there was something wrong with what I believed.
People tend to use religion to comfort themselves when their loved ones die. That didn't happen for me. Religion made the passing of my dad worse in more ways than I can go into on a blog post.
Now without religion -- I feel much better about the passing of my dad.
Without religion, I can know that my dad will truly rest in peace.
While we weren't very close, we cared for each other and we had respect for each other. We had a connectedness that seems to exist between all fathers and sons, regardless of the quality of the relationship.
His death was hard at first, indeed. But over time, dealing with it has gotten much better.
I smile when I think of him now. At first, it wasn't always that way.
I cannot say that his death was the cause of my slide into non-belief of my former Christan faith nor did this event single-handedly cause me to tread down the path towards atheism.
Years would go by before I'd reach the point where I am now. But no doubt, his death was a catalyst to my slide. I think this is where it all really began.
Here's the story:
My dad came over to visit us (my parents were separated) and we noticed he didn't look so good. He told us that, too. He thought it was just terrible gas, but said he would go see a doctor.
He never really got out of the hospital after that.
He made a downhill progression in his heath because of lung cancer.
Funny thing is, a few months before my dad's illness manifested, I determined in my heart that I would start praying for him every night.
And I did. I usually neglected praying for my dad because he was estranged. But, I decided I would stop being so negligent. I was passing judgment on him by thinking praying for him would do no good towards seeing him saved.
So, I started praying earnestly for his soul's salvation.
The timing of his illness was such that I started to wonder if my payers brought some curse upon him. At this odd coincidence, I stopped praying for everyone -- in fear someone else would fall ill like my dad. My spiritual life was paralyzed.
As my dad's condition worsened, I would visit him in the hospital from time to time. Other relatives and loved would come to visit. Some came way from other states. We knew in our hearts that time was running out for him. But . . . being believers . . . we hoped for a miracle.
Just in case. You never know what God might do.
But, if God didn't do anything, I knew my dad was going to die. And that was that.
An evangelist in our family said that she had received an inspiring "word" from the Lord. She said that God asked her concerning my dad, "why do you worry as though there was no hope"?
There was innuendo in this question. Why are you worried, oh ye, or little faith? I can heal your dad. Didn't you get the memo?
I can save him at any time. Why are you concerned?
And some people in my family that heard those words, took those words to heart.
My dad got baptized before all his strength failed him. But, to my knowledge, he never had the all important speaking in tongues experience that Pentecostals expect from someone who is truly saved. Without this experience, you cannot be saved in the view of many Pentecostals. Especially the type I was and the type that my dad started to hang around after he became sick.
He never got better. He never spoke in tongues. After a few short years passed, so did he.
But at the funeral, the other Pentecostal relatives rejoiced because they claimed God saved him.
But God broke one of his own rules if he truly saved my dad!
Well . . . he's God. He does what he wants.
In reality, a prophesy was made and everyone had to save face. God said there was hope. He insinuated that my dad would be saved according to the evangelist months ago.
So, God must have saved him somehow, since he didn't heal him.
I never bought into that "prophesy". I fully expected my dad to pass. Just not so soon I suppose.
So, there were no hard feelings towards the evangelist who uttered the words. Not from me, anyhow.
But, I was confused and this was the beginning of my problem.
How could someone speak for God and say something that was wrong or untrue? Either God made a mistake, we misunderstood what God was trying to say, or the minister speaking for God was wrong.
Well, if we misunderstood what God said, then God isn't that great of a communicator.
If the evangelist truly heard from God, then God was wrong. (or lied??) Why? Because my dad did not fulfill the criteria for being saved according to the very God who made the prophesy! Only my close family (and family friends) felt my dad was saved. Everyone else at the church would initially show sympathy when they learned my dad had died. Inevitably, members would ask if he spoke in tongues before he died.
When I told them "no" or that I wasn't sure, their silent regret shown upon their faces. That was all I needed to see. They felt sorry for me. In their minds, I had to deal with the hardship of my dad spending eternity in hell.
I was forced to witness a contradiction for the first time. I had to see people who speak for God say wrong things.
I didn't lose my faith at that point. But, I became very angry at God over the next few years. And worse, people at church seemed very insensitive. I began to feel like a person in a swimming pool crowded with people. As I start to drown, I flail and panic. I cry out and splash. I thrash around. But no one in the crown sees or hears me.
Staying at that church felt like staying in that swimming pool.
So, I got out.
But, I still believed in God and in the Christian faith. I just needed to find a better place to practice my beliefs. But first, I had to stop being angry at God.
I hoped I could find a place that could help me understand why God didn't save my dad after I made an effort to pray for him. The timing was so awful for everything.
For a while, I felt like I was the one that killed him because I decided to pray for him.
Talk about classical conditioning. My "prayer life" suffered greatly after that. I started to develop a phobia of prayer.
Eventually, I remembered the verse in the Bible that says, "It is appointed that all men die, and then judgment."
That made me feel better. Everyone has to face that journey. All life experiences that transition.
From that idea, I began to accept the thought that God didn't let my dad die out of cruelty or meanness. Dying is the taint from sin that we all have to deal with (that's what I told myself, at least).
But, why did he not save him after I prayed so fervently? Doesn't God want to save everyone?
And how come we can just bend the rules of salvation like that? We say people are saved when it's convenient. But, we're preached to with strict fervor and admonition that there is only one way to be saved.
I was puzzled.
And so it began. The seed was planted.
From then on, I started to ask myself if there was something wrong with what I believed.
People tend to use religion to comfort themselves when their loved ones die. That didn't happen for me. Religion made the passing of my dad worse in more ways than I can go into on a blog post.
Now without religion -- I feel much better about the passing of my dad.
Without religion, I can know that my dad will truly rest in peace.
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.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Our Cells
I enjoyed a fascinating documentary over the weekend called Death By Design. The documentary reveled how cells interact with each other and their environment. Also, the film pointed out that cells often destroy themselves when told to by outside sources -- other cells higher in the chain of their command structure. Or, some incident in the environment is a signal to the cell that it needs to die for other cells to be formed or so that it can become nourishment or recycled material for the organism as a whole.
The whole thing blew my mind. Awe overtook me especially, when the film introduced a community of single cell organism that would live as separate individual organisms. Yet, if the environment stopped supporting the group, the cells would merge into a brand new organism! Think something like Voltron or the Constructicons from the Transformers. Or, think of the Sandman in Spider-Man. But every grain of sand is an individual entity -- yet they all give up their identity to create a new creature.
When this creature is formed, the community is no longer -- only the multi-celled organism that slinks away to find a better environment. Once found, it grows a stalk and releases spores which produce -- a whole new community of single cell organisms!
That really challenged my view of what life really means.
Our cells probably could live on . . . but they don't. Cancer is when cells refuse to die and respond to the signal to self-destruct (according to the documentary). What if we could find a way to make the right cells continue to live and the necessary ones die? Keep in mind, some cells need to die and disintegrate. Such material isn't needed and can cause major dysfunction. Thus, cancer is often deadly -- especially if left untreated.
And another thing . . . what keeps our cells (as humans) from merging into a new life form with other people?
Life is thought to have started from a single cell organism (if you believe in evolution. I do). And over time, communities of cells learned to come together to form multi-cell organisms. So, this odd community that merges into a new life form seems to be the missing link between single cell and multi-cell creatures!
Amazing!
And somehow, this knowledge makes the thought of death a little easier for me. I don't know why . . . it just does. I guess seeing that all nature cycles, changes, dies, and is born again. (no, not like in the bible!) We're not just being picked on. We just happen to have the cognition to know what's going on around us.
But to see cells change from one state to another makes me wonder if perhaps we do live on -- in some way. Not like the vivid afterlife of heaven as in the bible. But, in a subtle way. What if a tree has material from someone who died millions of years ago because their remains fertilized the ground? What about someone's ashes spread out to the sea? What if plants came to life in part because of that material that floated to the bottom of the ocean?
What if we become absorbed as nourishment for other organisms and ultimately some of our material resurfaces again as part of something else -- somewhere else?
Maybe the ancient philosophies and beliefs that accept reincarnation picked up on this possibility. Maybe they couldn't name it at the time and explained it instead with religion. I think the ancients recognized that we aren't only a smaller part of a larger cosmos. But also, a cosmos can be found in our very selves -- which in turn is made up of an unseen microcosm that may actually live beyond ourselves.
I think we can name it now; I think it's our cells.
The whole thing blew my mind. Awe overtook me especially, when the film introduced a community of single cell organism that would live as separate individual organisms. Yet, if the environment stopped supporting the group, the cells would merge into a brand new organism! Think something like Voltron or the Constructicons from the Transformers. Or, think of the Sandman in Spider-Man. But every grain of sand is an individual entity -- yet they all give up their identity to create a new creature.
When this creature is formed, the community is no longer -- only the multi-celled organism that slinks away to find a better environment. Once found, it grows a stalk and releases spores which produce -- a whole new community of single cell organisms!
That really challenged my view of what life really means.
Our cells probably could live on . . . but they don't. Cancer is when cells refuse to die and respond to the signal to self-destruct (according to the documentary). What if we could find a way to make the right cells continue to live and the necessary ones die? Keep in mind, some cells need to die and disintegrate. Such material isn't needed and can cause major dysfunction. Thus, cancer is often deadly -- especially if left untreated.
And another thing . . . what keeps our cells (as humans) from merging into a new life form with other people?
Life is thought to have started from a single cell organism (if you believe in evolution. I do). And over time, communities of cells learned to come together to form multi-cell organisms. So, this odd community that merges into a new life form seems to be the missing link between single cell and multi-cell creatures!
Amazing!
And somehow, this knowledge makes the thought of death a little easier for me. I don't know why . . . it just does. I guess seeing that all nature cycles, changes, dies, and is born again. (no, not like in the bible!) We're not just being picked on. We just happen to have the cognition to know what's going on around us.
But to see cells change from one state to another makes me wonder if perhaps we do live on -- in some way. Not like the vivid afterlife of heaven as in the bible. But, in a subtle way. What if a tree has material from someone who died millions of years ago because their remains fertilized the ground? What about someone's ashes spread out to the sea? What if plants came to life in part because of that material that floated to the bottom of the ocean?
What if we become absorbed as nourishment for other organisms and ultimately some of our material resurfaces again as part of something else -- somewhere else?
Maybe the ancient philosophies and beliefs that accept reincarnation picked up on this possibility. Maybe they couldn't name it at the time and explained it instead with religion. I think the ancients recognized that we aren't only a smaller part of a larger cosmos. But also, a cosmos can be found in our very selves -- which in turn is made up of an unseen microcosm that may actually live beyond ourselves.
I think we can name it now; I think it's our cells.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
